In this post I’m giving feedback on a post by Jaclyn Urban Luna (with her permission).
To follow along, you can find her original post here.
This is part of a new series of posts where I point out what people can change about their content so that they get at least one new client for their high-ticket program every week when they’re posting daily.
Let’s get to it!
Okay, so Jaclyn’s post does start out by naming a problem – and it does seem to be worded in a way that her ideal client probably would word it.
“HOW TO GET WHAT YOU WANT IN RELATIONSHIP”
So far, so good.
That’s one of the most common ways (but not the only way) in which we set up our post to grab attention when using my framework: start by naming a problem, and be sure to word it the way the ideal client would.
Then she immediately moves right to giving an insight about how to solve that problem:
“All the things you deeply want in your romantic relationship, you have to be willing to give yourself first.”
This is also very good.
In my framework we talk about what causes the problem as well as how to solve it – and ideally, at the very beginning of the post, we sum up one insight about one or two (or both) of those points.
This tells the reader where we’re headed with the post (before the “see more” break) so they can self-select as to whether they want to keep reading or not.
If that insight sounds intriguing to them, they’ll likely want to keep reading to see it unpacked.
If not, they won’t.
Either way it’s a win.
(Remember the goal of writing client-attracting content is not only to attract the right people, but to repel the wrong ones. And one thing that makes the wrong ones wrong is that they resist your insights and say “nah that couldn’t be the cause of my problem, it’s something else.” Usually something outside of them. Yes? 🙂 )
Now, here’s where I noticed the most potential for improvement with this post.
Jaclyn’s unpacking of this insight doesn’t go very deep.
She basically says (I’m paraphrasing):
“Create what you want (single-handedly)
“Invite your partner in
“Observe your partner’s response to your invitation
“Don’t freak out if they resist your invitation. Keep creating what you want”
She does give a couple of sentences of explanation for each of these points – but the whole explanation, in total (before she begins her call-to-action), is only about 500 words.
My feedback here is similar to what I gave on Pamela Wilson’s post last week.
Both Pamela and Jaclyn attempted to present the solution to a very complex problem in just 3 or 4 points, with an extremely brief summary of each.
And as the reader I’m left wondering, “Is it REALLY that simple?”
Of course it isn’t – both coach and (potential) client know that.
There are tons of things that could trip up the client at every stage here.
Even the first stage could easily sound insurmountable:
“If you’re not getting what you want in your relationship, give it to yourself. The intimacy, the legacy building, etc. etc.”
Of course it’s REALLY hard to give ourselves whatever it is we’re wanting. That task probably breaks down into several (or many) micro-tasks, both practical/strategic and mindset-based.
And also, it’s not immediately obvious how you’d give yourself some of the things that seem to take two people to create (intimacy, for example).
Then, next, “invite your partner in.”
What exactly does this mean or look like?
And it also already sounds like it’d be pretty difficult – like broaching a sensitive conversation. So many people have a hard time with that.
And even the part about “observing their response to your invitation and not freaking out if it isn’t good.”
Even just that bit sounds like it would be the work of a lifetime – as many of us know who’ve been in relationships for years and can’t figure out how to be okay and at peace with the fact that the other person doesn’t respond well to the things we invite them to do.
I’m pretty sure that this process (of trying to be at peace with how someone else is or isn’t responding) breaks down into many micro-steps and shifts as well.
So, here I’m giving similar advice to what I gave to Pamela: break up these steps into many different micro-posts and expand much more on each one.
(and have each post be about 1,000 words – just on one micro-topic)
How would Jaclyn know how much to expand or what an ideal explanation would look like?
Here’s my guide for that:
Ask yourself, “What would the content of our coaching sessions be? What exactly do I coach people on?”
That should be the content of your explanation.
And since I haven’t been a fly on the wall in Jaclyn’s coaching sessions, I don’t know exactly how to advise here.
But if she were to tell me more about exactly what she coaches people on (in terms of what micro-problems they bring to her while trying to implement these 4 steps/stages, and what she says or does to help shift them), I’m sure the light bulb would go on for me and I could channel what the explanation should sound like in the post.
(This is the kind of thing that I do with clients all the time in my 30-day program)
After all, if solving the problem is as simple as this post’s short summary makes out, what would I need a coach for? 😉
A quick word about her call-to-action also.
She pitches 3 different ways to work with her – and it’s not immediately clear what the differences are between the offers, or how the topic of the post relates to the work that would be done in each offer.
One of the things that make my method so powerful is that we typically only pitch ONE way to work with us.
That gives us AND our readers many chances to get clearer and clearer on what this ONE transformational container is all about, and just how many topics/shifts are covered within it and how they relate to each other.
So typically, what we would say in my framework is:
[TOPIC OF THIS POST SUMMED UP IN ONE CONCISE, PRECISE PHRASE] is just one of the things that we cover in my [LENGTH OF PROGRAM] [TYPE OF PROGRAM] program.We also cover [OTHER TOPICS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS POST].
The goal of this program is [OVERALL OUTCOME OF PROGRAM] and it is the best fit for people who [IDEAL STARTING POINT AND SKILLS/KNOWLEDGE/ASSETS OF IDEAL CLIENT].
The current investment is [PRICE].
That way, the reader finishes up the post not only being able to envision you leading them through all the tiny nooks and crannies of their transformation, but also knowing exactly how your expertise and their journey would be packaged up and structured.
So I’d recommend Jaclyn only pitch one offer normally (whatever her flagship program is), and perhaps only very rarely pitch others (and even then, be quite clear about how these others are different from her flagship).
P.S. Getting clear on the differences between offers, and helping to structure them, is also part of the work I do with clients. 🙂
…
So those are my thoughts on Jaclyn’s post. Jaclyn, thank you so much for allowing me to review it. I would love to know more details of micro-steps of your method for helping folks to get what they want in relationships. Will look forward to future posts on this. 🙂
For the rest of you, if you’ve read this far, I hope you learned a lot from this review.
If you found it as valuable or more valuable than other business help or information you’ve paid for, I welcome your gratuity payment at my new gratuity page, as this kind of content is not free for me to produce. More information here on how to make a payment.
If you want me to write a post giving feedback on one of YOUR posts – here is the info on how to be considered.
If you want my step-by-step teaching on how to construct posts according to my framework, here is a link to a free video training.
And if you want the info on my 30-day program and how to become a client of mine, here’s what you need to know.
DM me on FB if interested in working together, and comment here with any questions about the writing method or the feedback I gave in this post. 🙂