Where’s my money brokie?

🤝

appreciate you bro

🤝

We work privately with a small number of founders on offers, distribution, deal flow and growth DM “SOVEREIGN” if you want in

This is a banger and you should definitely follow this guy if you're interested in building distribution One thing I'd add, especially for people building organic distribution around high ticket B2B businesses, is that the people who help distribute your content and the people who eventually make you money aren't necessarily the same people This distinction has a direct impact on how you should structure your content strategy, particularly when your buyers represent a very small percentage of the audience you can reach organically Let's say you're selling 30K-70K+ advisory mandates to established founders You know exactly who your ICP is, what problems they face, what triggers them to buy, how they talk about those problems and what kind of information they find valuable So naturally, you start producing content that speaks directly to them You publish detailed breakdowns of acquisition financing, exit multiples, capital structures, operational improvements and whatever else is relevant to the services you're selling The challenge is getting that content to circulate beyond the relatively small group of people who already understand and care about those subjects A founder running a $30M business can find your analysis of acquisition financing extremely valuable Reaching that founder organically is a separate problem, especially when you're starting from zero This is particularly relevant on algorithm driven platforms like Instagram, where you don't get to decide exactly who sees your content Creating content that speaks directly to your ICP doesn't necessarily mean it'll reach them The audience responsible for distributing your content doesn't have to be the same audience responsible for generating your revenue When you're operating in markets where a single commercial relationship can be worth six or seven figures, those two audiences can be almost entirely different You have people who consume content because they find it entertaining, educational or aspirational They engage with it, share it, discuss it and contribute to its distribution Then you have people who operate closer to the markets you're targeting Founders, executives, investors, advisors, industry professionals and people who have direct access to the buyers you want to reach And finally, you have the actual economic buyers The people with the problems, resources and authority to enter into the transactions you're trying to originate These groups aren't completely separate, but they don't perform the same function A younger entrepreneur who can't afford a $50K consulting mandate can still help distribute content that eventually reaches established founders An advisor who has no intention of buying your services can become an important source of introductions And a founder who never engages with your posts can consume your content for months before eventually contacting you about a transaction So when I build a content strategy, I'm not exclusively thinking about how to make every publication appealing to the final buyer I'm thinking about how to create enough circulation around a particular set of subjects that the right people repeatedly encounter the business, while making sure there's enough depth behind the content for those people to take us seriously once they do That requires different types of content doing different jobs For example, an advisory firm can publish a breakdown of how an entrepreneur built a billion dollar business through acquisitions That's a subject with broad appeal You can make it interesting to people who have never acquired a company, never raised capital and have no intention of hiring an investment bank Then you can publish a much more technical analysis of how the acquisitions were financed, why the capital structure worked and what made the economics attractive A much smaller audience will care about that second piece But among the people who do, you'll find a greater concentration of mfs who actually understand the subject and have some commercial proximity to it And you can go even deeper by addressing the specific situations that lead someone to hire an advisor in the first place A founder preparing an exit has very specific questions about what buyers will scrutinize during diligence, how different deal structures affect his proceeds and what he can do to improve the terms of the transaction The content addressing those questions can generate a fraction of the impressions and still bring in more valuable business opportunities We applied a version of this with a client operating across high-ticket consulting and institutional advisory We were building organic distribution around an offer targeting established founders and investors, with consulting mandates ranging from $30K to $70K+ We could have built the entire content strategy around highly technical subjects directly related to the firm's services Instead, we deliberately used broader entrepreneurial content to generate discovery, while using more specialized material to establish the kind of authority required to originate expensive mandates A lot of the material came directly from the client's existing expertise and conversations, but we were intentional about which subjects we extracted, how we framed them and which audience each piece was supposed to reach