Complex Collective — Cold Call Decision Tree v2

Coaching Note (internal)

Question to Ask

Script to Say

Key Tip

Stage 1

Disarming Intro

Earn permission. Not a pitch. 3 seconds.

Say This — Exact Script

"Hey [NAME]? Oh…Hey [NAME]… it's uh Jeff from Complex Collective. This is a cold call. Do you mind if I ask you a quick question and you can tell me if it's relevant or not?"

Tonality: "Oh…Hey [NAME]" = casual stumble, sounds human. "This is a cold call" = downward inflection, confident. "You can tell me if it's relevant or not" = uprising inflection (giving them the out). Smile while you say it.

✅ They say yes / "go ahead" / "sure"

→ Proceed to Classification Question

🤷 "I don't know" / "What's this about?" / "Who is this?" / confused

They're not saying no — they're saying "give me a reason to stay." One-sentence pitch straight into the classification question. No pause, no second ask for permission.

"We install client acquisition systems on YouTube and so I was calling just to see if clients are finding you right now or are you mostly still having to go find them?"

If they're still vague after this — "yeah, I mean, it depends" — ask: "What does your business do?" Get them talking about themselves. Whatever they say will reveal their channel. You can't run the pitch-into-classification move twice.

⏸ "I'm busy" / "Not a good time"

"No problem at all. When's a better time for a 2-minute conversation?"

If they give a specific time → log it, call back at that exact time. If they won't commit → exit gracefully.

🚫 Hard no / "Not interested" / hang up

"No problem, appreciate your time."

Do not try to overcome a hard no. Respect it. Disposition as Not Interested in Close and move on. You have 200 more dials today. Pushing a hard no wastes time and burns the lead permanently.

Stage 2

Classification Question

Binary question. Both answers give you a path.

"Are clients finding you right now, or are you mostly still having to go find them?"

After asking: PAUSE. Count to 3 in your head. Let them answer. Do not fill the silence.

↓

🟢 "They find me" (inbound)

Routes to:

→ Referrals / Word of mouth / Networking

→ LinkedIn / Social media / Content

→ Podcast guesting / Speaking / PR

→ Paid ads (Facebook, Google, etc.)

→ SEO / Blog / Organic search

→ Already doing YouTube

🟡 "I go find them" (outbound)

Routes to:

→ Cold email / Cold DMs / Outbound

→ Not doing much / Nothing consistent

If vague ("Business is good"): Ask "That's great — how are you getting most of your clients right now?" Their answer routes you above.

Stages 3–5

The Dig → Reframe → Meeting Ask

Click each branch to see the full flow. Pattern: coaching note → quantify → implication fork → scripts to meeting ask.

Case Study Note: The default case study is Bgo ($465K pipeline from one video). If the prospect is in a specific niche and you have a closer match, use that instead. The more the proof mirrors their situation, the harder it hits. Ask Jeffrey if you're unsure which case study fits best for a particular niche.

If they say no to the meeting ask: At the end of any branch, if the prospect declines the meeting, go to the Objection Handling section below. Most common at this point: "I need to think about it" or "I'm too busy."

Branch Referrals / Word of Mouth / Networking ▸

The pain to leverage is that they have no predictable system. Don't ask them to admit vulnerability — let the math expose the gap for you.

"That makes sense. Referrals are obviously the best leads."

Pause here. Let them agree. Validating referrals disarms them — you're not attacking their approach. This earns you the right to ask the next question.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your new business comes from referrals versus other channels?"

This is a data question, not an emotional one. No ego threat. They're just reporting a number. But that number exposes the gap without you ever having to point it out.

↓

High percentage (50%+)

The math does the work. Reflect the number back — don't tell them it's a problem. Let them hear their own data.

"So roughly [X]% of your revenue is tied to something you can't really control the volume on."

Do NOT add "right?" or "does that concern you?" Just state the math and pause. Let them sit with it. They'll either agree, elaborate, or justify — all three give you something to work with.

If they push back — "I can always ask for referrals" / "I've got a strong network" — don't argue. Just ask: "How many new referrals could you generate this month if you needed to double your pipeline?" That puts the control question in concrete terms they can't bluff through. If they hesitate or say "I'm not sure" — the point is made. Move to the quantification question.

↓

"How many referrals are you getting in an average month right now?"

Now the quantification question lands differently. They've already acknowledged the dependency — the number just makes it concrete.

