@stacksjs/defaults 0.75.109 → 0.75.110

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-offers/references/saas-offers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# SaaS Offers - the discount trap + worked examples
+
+The rest of the offers library skews services, courses, and coaching. This reference covers the SaaS case specifically: why discounting is the wrong acquisition lever, and four worked offers that stack risk-reversal, bonuses, and scarcity for a software business.
+
+Read this alongside [offer-formats.md](offer-formats.md#self-serve-saas). For price level and tier structure, the `stacks-marketing-pricing` skill still does the heavier lifting - this covers the *offer* wrapped around the price.
+
+---
+
+## The discount trap
+
+The instinct when a SaaS isn't converting is to cut the price - a launch coupon, a "50% off first 3 months," a permanent lower tier. It's the most-reached-for lever and one of the worst.
+
+**Offers beat discounts.** A discount lowers the price. An offer raises the value - a guarantee, a done-for-you migration, a bonus that removes the switching cost. Same net price to the buyer, but one trains them to expect cheap and the other trains them to expect valuable.
+
+### The data
+
+**Discount-*askers* churn at roughly 2× the rate of full-price customers.** The buyer who negotiated their way in is signaling something: price was the reason they bought, not value. When a cheaper option appears - or when the renewal hits full price - they leave. You bought a customer who was never yours.
+
+This compounds. Discounting to acquire also:
+
+- **Anchors the product as cheap** - hard to raise later without churn spikes
+- **Attracts the wrong ICP** - price-shoppers, not value-buyers
+- **Trains the market to wait** - buyers learn there's always a sale coming, so they never pay full
+- Sits next to **trial fatigue and discount fatigue** - the same buyer who's seen a hundred "50% off" banners no longer feels urgency from yours
+
+### The rule
+
+**Never discount to acquire.** Discount only in two moments, where the mechanics actually work for you:
+
+| When | Why it works |
+|------|--------------|
+| **Upgrades / cross-sells** | The customer already values the product. A discount to move up a tier or add a product rewards commitment instead of buying a stranger. |
+| **Seasonal moments** | Black Friday, year-end, an annual-plan push - a real, time-bound, everyone-gets-it window. Not a permanent price cut wearing a costume. |
+
+Everything else is an **offer**, not a discount. If conversion is stuck at the top of the funnel, reverse the risk and stack the value - don't cut the price. See the four examples below.
+
+---
+
+## Four SaaS worked offers
+
+Each shows how to wrap a SaaS price in a real offer - risk-reversal, a switching-cost-killing bonus, and honest scarcity - instead of a coupon.
+
+### 1. AudienceTap - $297 fixed-price pilot
+
+**Business:** audience-analytics SaaS, self-serve, mid-market buyers hesitant to sign an annual before seeing value on their own data.
+
+**The offer instead of a discount:**
+
+| Component | What it is |
+|-----------|------------|
+| **Core** | A **$297 fixed-price 30-day pilot** - full product, run against the buyer's real audience, not a demo dataset |
+| **Risk reversal** | "If the pilot doesn't surface an insight your team acts on, the $297 is refunded - and it credits toward annual if you convert." |
+| **Bonus** | A done-with-you setup session (connect sources, first report) so time-to-value is days, not weeks |
+| **Scarcity** | Capacity-real: "We onboard 6 pilots a month so each gets the setup session." Not a fake counter. |
+
+**Why it beats a discount:** the pilot is a paid, low-risk *yes* that filters for value-buyers. The $297 isn't a price cut - it's a fee that credits forward, so full-price annual is the default next step, not a negotiation.
+
+### 2. SaberSim - $497 bundle
+
+**Business:** sports-analytics/optimizer SaaS. Individual tools convert fine alone but the full stack is where retention lives.
+
+**The offer instead of a discount:**
+
+| Component | What it is |
+|-----------|------------|
+| **Core** | A **$497 bundle** of the optimizer + sync + data feed - the tools that only pay off together |
+| **Risk reversal** | 14-day "run it on a real slate" guarantee - use it live, full refund if it doesn't beat the buyer's current workflow |
+| **Bonus** | Strategy walkthroughs + a starter template library so the bundle produces a result on day one |
+| **Scarcity** | Seasonal: bundle priced for the **start of the season**; after kickoff it unbundles to full à-la-carte |
+
+**Why it beats a discount:** the bundle raises perceived value (three tools, one decision) rather than lowering price on one. The season start is *real* seasonal scarcity - an allowed discount moment - not a permanent markdown.
+
+### 3. Teachable - $1,997 accelerator
+
+**Business:** course-platform SaaS. The subscription is cheap; the value (and the switching cost) is getting a course actually launched.
