@jaimevalasek/aioson 1.7.2 → 1.9.0

package/template/.aioson/genomes/copywriting/references/frameworks/offer-stack.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+---
+genome: copywriting
+reference: frameworks-offer-stack
+load_priority: high
+---
+
+# The Irresistible Offer Stack
+
+Foundational offer construction. Used in Act 4 of the 5-act structure. The offer stack makes the YES feel obviously rational by showing that **the value visibly exceeds the price**.
+
+## The 6-component stack
+
+### 1. Value Anchoring
+Before naming the price, **establish what solving this problem is worth**:
+- Cost of NOT solving (annual cost, lifetime cost, identity cost)
+- What competitors charge for similar transformation
+- What the buyer would pay if they hired this out
+
+This makes the price feel rational against the alternative cost.
+
+### 2. Component Stacking
+Itemize the offer:
+- **Core product / service** (the main transformation)
+- **Complement 1** (amplifies main product)
+- **Complement 2** (addresses adjacent need)
+- **Bonus 1** (addresses Objection 1)
+- **Bonus 2** (addresses Objection 2)
+- **Access / Support** (community, coaching, Q&A)
+
+Each component has its own assigned value.
+
+### 3. Bonuses with Purpose
+Each bonus addresses a SPECIFIC objection:
+
+| Common objection | Bonus type |
+|------------------|-----------|
+| "What if I don't have time?" | Time-saving bonus (quick-start guide, templates) |
+| "What if my situation is different?" | Industry-specific bonus (playbooks, case studies) |
+| "What if I get stuck?" | Support bonus (community, office hours, coaching) |
+| "What if I want to scale later?" | Advanced bonus (next-level content) |
+| "What if I'm not technically capable?" | Done-for-you bonus (templates, swipes) |
+
+Bonuses without objection mapping feel like filler.
+
+### 4. Reason Why
+Explain WHY the offer is at this price NOW:
+- Real launch period
+- Real founder cohort pricing
+- Real time-bound bonus
+- Real cost-coverage logic ("we built this for [audience]; this price covers cost while maintaining quality")
+
+The Reason Why must be **REAL**, not invented. Manufactured reasons erode trust.
+
+### 5. Strong Guarantee (Risk Reversal)
+The risk reversal element. Standard:
+- 30-day or longer money-back guarantee
+- No questions asked
+- Easy to invoke
+- Honored consistently
+
+The guarantee can be CONDITIONAL but the conditions must be FAIR:
+- "If you do the [reasonable action] and don't get [outcome], full refund"
+- Conditions that are easy for committed buyers to meet are fine
+- Conditions designed to prevent refunds are NOT fine
+
+### 6. Single CTA
+ONE primary call to action. Multiple = decision paralysis. The CTA:
+- Specific verb ("Get instant access" beats "Click here")
+- Connected to the value just stacked
+- Linked to the next step (button URL, phone number, etc.)
+- Repeated 2-4 times in long-form (after stack, after objection handling, after close)
+
+## Total value framing
+
+Sum the stack visibly:
+
+```
+Component                  Value
+────────────────────────  ──────
+Core product              R$ 4,000
+Complement 1              R$ 1,500
+Complement 2              R$ 1,500
+Bonus 1                   R$   500
+Bonus 2                   R$   500
+Bonus 3                   R$   500
+Community access          R$ 1,000
+────────────────────────  ──────
+Total value               R$ 9,500
+
+YOUR PRICE TODAY:         R$   997
+```
+
+The visual sum makes the deal feel obvious. Without the explicit summation, the stack's psychological effect weakens.
+
+## The 5-10× ratio (honesty discipline)
+
+The total stacked value should exceed the price by **5-10×**, not more.