↓

"If you could have a system where qualified leads were coming in every month whether referrals showed up or not — what would that change for you?"

This is the vision question. Whatever they say here becomes the exact language you use in the case study. They're describing their own ideal outcome — now you connect it to YouTube.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

Permission question. They say yes → they've psychologically opted in to hearing the pitch. You're not selling. They're requesting.

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was in a similar position. After we set up his acquisition system on YouTube, he generated $465,000 in pipeline value from a single video. Obviously that doesn't happen overnight, but that's the kind of system we're talking about. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

Low percentage / "It's pretty balanced"

Two possibilities: they're genuinely diversified (rare), or they're inflating to sound put-together. Either way, dig into what the other channels are. This often routes you to a different branch.

"Got it — so what are the other channels that make up the rest?"

Whatever they name (LinkedIn, ads, outbound, etc.) → route to that branch's dig sequence. You've just uncovered their real primary channel.

↓

If they can't name anything specific or say vague things like "a mix of stuff":

"So outside of referrals, is there a system that's predictably bringing in new clients every month — or is it more random and inconsistent?"

↓

→ It's random / no real system

They have no predictable system. Run the full sequence below:

"If you could have a system where qualified leads were coming in every month whether referrals showed up or not — what would that change for you?"

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

→ They name a real system

Route to the branch for whatever they named (LinkedIn, Paid Ads, etc.) and run that dig sequence. Referrals was a surface answer — this is the real channel to attack.

Branch LinkedIn / Social Media / Content ▸

Also covers: If they say "newsletter" or "email list," run this same sequence. The pain is identical — time-intensive content that doesn't compound and doesn't build deep authority.

The pain to leverage is that they're on a hamster wheel. Content dies in 24–48 hours. Nothing compounds. If they stop posting, the leads stop. The gap is either: (1) the content isn't converting at all, or (2) it's converting but the time cost per lead is brutal and nothing is building long-term.

"LinkedIn/social media is great for visibility."

Pause here. Same move as Referrals — validate first, don't attack their channel. This earns you the next question.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your booked calls right now are coming from your content versus other channels?"

Same principle as Referrals. Data question, no ego threat. The number tells you which path to take.

↓

High percentage (content is driving calls)

The content is working — don't attack it. The gap here is time cost and the fact that nothing compounds. Every post dies and they have to start over.

"That's solid. How many hours a week are you spending on content to make that happen?"

Whatever number they give, reflect the math. If it's 5+ hours a week, that's 20+ hours a month creating content that expires within 48 hours.

↓

"So you're spending roughly [X] hours a week — and if you stopped posting for two weeks, would those calls keep coming at the same rate?"

This version works because you're not asking them to predict their own failure. You're asking a factual question about how their system works. Most will admit the calls would slow down because it's obviously true — not because they're confessing weakness.

If they say "yeah, they'd probably keep coming" — don't argue. Just extend the timeframe: "So if you took a full month off content, your pipeline wouldn't change at all?" A month is hard to bluff through. If they still insist, let it go and move to the vision question — the time cost angle is still strong enough on its own.

↓

"If you could get the same results — or better — with about 2 hours a month instead of [X] hours a week, and the content kept working for you for years instead of days, what would that free up for you?"

Vision question. They'll describe what they'd do with the time back — take on more clients, stop grinding on content, focus on delivery. Whatever they say, use it in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was spending a ton of time on content before we started working together. After we set up his YouTube system, he generated $465,000 in pipeline value from a single video — and that video is still producing leads months later. He films about 2 hours a month. We handle everything else. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

Low percentage (content isn't converting)

They're spending time creating content that isn't turning into clients. The gap is obvious — they're doing the work but not getting the return. Don't pile on. Reflect the math and let them feel it.

"So you're putting out content but most of your clients are coming from other places. How much time are you spending on content per week?"

↓

"So you're spending [X] hours a week on content, but most of your revenue is coming from somewhere else. If that time was going into a channel that actually brought in qualified leads on autopilot — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. You're not saying their content is bad. You're saying the time could go somewhere with a better return. Let them describe what that would mean.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how one of our clients made that switch?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was in a similar spot — putting out content but not seeing it translate to pipeline. After we built his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value. The difference is that YouTube is a search engine — people are actively looking for what you teach. So instead of hoping the algorithm shows your post to the right person, you're showing up when they're already searching. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your niche?"