Some of the content was designed to circulate well beyond our immediate ICP Other pieces were much narrower and spoke to problems that only established business owners would recognize The highest performing content in terms of impressions and the content originating the strongest commercial opportunities were often different pieces entirely Some relatively modest performers in terms of views were attracting precisely the kind of founders we wanted Within the first 30 days, we generated over 800K organic views, booked 48 qualified calls and collected $300K+ in front-end cash, without spending a dollar on advertising The founders entering the pipeline also represented approximately $125M in combined net worth That figure refers to the cumulative net worth of the founders we originated relationships with, which is relevant because the firm could serve them through several different types of mandates beyond the initial consulting engagement The immediate consulting mandates were one way to monetize those relationships, but the firm also had the capabilities to serve those founders through financing, capital raising, acquisitions, M&A and other advisory mandates The consulting business gave us a reason to establish commercial relationships with founders who had problems worth solving today, rather than waiting until they needed to sell a company or raise capital And once you're working with someone on growing or improving his business, you naturally develop a much deeper understanding of his operations, ambitions and potential future needs A $50K consulting client who eventually needs help financing an acquisition or selling his company can represent an entirely different level of economic opportunity Those future transactions aren't guaranteed, of course, but the commercial relationship has value beyond the initial mandate because the firm has several ways to serve those clients over time Our distribution was therefore feeding an advisory business where the same founder could generate revenue across multiple mandates, with the initial consulting engagement creating opportunities for a much longer commercial relationship That same logic also influenced how we evaluated content performance One thing mentioned in the original article is doubling down on content outliers, which makes sense But you have to be careful about what you're actually optimizing for If you publish a video that generates 300K views and another that generates 4K, your instinct is naturally going to be to reproduce the first one Except the first video could have attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers who will never have a reason to buy your services, while the second brought you two conversations with founders operating eight figure companies That doesn't automatically make the first video useless It could have introduced thousands of people to your brand, expanded your distribution and contributed to the discovery of other content that eventually generates business And the second video could have generated more commercial value with a fraction of the reach, despite looking like a much weaker performer in your analytics You're evaluating two pieces of content designed to perform different functions using the same metric And if you keep optimizing exclusively for whatever gets the highest reach, you can gradually end up with an audience that's increasingly disconnected from the economics of the business you're trying to build That's why I think content performance has to be evaluated at the level of the entire distribution system You need to understand which subjects generate discovery, which ones attract relevant operators, which ones create qualified conversations and how those different interactions contribute to actual transactions You also need to account for the fact that buyers rarely consume one piece of content and immediately purchase a $40K service A prospect can discover your business through a broadly appealing video, follow the account, consume several more specialized pieces over the following weeks and eventually reach out when a particular problem becomes relevant Looking exclusively at the last piece of content they engaged with would give you a distorted picture of which parts of your distribution actually contributed to the sale And if you eliminate the broader content because it doesn't directly produce sales, you can end up destroying the distribution mechanism that was introducing those buyers to your business in the first place So before producing content, I'd work backwards from the relationships I want the business to originate Who are the actual economic buyers, what situations make them need your services, who influences their decisions and which people and networks surround them? Then I'd look at the subjects connected to our expertise that can attract attention beyond those immediate buyers, without turning the account into something completely unrelated to what we're selling The broader content still needs to create a logical connection to the more specialized material and the commercial audience you're ultimately trying to reach Once you've figured that out, the storytelling, packaging and channel selection principles in the original article become much easier to apply intelligently You know what subjects need broad distribution, where technical depth matters, which channels give you access to relevant networks and what commercial outcomes you're actually trying to produce