+
+| Ratio | Effect |
+|-------|--------|
+| < 3× | Stack feels insufficient; price feels expensive |
+| 3-5× | Stack works but conservative |
+| 5-10× | **Sweet spot** — stack feels generous, ratio is believable |
+| 10-20× | Borderline; audience may pattern-match as fake |
+| > 20× | Audience disbelieves; entire offer feels manipulative |
+
+Honest stacking:
+- Each value is defensible if the item were sold standalone
+- Bonuses have real production cost or genuine market value
+- The transformation is real (not marketing fluff)
+
+## When stacking doesn't apply
+
+- **Low-ticket impulse products** (under $50) — stacking feels disproportionate
+- **Genuine commodity** (where buyers comparison-shop on spec) — stack feels manipulative
+- **Luxury minimalist** (where audience is anti-stacking) — different aesthetic
+- **B2B enterprise contracts** — stacking is replaced by ROI projection / negotiation
+
+In these contexts, simpler offer presentation works better.
+
+## Modern application
+
+The offer stack works in 2026 for:
+- Course launches (Brunson's home turf — value stack is core to his method)
+- Coaching / mentorship offers
+- High-ticket info-products
+- Mastermind / community memberships
+- Premium SaaS tiers (with creative interpretation — features become "components")
+- Service offerings (consultancy, agency)
+
+The format changes; the stack discipline doesn't.
+
+## Connection to other frameworks
+
+| Framework | Connection to offer stack |
+|-----------|---------------------------|
+| **One Belief** | The stack delivers the New Opportunity through itemized value |
+| **5-act structure** | Stack lives in Act 4 (Offer) |
+| **PMS** | Bonuses address Myths; full stack delivers Dreams |
+| **Two Paths Close** | Stack creates the "Path 2" that the close drives toward |
+| **Schwartz Awareness** | Stack emphasis varies by level (Level 4 = stack-heavy; Level 2 = lighter) |
+
+## Common violations
+
+### Violation 1 — No stack, just price
+Symptom: conversion plateau; offer feels expensive.
+
+Fix: build full stack with each component's value.
+
+### Violation 2 — Random bonus values
+Symptom: pattern-matched as fake.
+
+Fix: defensible values for each bonus.
+
+### Violation 3 — Total > 20× price
+Symptom: audience disbelieves.
+
+Fix: cap at 5-10× ratio.
+
+### Violation 4 — Bonuses without objection mapping
+Symptom: bonuses feel like filler.
+
+Fix: map each bonus to a specific objection from research.
+
+### Violation 5 — Weak guarantee
+Symptom: risk-averse buyers don't convert.
+
+Fix: strengthen — 30-day minimum, easy to invoke, no trick conditions.
+
+### Violation 6 — Multiple CTAs
+Symptom: decision paralysis.
+
+Fix: cut to one primary CTA. Repeat it; don't multiply it.
+
+### Violation 7 — Fake "Reason Why"
+Symptom: trust erosion when discovered.
+
+Fix: use REAL reasons. If no real reason exists, omit instead of inventing.
+
+## Decision Weight context
+
+- **Strong guarantee 95/5** → never compromise the guarantee
+- **One CTA 90/10** → never give multiple competing CTAs
+- **Real urgency 100/0** → "Reason Why" must be real
+- **Specificity 90/10** → every component value is specific
+
+## Hierarchical relationship to applied masters
+
+This is the **foundational** offer stack. Applied masters extend it:
+- **Kennedy** adds 10 Rules + Premium Positioning discipline (`copywriting-kennedy/frameworks/`)
+- **Brunson** adds calculated stacking + bonuses-per-objection (`copywriting-brunson/frameworks/value-stack.md`)
+- **Halbert** adds A-pile audit for the offer presentation
+- **Georgi** adds RMBC Phase B integration (offer is Act 6 of his 7-act)
+
+`@copywriter` typically loads this foundational + ONE applied master's offer extension.

package/template/.aioson/genomes/copywriting/references/frameworks/one-belief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+genome: copywriting
+reference: frameworks-one-belief
+load_priority: high
+---
+
+# The One Belief Framework
+
+Every page / VSL / sales piece establishes ONE central belief. All copy elements serve this single thesis. If a section doesn't build the belief, it weakens it.