↓

If they name their other channels when giving the low percentage — "most of my clients come from referrals / ads / outbound" — you can route to that branch's dig sequence instead. The content wasn't the real channel. Follow the real one.

Branch Podcast Guesting / Speaking / PR ▸

The pain to leverage is that they're building authority on someone else's platform with someone else's audience. No ownership, no compounding. They can't control the volume because they're waiting for invites. And when the episode airs or the event ends, it's over — nothing keeps working.

"Podcast guesting is a smart move for authority."

Pause here. Validate first. They're proud of this — they got invited onto shows, they spoke on stages. Don't attack it. Earn the next question.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your clients right now can you trace back to a podcast or speaking appearance versus other channels?"

Most won't be able to give you a confident number — and that's the point. Podcasts and speaking gigs are almost impossible to track attribution on. If they hesitate or say "I'm not sure," the lack of data is the gap.

↓

High percentage / they credit podcasts for clients

The channel is working for them — don't attack it. The gap is control and volume. They can't scale what depends on other people inviting them.

"That's great. How many podcast or speaking opportunities are you getting per month right now?"

Whatever number they give, reflect the control problem. They don't decide how many they get — other people do.

↓

"So you're getting about [X] a month — and that's based on people inviting you, right? If you needed to double that next month, could you?"

This exposes the ceiling without attacking the channel. Most will say no or hesitate. The volume is out of their hands. If they say "yeah, I could pitch more shows" — don't argue. Ask: "And how many hours of pitching would that take to get one yes?" The time-per-opportunity math gets ugly fast.

↓

"If you had your own platform where you controlled the volume — you decided how many pieces of content went out, and every one of them kept working for years instead of airing once — what would that change for your pipeline?"

Vision question. They'll describe what consistent, controllable deal flow would mean for them. Use their words in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was building authority through other channels before we started working together. After we set up his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value — and it's still producing leads. The difference is he owns the platform. He controls the volume. And every video compounds instead of airing once and disappearing. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

Low percentage / can't trace clients back / "not sure"

Two possibilities: (1) they genuinely can't track it because podcast attribution is nearly impossible, or (2) it's a credibility play and they know it's not driving revenue. Either way, the gap is that they're investing time into something they can't measure or scale.

"So you're putting time into podcasts and speaking, but it's hard to point to specific clients that came from it. How much time per month goes into preparing for and doing those appearances?"

↓

"So you're spending [X] hours a month on something where you can't really measure the return. If that same authority-building effort was going into a channel where you could track exactly which piece of content brought in which client — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. You're not saying podcasts are bad. You're saying the time could go somewhere with measurable results. Let them describe what that means.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how one of our clients made that shift?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was investing time in building authority but couldn't really track what was driving pipeline. After we built his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value — and we can trace exactly which leads came from which video. YouTube gives you the same authority-building effect as podcasts, but you own the platform, you control the volume, and you can measure every dollar. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your niche?"

↓

If they name their real revenue channels when giving the low percentage — "most of my clients come from referrals / LinkedIn / ads" — route to that branch's dig sequence instead. Podcasting was a surface answer.

Branch Paid Ads (Facebook, Google, etc.) ▸

The pain to leverage is that they're renting attention. Costs go up every year. Leads are cold — they clicked a button, they don't know you. And the moment they stop spending, the pipeline goes to zero. Nothing compounds. The gap is either: (1) heavy dependency on a channel they have to keep paying for, or (2) the cost-per-lead math is getting worse over time.

"Paid ads are great for predictable volume."

Pause here. Validate first. They're spending real money on this — they've committed to it. Don't attack the decision. Earn the next question.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your booked calls are coming from ads versus other channels?"

Same data question as every other branch. No ego threat. The number tells you how dependent they are on paid traffic.

↓

High percentage (ads are the primary driver)

They're heavily dependent on paid traffic. The gap is cost and control — they're paying for every single lead, the cost goes up over time, and nothing they've built keeps working if they stop spending. Don't attack ads. Expose the math.

"What's the monthly spend sitting at right now to make that happen?"

↓

"So you're spending roughly [X] a month — is that number going up, staying flat, or coming down over the last year?"

Ad costs go up for almost everyone. If they say going up — the math does the work. If they say flat or down — that's rare and genuine. Either way, the next question still lands.