🤣🤣

Not bad

What’s your top 5?

Nah bro, I’ve got plenty of stories that prove the exact opposite With the 8 figure partner I mentioned, we weren’t even talking business at first I wasn’t selling him anything or making him any money I was just genuinely kind to him without asking for anything, which made him curious about me, and we eventually ended up doing business together

Mf made the most absolute statement possible and now he’s telling me the world isn’t black and white 🤣 But if you’re adding nuance, then yeah we can agree

This is such a retarded understanding of how wealthy people behave I just sold a Louis Vuitton Keepall 55 to a footballer who had just been called up to his national team, and deliberately took no margin on it I'm actually out of pocket because I added a bottle of Grand Soir by Maison Francis Kurkdjian and a handwritten card congratulating him on his selection I genuinely wanted to congratulate him and do something special for him because getting called up to your national team for the first time is something you should be really proud of The client absolutely loved the quality of the service and the personal touch, and has since asked me to source a Richard Mille, a Himalayan Birkin for his wife, and organise his entire December holiday, all of which we can take care of Taking no margin on the initial purchase also helps me build the relationship with my supplier He keeps his full cut, sees that I bring him serious clients, and knows I’m happy for him to make money, while the client gets the best price I can secure because there isn’t another commission added on top My supplier didn’t ask me to give up my commission, and my client never asked for a gift I could have added my commission, shipped the bag and everyone would have got what they agreed to But I thought about what would make the deal worthwhile for my supplier and what would mean something to the client, without either having to ask If we end up doing something bigger together, they already know they don’t have to negotiate with me for me to consider their interests My clients also benefit from how I treat that supplier When I need something difficult sourced, a request prioritised or a problem sorted out, I’m asking someone whose work I respect and who knows I look after his interests too He has a reason to keep bringing me his best pieces and helping me take care of my clients because doing business with me is good for him I work this way with pretty much every new concierge client because I’m happy to make nothing initially while they see how we operate and I build relationships with the best suppliers around them I can afford to let those relationships develop without trying to get paid on every single interaction The other thing you seem to miss is that before a client can measure your ROI, he has to trust you enough to give you the opportunity to produce it He hasn’t worked with you yet, so he’s judging how you communicate, whether you follow through and how you handle the things he does let you take care of And as the requests get more personal, he’s trusting your judgement and your discretion just as much as your ability to get shit done If I’m bringing someone in to discuss his finances, he needs to know I’m very careful about who I introduce him to and what I share with them And this mf can only learn that from dealing with me When you’re genuinely kind to people and consistently take care of them, they become comfortable coming to you with more of their needs Over time, I can centralise those requests and bring in partners I trust for everything from luxury goods and experiences to wealth management, structuring and tax advice That’s how an initial purchase can develop into years of business together and multiple six figures in revenue from a single client Being kind has also helped me build the relationships with the partners who make all of this possible One of them is worth multiple eight figures and has always appreciated that I take his constraints into account in the way we work together, that he can rely on me and that I’m very discreet I ended up launching several offers with him that had absolutely nothing to do with what we initially worked together on Apparently, I was supposed to be worried he’d mistake me for customer service I have no problem being generous with people, making sure they’re looked after and being pleasant to deal with I also have no problem telling someone to fuck off when necessary or standing my ground, regardless of how much money they have The fact that you see basic kindness as some form of submission is genuinely retarded And if you think making someone money gives you a free pass to act like an asshole, go ahead and try it and see how long they keep you around They can value what you do for them and still want you nowhere near their friends and family If you’re pushy with their wife, running your big mouth about their finances or being a pain in the ass with someone they introduce you to, they’re the ones who have to deal with it So why tf would they recommend you?

Appreciate you bro 🤝

@iblamejulius where’s my paper big man?

Open your DMs

We work privately with a small number of founders on offers, distribution, deal flow and growth DM “SOVEREIGN” if you want in

You might be sitting on a $30K+ offer that you're currently selling for a fraction of that Without changing much about what you actually do We had a client who was already building media engines for info guys, building the content infrastructure, personal brands and distribution behind them Then he took the exact same expertise into politics and started closing politicians on $25K-$45K+ deals In Greek mythology, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans That's pretty much what you're doing when you take a capability that's already everywhere in your industry and bring it into a market where almost nobody has it Info guys have spent years obsessing over how to capture and monetize attention They've had to figure out how to turn one person into a media property, produce enough content to stay everywhere, build distribution around it, understand what gets watched and systematically turn that attention into money Politics has PR people, communications teams, campaign strategists, press relationships and all the traditional machinery you'd expect around a politician But attention is worth a fucking lot to a politician So the same media expertise our client had been selling to info guys could suddenly command $25K-$45K+ per deal And you can find this kind of pricing disconnect all over B2B Something everyone around you already knows how to do can be worth $30K+ to people in a completely different industry People spend their careers moving between the same companies, hiring from the same talent pools, going to the same conferences and learning from the same people So entire bodies of knowledge can get developed inside one industry without traveling very far outside of it And instead of trying to invent another offer from scratch, you can steal from all of that accumulated R&D Years of testing, millions spent figuring out what works, and thousands of operators iterating on the same problems Then you figure out who else should have it Obviously you can't just copy and paste the exact implementation A media engine built around some 22 yo ecom course seller in Miami can't be dropped unchanged onto a politician You're now dealing with a completely different audience, layers of approval, reputational risk and consequences for getting shit wrong The mechanics that made the original model work are what you steal Everything around it has to be rebuilt for the market you're bringing it into Now think about how many industries you've never even looked at Find the fire Then find the humans who still don't have it

I’m dead serious, pretty sure whop or commas would be down to sponsor the event, and we could even set up our own internal betting system

elite taste