+
+## The formula
+
+> **"Doing [New Opportunity] is the key to [Primary Benefit], and this is only possible through [Unique Mechanism]."**
+
+The 3 components:
+
+1. **New Opportunity** — what the prospect should DO (a new approach, decision, behavior, or category of action)
+2. **Primary Benefit** — what they GET (the specific outcome they want)
+3. **Unique Mechanism** — WHY this works (the differentiation that makes it credible and unique)
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1 — Health
+> "Doing **intermittent fasting with metabolic flexibility cycling** is the key to **dropping 20 lbs without giving up your lifestyle**, and this is only possible through **the 5:2 protocol with strategic carb refeeding**."
+
+- New Opportunity: intermittent fasting with cycling
+- Primary Benefit: 20 lbs without lifestyle sacrifice
+- Unique Mechanism: 5:2 + carb refeeding
+
+### Example 2 — Finance
+> "Doing **dividend-growth investing in BR small-caps** is the key to **building R$5k/month passive income in 5 years**, and this is only possible through **the 12-stock asymmetric portfolio model**."
+
+- New Opportunity: dividend-growth investing in BR small-caps
+- Primary Benefit: R$5k/month in 5 years
+- Unique Mechanism: 12-stock asymmetric model
+
+### Example 3 — Course (info-product)
+> "Doing **Light Copy + Marketing de Premissas** is the key to **selling daily without launches**, and this is only possible through **the VTSD 7-pillar system**."
+
+- New Opportunity: Light Copy + Premissas
+- Primary Benefit: daily sales (no launches)
+- Unique Mechanism: VTSD 7 pillars
+
+## Why ONE belief
+
+Multiple competing beliefs split the reader's attention:
+
+| One belief | Multiple beliefs |
+|------------|------------------|
+| Reader knows what to think | Reader is confused |
+| Every section reinforces | Sections compete |
+| Mechanism is clear | Mechanism is fragmented |
+| Conversion compounds | Conversion plateaus |
+
+The discipline: pick ONE. Build everything around it. Cut what doesn't reinforce.
+
+## Diagnosing your One Belief
+
+Before writing, ask:
+
+1. **What single sentence captures the entire piece's argument?**
+2. **What's the New Opportunity I'm proposing?**
+3. **What's the Primary Benefit they get from it?**
+4. **What's the Unique Mechanism that makes it different from alternatives?**
+
+If you can't answer in one sentence, the belief isn't focused enough. Refine until it fits.
+
+## The role of the Unique Mechanism
+
+The Unique Mechanism is the **conversion lever**. Without it:
+- The Primary Benefit feels like generic marketing claim
+- The New Opportunity feels like everything else
+- The piece pattern-matches as commodity
+
+With a real mechanism:
+- The Benefit becomes credible
+- The Opportunity becomes distinct
+- The piece feels like genuine differentiation
+
+This connects to Schwartz Sophistication Stage 3+ — saturated markets DEMAND a mechanism. Without one, no copy in the modern market converts at scale.
+
+## How One Belief organizes the 5 acts
+
+| Act | One Belief role |
+|-----|-----------------|
+| **1. Lead** | Tease the New Opportunity through curiosity gap |
+| **2. Background** | Establish credibility for the Mechanism's existence |
+| **3. Mechanism** | Reveal and prove the Unique Mechanism |
+| **4. Offer** | Package the New Opportunity as the specific product |
+| **5. Close** | Drive action toward the New Opportunity |
+
+Every act references the One Belief in some form. The reader, by the end of the piece, can articulate the belief in their own words.
+
+## Common violations
+
+### Violation 1 — Multiple beliefs
+Symptom: reader can't summarize the piece in one sentence; conversion plateaus.
+
+Fix: pick ONE belief; cut sections that build competing beliefs.
+
+### Violation 2 — Vague mechanism
+Symptom: the "unique" claim could apply to any product in the category.
+
+Fix: get specific about the mechanism. Real differentiation, not marketing fluff.
+
+### Violation 3 — Missing mechanism
+Symptom: copy reads as "we're just better" without saying why.
+
+Fix: either find a real mechanism or accept the product is commodity (Stage 1-2 strategy).