If they push back or say costs are fine — don't argue. Move straight to the next question. The cost angle isn't the only gap.

↓

"And those leads that come in from ads — by the time they get on a call, do they already know who you are, or is your closer starting from scratch?"

This is the trust gap question. Ad leads clicked a button — they don't know the person. This isn't an ego question because you're asking about the lead's awareness, not the quality of their ads. Most will admit the leads are cold or need warming up.

↓

"If you had a channel where leads showed up already knowing who you are, already trusting your approach, and you didn't have to pay per lead — what would that do for your business?"

Vision question. They'll describe what warm, free inbound would mean — higher close rates, lower cost, less pressure on the sales team. Use their words in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that alongside their ads?"

Permission question. Notice "alongside their ads" — you're not asking them to replace ads. You're adding a channel. Way less threatening.

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was running paid traffic before we started working together. After we set up his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value — and those leads already knew who he was before they booked a call. His close rate on YouTube leads was significantly higher than his ad leads because they'd already watched 20 to 30 minutes of his content. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see how this would run alongside what you're already doing?"

Low percentage (ads aren't the primary driver)

They're running ads but it's not their main channel. Two possibilities: (1) ads aren't performing well and they know it, or (2) they just started and haven't scaled yet. Either way, dig into what the real driver is.

"Got it — so what's driving most of your clients right now?"

Whatever they name → route to that branch's dig sequence. Ads were a surface answer — follow the real channel.

↓

If they say "a mix of stuff" or can't name a primary channel:

"So there's no single channel that's predictably bringing in the majority of your clients every month?"

↓

"If you could have one channel that consistently brought in qualified leads who already trusted you before they got on a call — without having to pay per lead — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. They have no predictable system. Let them describe what having one would mean.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, didn't have a single channel driving consistent pipeline. After we built his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value. The difference is YouTube is a search engine — people find you because they're already looking for what you teach. And every video keeps working for years. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

Branch SEO / Blog / Organic Search ▸

Rare response — roughly 1 in 500 calls. Keep it simple. The pain is that blog content builds no personal authority. Someone reads for 3 minutes and leaves. No relationship, no trust transfer. YouTube is also a search engine but with 10x deeper engagement.

"SEO is a smart long-term play."

Pause. Validate, then go straight to the percentage question.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your clients can you trace back to someone finding you through search?"

↓

"And how much time or money per month goes into maintaining that?"

↓

"When someone does find you through a blog post — by the time they reach out, do they already feel like they know you, or are they still pretty cold?"

This is the trust gap. A blog post is 3 minutes of text. No face, no voice, no personality. The lead is informed but not connected. Most will admit the leads still need warming up.

↓

"If you had a channel that worked the same way — people finding you through search — but by the time they reached out they'd already watched 20 to 30 minutes of you and felt like they knew you, what would that do for your close rate?"

Vision question. You're not attacking SEO. You're describing a better version of what they already believe in.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, generated $465,000 in pipeline value from a single YouTube video. The reason it works is that YouTube is the second largest search engine — people find you the same way they'd find your blog, but instead of reading for 3 minutes, they're watching you for 20 to 30 minutes. By the time they book a call, they already trust you. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your niche?"

Branch Already Doing YouTube ▸

This prospect is already bought into YouTube as a channel. You don't need to sell them on the platform — you need to sell them on you doing it better. Lead with the outcome they care about most: revenue. Then use time savings and data infrastructure as the closer.

"Nice — so you already get it. Most people we talk to haven't even started yet."

Pause here. This validates them AND elevates them above other prospects. They're ahead of the curve. Now they want to prove it by answering your questions.

↓

"How much revenue would you say YouTube has generated for you in the last 6 months?"

This is the money question. Go straight to what matters. Three possible answers — all useful:

• "I don't know" → they're investing time with no tracking. Huge gap.
• A low number or zero → lots of effort, no return. Strategy problem.
• A real number → YouTube works for them. Now sell doing it better and faster.

↓

"I don't know" / low number / zero

They're putting in the work but can't point to revenue. This is either a strategy problem (wrong content), a tracking problem (no data), or both. Don't pile on — reflect the math and let the gap speak.

"How many hours a week are you spending on YouTube right now between ideation, scripting, filming, editing, and posting?"

↓

"So you're putting in [X] hours a week and you can't really tie it back to revenue. If you could have a system where you knew exactly how much money each video was making — and it only took you 2 hours a month instead of [X] hours a week — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. Combines both gaps — no revenue tracking AND massive time investment. Whatever they say, use it in the pitch.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how we solve both of those for our clients?"

↓

"We take over the entire YouTube process — strategy, scripting, editing, posting, analytics. Your time goes from [X] hours a week to about 2 hours a month. You just show up and film our script. And we build the data infrastructure so you can see exactly which video generated which lead and how much revenue it drove. One of our clients, Bgo, generated $465,000 in pipeline value from a single video — and we can trace every dollar back to the content. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see how we'd take over your channel?"

A real revenue number (YouTube is working)

This is a strong prospect. YouTube is already making them money. Don't pitch strategy — they've figured that out. The sell is: we do it better, faster, and with data you don't have. Lead with time savings, close with data infrastructure.

"That's great — so you've already proven the channel works. How many hours a week are you spending to make that happen?"

↓

"If you could keep those results — or scale them — with about 2 hours a month instead of [X] hours a week, what would you do with that time back?"

Vision question. Pure time-back angle. They'll describe what they'd do — more clients, better delivery, scale something else. Use their words.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how we do that for our clients?"

↓

"We take over everything — strategy, scripting, editing, posting, analytics. Your time goes from [X] hours a week to about 2 hours a month. You just show up, film our script, and we handle the rest. And we add a data layer on top so you can see exactly which video is generating which leads and how much revenue — down to the dollar. One of our clients, Bgo, generated $465,000 in pipeline value from a single video with that system. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what that handoff would look like for your channel?"

Branch Cold Email / Cold DMs / Outbound ▸

The pain to leverage is that outbound is manual, non-compounding, and the leads are cold. Every conversation starts from zero trust. The moment they stop sending, the pipeline stops. Nothing builds on itself. The gap is either: (1) heavy dependency on a channel that requires constant manual effort, or (2) the leads are cold and the close rate suffers because of it.

"Outbound takes a lot of discipline — respect for keeping that going."

Pause here. Outbound is hard work and they know it. Validating the effort — not the results — earns you the next question without threatening their ego.

↓

"Roughly what percentage of your clients right now are coming from outbound versus other channels?"

Same data question as every branch. The number tells you how dependent they are on manual effort.

↓

High percentage (outbound is the primary driver)

They're heavily dependent on manual outreach. The gap is that nothing compounds — every lead requires fresh effort, and the leads start cold. Don't attack outbound. Expose the math.

"How many hours a week are you or your team spending on outbound to keep the pipeline full?"

↓

"So you're spending [X] hours a week on outbound. If you had a channel running in the background where leads showed up already knowing who you are — without any manual outreach — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. Covers both gaps in one shot — manual effort and cold leads. "Already knowing who you are" does the trust gap work without asking a question they already know the answer to. Whatever they say, use it in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that alongside their outbound?"

Notice "alongside their outbound" — same as the ads branch. You're adding a channel, not replacing one.

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was relying on outreach before we started working together. After we set up his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value. And those leads already knew who he was before they booked a call — they'd watched 20 to 30 minutes of his content. His close rate on YouTube leads was way higher because the trust was already built before the conversation started. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see how this would run alongside what you're already doing?"

Low percentage (outbound isn't the primary driver)

They're doing outbound but it's not their main channel. Dig into what the real driver is.

"Got it — so what's driving most of your clients right now?"

Whatever they name → route to that branch's dig sequence. Outbound was a surface answer — follow the real channel.

↓

If they say "a mix of stuff" or can't name a primary channel:

"So there's no single channel that's consistently bringing in the majority of your clients every month?"

↓

"If you could have one channel running in the background that brought in qualified leads who already trusted you — without any manual outreach — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. They have no predictable system. Let them describe what having one would mean.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

Branch "Not Really Doing Much" / Nothing Consistent ▸

Most people who say "not doing much" actually have a source — it's just not systemized. The route question below will usually uncover it. Only the truly random ones stay on this branch.

"That's more common than you'd think."

Pause. Normalize it. They probably feel behind or embarrassed about not having a system. This takes the pressure off so they'll actually answer the next question honestly.

↓

"When someone does become a client, how did they typically find you?"

This is a routing question. Whatever they name is their real primary source — it's just inconsistent. Route accordingly:

↓

They name a source (referrals, word of mouth, LinkedIn, etc.)