+
+### Violation 4 — Belief without specifics
+Symptom: "Doing the right thing leads to the desired outcome via our system" — too vague.
+
+Fix: every component (Opportunity, Benefit, Mechanism) needs concrete specificity.
+
+## When ONE Belief becomes "the Big Idea"
+
+In Halbert/Kennedy/Georgi tradition, this is called the "Big Idea." Same concept, different terminology:
+- Foundational copywriting: "One Belief"
+- Halbert/Kennedy: "Big Idea"
+- Georgi RMBC: "Big Idea + Unique Mechanism"
+
+Different traditions use different names; the underlying discipline is the same.
+
+## Modern application
+
+The One Belief framework applies to:
+- Sales pages (long-form)
+- VSLs (15-90 minutes)
+- Email sequences (one belief reinforced across all emails)
+- Webinar pitches (the New Opportunity is the webinar's promise)
+- Course launches (one belief drives the entire launch sequence)
+- Even short-form ads (compressed belief)
+
+The piece's length varies; the discipline of ONE belief doesn't.

package/template/.aioson/genomes/copywriting/references/frameworks/pms-research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+---
+genome: copywriting
+reference: frameworks-pms-research
+load_priority: high
+---
+
+# PMS Research — Problems, Myths, Dreams
+
+Foundational audience research framework. Before writing, map the audience along three dimensions.
+
+## The 3 dimensions
+
+### P — Problems
+
+What the audience faces, in **their words** (not yours).
+
+**Layers:**
+- Surface problems (what they explicitly complain about)
+- Hidden problems (what they don't talk about but feel)
+- Identity problems (how the problem affects their self-image)
+- Future-state problems (who they're becoming if they don't change)
+
+**Output:** a list of specific problems, ideally with verbatim quotes from research.
+
+### M — Myths
+
+The lies / misconceptions / false beliefs that keep them stuck.
+
+**Categories:**
+- **Vehicle myths:** "This kind of solution doesn't work"
+- **Internal myths:** "I'm not capable / disciplined / talented enough"
+- **External myths:** "My situation is too unique / too constrained"
+- **Industry myths:** "The category is X" (when it's actually Y)
+- **Solution myths:** "The fix is X" (when it's actually Y)
+
+**Output:** a list of myths to invalidate or reframe in the copy.
+
+### S — Dreams (Sonhos)
+
+What they want — specific, emotional, visualizable.
+
+**Layers:**
+- Tangible dreams (numbers, achievements, possessions)
+- Identity dreams (who they become)
+- Relational dreams (how relationships shift)
+- Status dreams (how they're perceived)
+- Future-self dreams (the trajectory the dreams unlock)
+
+**Output:** a list of dreams ranked by emotional intensity per avatar.
+
+## Why P + M + S together
+
+Each dimension alone is incomplete:
+
+- **Problems alone:** copy that articulates pain but doesn't shift belief
+- **Myths alone:** copy that breaks beliefs but doesn't connect to specific pain
+- **Dreams alone:** copy that paints aspiration but doesn't anchor in current reality
+
+PMS together produces:
+- **P:** "I see you" (current state empathy)
+- **M:** "Here's why you're stuck" (belief shift)
+- **S:** "Here's where you can go" (aspirational pull)
+
+The three dimensions form a complete persuasion arc.
+
+## How PMS feeds the 5-act structure
+
+| Act | PMS dimension |
+|-----|---------------|
+| **1. Lead** | Problem articulated through curiosity |
+| **2. Background** | Author's own P→S journey (relatable origin) |
+| **3. Mechanism** | Myths invalidated; new mechanism explains why |
+| **4. Offer** | Mechanism packaged as the path from current P to specific S |
+| **5. Close** | Two Paths — stay in P (myths intact) vs. move toward S (myths broken) |
+
+PMS research **feeds the entire 5-act structure**. Without PMS, every act is guesswork.