"Not doing much" was the surface answer. They actually have a primary channel — it's just not systemized. Route to that branch's dig sequence and run it from there. Most common answers will be referrals or word of mouth.

"Got it — so it's mostly [whatever they said], it's just not happening consistently."

Reflect it back to confirm, then transition to the appropriate branch. For example: "Got it — so it's mostly referrals, it's just not happening consistently." Then run the Referrals dig sequence starting at the percentage question.

Genuinely can't name anything / "it's random"

They truly have no system. No primary channel, no consistency. This is rare but real. Don't pile on — they already know it's a problem. Quantify, then let the math open the door.

"Roughly how many new clients are you bringing in per month right now?"

↓

"So you're getting about [X] clients a month with no real system driving that. If you had a channel running in the background that predictably brought in qualified leads every month — people who already knew who you were and trusted your approach — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. They have nothing. The contrast between "no system" and "predictable qualified leads" is the strongest it can be on this branch. Whatever they say, use it in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how one of our clients built exactly that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, didn't have a consistent system driving pipeline. After we built his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value. The way it works is we handle everything — strategy, scripting, editing, posting, analytics. You film for about 2 hours a month. That's it. And every video keeps working for you for years. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

Branch "I'm Full" / At Capacity / Waitlist ▸

When a lead says "I'm full" — they're not full by choice. They're at the ceiling of what their current marketing can produce. If they had unlimited demand, they'd hire other coaches or consultants and scale. "Full" isn't a final state — it's a constraint of their pipeline. Assume every one of these leads wants to make more money but doesn't have the lead flow to support it. Your job is to help them see that.

"That's a great position to be in."

Pause. Validate first. They're proud of being full — it's a status signal. Don't challenge it immediately. Earn the next question.

↓

"If you had more demand than you could handle right now — like way more qualified people coming to you than you have spots for — what would you do?"

This is the key question. You're not challenging their capacity. You're asking them to think about what happens when demand exceeds supply. Most will say some version of "I'd hire" or "I'd raise my prices" or "I'd be more selective." All three reveal that they're not actually done growing — they're just capped by their current pipeline.

↓

"I'd hire" / "I'd scale" / "I'd bring on other coaches"

They just admitted they'd grow if they could. "Full" was a pipeline constraint, not a choice. Now connect the dots — they need more demand to justify the hire, and YouTube creates that demand.

"So you'd scale if the demand was there. What's stopping you from generating that demand right now?"

This gets them to name their own bottleneck. Whatever they say — "I don't have the lead flow" / "I'd need more inbound" / "I haven't built that system yet" — they're now selling themselves on why they need what you offer.

↓

"If you had a system generating that level of demand consistently — enough to justify bringing on other people — what would that look like for your business in 12 months?"

Vision question. They're not thinking about filling their current roster anymore. They're thinking about building something bigger. Whatever they describe, use it in the case study.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I shared how one of our clients built exactly that kind of demand?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, was in a similar spot — full roster, no system to create more demand. After we built his YouTube system, a single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value. That kind of demand is what lets you hire, scale, and be selective about who you work with. And it only takes about 2 hours a month on your end — we handle everything else. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

"I'd raise my prices" / "I'd be more selective"

They want better clients, not more clients. YouTube still solves this — it attracts people who've watched hours of content and are pre-sold. Higher trust means higher willingness to pay premium prices.

"What would you need to see in your pipeline to feel confident raising your prices — is it more leads so you can afford to be picky, or something else?"

This gets them to connect the dots themselves. More demand = leverage to raise prices and be selective. They need the pipeline to support the pricing they want.

↓

"If you had a system where the leads coming in already knew your work, already trusted your approach, and were willing to pay premium — what would that change for you?"

Vision question. Premium positioning angle. Whatever they say, use it.

↓

"Would it be helpful if I showed you how one of our clients built that?"

↓

"One of our clients, Bgo, used YouTube to build exactly that kind of positioning. A single video generated $465,000 in pipeline value — and those leads came in already pre-sold because they'd watched his content for 20 to 30 minutes before reaching out. When your leads already trust you before the first call, you can charge premium prices and be selective about who you take on. Do you have 15 minutes — I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — to see what this would look like for your business?"

If they genuinely don't want to grow at all: This is rare, but if they say "I'm happy where I am, I don't want more" — respect it. Say "Totally get it. If anything changes, you've got my number." Don't force a meeting on someone who truly isn't a fit. Move to the next dial.

If Needed

Objection Handling — I.R.T.C.

Isolate → Reframe → Trial Close → Close. Click each to expand.

Objection "Just send me some info" / "Just email me" ▸

They want to get off the call politely. Almost never genuine. The move is to ask what they'd want on the email, then answer it live on the phone. Now they're in a conversation and the escape hatch is gone.

"For sure — what specifically would you want included on that email?"

Whatever they ask for — pricing, results, how it works, case studies — answer it right there on the phone. You're being helpful, not pushy. Once you've answered their question, they're already in a real conversation. Transition back to the dig or meeting ask naturally.

Why this works: You're not fighting the objection. You're honoring their request while removing the reason for the email to exist. If they name something specific, you address it live. If they stay vague ("just general info"), that confirms they were just trying to exit — and now you know where you actually stand.

Objection "I need to think about it" ▸

Not convinced enough to say yes. Hoping the decision goes away.

"Totally fair. When you say think about it — is it more about the timing, or is there something specific you're not sure about?"

Forces them to name the real objection. Handle that specific concern.

If they won't name it — 1-to-10: "On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is 'this is exactly what I need' — where are you at?"

7+ "So you're most of the way there. What would it take to make it a 10?"

4–6 "What's holding you back from being higher?" → address directly

1–3 Red light. Exit gracefully.

Objection "How much does it cost?" ▸

This is a buying signal — they're interested enough to ask about price. Do NOT give the number.

"Great question. Pricing depends on a few things specific to your business — your niche, your goals, your current setup. That's exactly what the strategy session covers. Jeffrey will give you exact numbers based on your situation. It's 30 minutes. I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — which works?"

If they push hard for a ballpark:

"I don't want to throw out a number without context because it wouldn't be accurate. What I can tell you is that for clients at your level, the ROI math makes it a no-brainer once you see it. That's exactly what the audit breaks down."

Objection "YouTube won't work for my niche" ▸

They haven't seen proof someone like them can succeed. Don't argue — isolate the specific concern and address that.

"What specifically about your niche makes you feel that way?"

Let them name the actual concern. Common answers: "My audience isn't on YouTube" / "My topic is too boring" / "My space is too competitive" / "My clients are too corporate." Each has a different answer. Don't give a generic response — address what they specifically said.

"Have you seen anyone in your space doing YouTube well — even poorly?"

If yes → "So there's already demand. The question is whether the strategy is right." If no → "That's actually an advantage — less competition means you can own the space faster." Either answer works for you.

"That's exactly what the audit is for. Jeffrey doesn't do generic YouTube strategy — he'll look at your specific niche and show you exactly how it would work, or tell you honestly if it wouldn't. Does [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] work?"

Objection "I tried YouTube before and it didn't work" ▸

They got burned. Don't want to waste time again. Don't explain the problem — let them tell you what went wrong, then address that specific thing.

"I hear that a lot actually. What did it look like when you were doing it — were you posting consistently, or did it kind of trail off?"

One question at a time. Let them answer this before asking about tracking. Their answer tells you the real issue.

→ Inconsistent / trailed off

"What caused it to trail off — was it the time commitment, running out of ideas, or something else?"

Whatever they name is the exact problem you solve. Reflect it back: "So the issue was [X]. That's literally what we take off your plate." Don't monologue about your service — let their problem be the pitch.

→ Was consistent but no results

"Were you able to track which videos were actually generating leads — or was it more of a gut feel?"

Almost always gut feel. Reflect it: "So you were putting in the work but flying blind on what was actually driving revenue. That's a strategy and data problem — and that's what we fix." Short, specific, addresses their exact experience.

"The audit is where Jeffrey looks at what you did before and shows you exactly what was missing. Does [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] work?"

Objection "I don't want to be on camera" ▸

Uncomfortable filming themselves. Think it'll be hard or time-consuming.

"Is it more the idea of being on camera that feels uncomfortable, or the time and effort you think it takes?"

"That's really common. Here's what our clients say after the first month — it's 2 hours total. You sit down, read a script we wrote for you, and you're done. No brainstorming, no editing, no posting. Most clients say it's the easiest thing they do all month. And honestly, your audience doesn't need you to be a YouTuber. They just need to hear you talk about what you're already an expert in. I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] to explore this — which works?"