+
+## Research methods (per dimension)
+
+### For Problems
+- Customer interviews (15-30 min, focus on frustrations)
+- Forum / Reddit / community harvesting (where they vent)
+- Sales call transcripts (where pain is named)
+- Email reply analysis (replies to past campaigns)
+- 1-star competitor reviews (hidden pain reveals)
+
+### For Myths
+- "What do you believe is true about [problem]?"
+- "Why do you think previous attempts failed?"
+- "Who's wrong about [topic] in your opinion?"
+- "What 'common knowledge' do you doubt?"
+
+### For Dreams
+- "If [problem] disappeared tomorrow, what would change?"
+- "Who do you want to become?"
+- "What does success look like in 5 years?"
+- "What would you do if [constraint] didn't exist?"
+
+## Output format (PMS research file)
+
+Standard structure:
+
+```
+## Problems
+
+### Surface
+- "[verbatim quote from interview]"
+- "[verbatim quote]"
+
+### Hidden
+- [hidden pain articulated in their language]
+
+### Identity
+- [identity-level problem]
+
+## Myths
+
+### Vehicle
+- "[myth verbatim or paraphrased]"
+
+### Internal
+- "[myth]"
+
+### External
+- "[myth]"
+
+## Dreams
+
+### Tangible
+- [specific outcomes with numbers]
+
+### Identity
+- [who they become]
+
+### Status
+- [how they're perceived]
+```
+
+## Time investment
+
+PMS research typically takes:
+- **Quick:** 4-8 hours for a small project
+- **Standard:** 1-2 days for a typical sales page
+- **Deep:** 3-5 days for a high-stakes launch
+- **Continuous:** ongoing customer interviews for mature businesses
+
+The investment compounds — every copy decision becomes faster and more accurate when PMS is rigorous.
+
+## Why PMS comes BEFORE writing
+
+The discipline: **never write copy without PMS.** Reasons:
+
+- Without P, the copy is generic
+- Without M, the copy doesn't shift beliefs
+- Without S, the copy lacks aspirational pull
+- Without all three, the copy is guesswork
+
+Writing without PMS is the most common foundational violation — and it's the cheapest fix (do the research).
+
+## Common violations
+
+### Violation 1 — Demographics instead of PMS
+Symptom: avatar is "30-50 year old women" — useless for copy.
+
+Fix: do all 3 PMS dimensions, not just demographics.
+
+### Violation 2 — Surface problems only
+Symptom: copy addresses what the prospect already knows; no leverage.
+
+Fix: research hidden + identity + future-state problems.
+
+### Violation 3 — Generic dreams
+Symptom: "they want to be successful" — not specific enough.
+
+Fix: get specific (numbers, identity statements, relational outcomes).
+
+### Violation 4 — Skipping myths
+Symptom: copy doesn't break beliefs; reader stays stuck.
+
+Fix: catalog myths explicitly; address each in Act 3 (Mechanism).
+
+### Violation 5 — Inferred PMS instead of researched
+Symptom: copy feels like the copywriter's projection, not the audience's reality.
+
+Fix: do actual research — interviews, forums, transcripts, surveys.
+
+## Modern application
+
+PMS transfers to all direct response formats:
+- Sales pages (Acts 1-5 each draw on PMS)
+- VSLs (PMS feeds the script)
+- Email sequences (each email targets specific P / M / S)
+- Webinar pitches (Brunson's "break 3 beliefs" = M dimension)
+- Course launches (PMS = the audience profile)
+- Coaching offers (PMS = ideal client profile)
+
+The format adapts; PMS is universal.
+
+## Connection to Schwartz Awareness Levels
+
+PMS depth varies by awareness level:
+
+| Awareness | PMS emphasis |
+|-----------|--------------|
+| Level 1 (Unaware) | P-heavy (build problem awareness) |
+| Level 2 (Problem Aware) | M-heavy (break myths about why they're stuck) |
+| Level 3 (Solution Aware) | M + S (myths about competitors + dreams) |
+| Level 4 (Product Aware) | S-heavy (paint specific outcomes) |
+| Level 5 (Most Aware) | Compressed PMS; direct close |
+
+The 3 dimensions are universal; their proportional emphasis varies by Schwartz level.