Objection "I'm too busy right now" ▸

Don't see this as a priority, or anything new feels like more work.

"When you say too busy — too busy for a 30-minute call, or too busy to take on a new project right now?"

→ Too busy for the call

"Totally get it. We don't have to do it this week. What does next [Day] look like — I've got [Time] or [Time]? Just 30 minutes."

→ Too busy for a project

"That's actually exactly why this works. The whole service is designed for busy people. Your time commitment is 2 hours per month. We do everything else. The 30-minute call is just to see if it makes sense for your business. I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — which works?"

Stage 6

The 7-Step Booking Sequence

They said yes. Do NOT fumble this. Execute all 7 steps while on the phone.

Step 1 — Two Time Options

"I've got [Day] at [Time] or [Day] at [Time] — which works better for you?"

Step 2 — Confirm Time Zone

"Perfect. And you're on [Eastern / Pacific / etc.] time, right?"

Step 3 — Get Their Email

"What's the best email to send the invite to?"

Step 4 — Send Calendly (while still on the phone)

"Cool, I'm sending that over right now. Give me one second."

Step 5 — Qualify Revenue (while they wait)

"While that sends — just so Jeffrey can prep for the call — where's your business at revenue-wise these days?"

$50K+/mo → Perfect fit

Proceed to Step 6.

$30K–$50K/mo → Borderline

"That's in our range. Jeffrey will want to know a bit more about your setup. What are you selling right now and what's the price point?"

If high-ticket ($4K+) and they have green flags (creates content, wants inbound, wants to scale) → book it. If low-ticket or red flags → gracefully exit: "We might not be the best fit right now, but when you're scaling past $50K, we'd love to talk."

Under $30K/mo → Not a fit

"Honestly, we might not be the right fit right now. We work best with businesses doing $50K+. When you hit that point, we'd love to talk."

Step 6 — Confirm Calendar Accept

"Did that come through? Can you accept it real quick so it's locked in?"

Step 7 — Set Expectations & Exit

"Perfect, you're all set. Jeffrey's going to do a full audit of your business and show you exactly how YouTube would work for your specific situation. It's a no-pressure conversation — just a chance to see if it makes sense. You'll get a reminder the day before. Looking forward to it."

Do NOT hang up until they confirm the calendar invite is accepted. Unconfirmed invites have dramatically lower show rates.

Reference

Qualification Checklist

All must-haves + 2-3 green flags + zero red flags = BOOK.

✅ Must-Haves (All Required)

☐Coach, consultant, expert, or agency owner

☐Full-time in business (no 9–5)

☐$50K+/mo revenue ($30K borderline)

☐Sells $4,000+ high-ticket offer

☐Has capacity for more clients

☐Wants to grow / wants inbound

⭐ Green Flags (2-3 needed)

⭐Already creates content

⭐Wants predictable inbound

⭐Wants to scale beyond referrals

⭐Tried ads, wants stability

⭐Believes in long-form content

⭐Worked with agencies before

🚫 Red Flags (2+ = DO NOT BOOK)

🚫Side hustle / has 9–5

🚫Low-ticket only (<$1K)

🚫Under $20K/mo revenue

🚫Can't explain their offer

🚫Doesn't want to grow

🚫Wants quick hacks

After Every Call

Post-Call Disposition

Log every call in Close immediately. Do not batch this — do it before your next dial.

✅Booked — Set status to "Booked." Add note with: time/date of call, what they said their main channel is, revenue range, any specific pain points they mentioned. Jeffrey uses this to prep.

⏸Callback — Set status to "Callback." Add note with: specific day/time they requested, and where you were in the conversation when they asked to reschedule. Call back at the exact time promised.

🔄Nurture — Interested but not ready. Set status to "Nurture." Add note with: what their objection was, what they said they needed before committing. Follow up in 2-4 weeks.

🚫Not Interested — Hard no, wrong person, or completely unqualified. Set status to "Not Interested." No follow-up needed.

📵No Answer / Voicemail — Set status to "No Answer." Will auto-recycle in the dialer. No note needed unless it's the 3rd+ attempt.

Mental Wipe: After every call — good or bad — take 3 seconds, clear your head, and reset. The next prospect has no idea what just happened. Don't carry a bad call into a good lead.

The Cold Call Decision Tree