+
+**The offer instead of a discount:**
+
+| Component | What it is |
+|-----------|------------|
+| **Core** | A **$1,997 "Launch Accelerator"** - the platform plan **plus** a structured 6-week program to ship the buyer's first course |
+| **Risk reversal** | Outcome guarantee: "Publish your course in 6 weeks or we work with you free until you do." Tied to a completion condition. |
+| **Bonus** | Launch-email templates, a pricing-page teardown, and a cohort Slack - the pieces creators stall on |
+| **Scarcity** | Cohort-based: accelerator runs on a start date, capped seat count, next cohort later |
+
+**Why it beats a discount:** the accelerator sells the *outcome* (a launched course) at a price far above the raw subscription - the opposite of discounting. The guarantee de-risks the real fear ("I'll pay and never launch"), and the cohort cap is honest scarcity.
+
+### 4. Kit - "Painless Switch" $997 migration offer
+
+**Business:** email-platform SaaS. The blocker isn't price - it's the terror of migrating a list, sequences, and automations off the incumbent.
+
+**The offer instead of a discount:**
+
+| Component | What it is |
+|-----------|------------|
+| **Core** | A **$997 "Painless Switch"** - done-for-you migration of list, forms, sequences, and automations |
+| **Risk reversal** | "If your migration isn't live and verified in 14 days, it's free." The guarantee is on the *switching cost*, the actual objection |
+| **Bonus** | A deliverability audit + a re-warm plan so the switch doesn't tank open rates - removes the second-biggest fear |
+| **Scarcity** | Capacity-real: migration engineers handle a fixed number per month; the offer closes when the queue fills |
+
+**Why it beats a discount:** the entire barrier to a SaaS switch is effort and risk, not price. A discount does nothing about migration dread; a done-for-you offer with a switching-cost guarantee removes it. The buyer pays *more* up front and churns *less*, because they're a value-buyer who committed.
+
+---
+
+## The pattern across all four
+
+| Offer | Price | Risk reversal is on… | Scarcity type |
+|-------|-------|----------------------|---------------|
+| AudienceTap pilot | $297 | Whether it surfaces an actionable insight | Capacity (setup sessions) |
+| SaberSim bundle | $497 | Whether it beats the current workflow | Seasonal (season start) |
+| Teachable accelerator | $1,997 | Whether the course actually launches | Cohort (start date + cap) |
+| Kit Painless Switch | $997 | Whether migration is live in 14 days | Capacity (engineer queue) |
+
+Notice what's *not* here: a coupon, a "% off," a slashed sticker price. Every one raises value and reverses the real risk - and the scarcity is either capacity, cohort, or a genuine seasonal window, never a fake timer.
+
+**The SaaS takeaway:** when conversion is stuck, your instinct will be to discount. Build the offer instead. Discount only to reward existing customers (upgrades, cross-sells) or in a real seasonal window - never to acquire a stranger you'll watch churn at 2×.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-offers/references/scarcity-urgency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# Scarcity & Urgency
+
+The reason to buy now, not later.
+
+This is the most misused offer lever in the industry. Done right, it's a meaningful conversion lift and a respect-the-buyer's-time gesture. Done wrong (fake countdown timers, lies about inventory), it converts once and torches trust permanently.
+
+The repo voice: **only ship real scarcity.** If the scarcity is fake, take it off the page.
+
+## Scarcity vs urgency
+
+| | What it limits | Examples |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Scarcity** | Quantity | Cohort size, seats, inventory, batch, capacity |
+| **Urgency** | Time | Cohort deadline, season, bonus expiry, price increase |
+
+Both work via the same mechanism - they convert "I'll think about it" into "decide now." The difference is what enforces the decision: a limit on how many, or a limit on when.
+
+---
+
+## Honest scarcity formats
+
+The bar: **the constraint has to be real.** Here are the formats that work without lying.
+
+### Capacity-based scarcity
+
+You can only deliver to N customers at a time. The next slot opens when one finishes.
+
+> "We take 2 fractional CMO engagements per quarter. Next slot opens September 15."
+
+Works for: services, agencies, coaching, consulting, anything labor-bound.
+
+### Cohort scarcity
+
+The class starts on a date. After the date, the door closes until the next cohort.
+
+> "Cohort 7 starts October 1. Doors close September 28. Next cohort: January."
+
+Works for: courses, programs, group coaching, anything synchronous.
+
+### Founding-member pricing
+
+The first N buyers get a different price. After that, the price goes up.
+
+> "Founding pricing - $497/mo for the first 50 members. After we hit 50, the price moves to $797/mo."
+
+Works for: SaaS, communities, memberships. Critical: actually raise the price when you hit 50. Otherwise it was a lie.
+
+### Inventory-based scarcity
+
+You have N units. When they're gone, they're gone.
+
+> "We're only producing 100 of the print edition. Sold out, no reprints."
+
+Works for: physical products, limited-run digital, bespoke services.
+
+### Seasonal scarcity
+
+Demand or capacity is seasonal.
+
+> "Tax-prep service for Q1 2026 closes January 15. After that, we focus on existing clients only until April."
+
+Works for: tax, retail Q4, events, education enrollment, anything calendar-bound.
+
+### Bonus expiry
+
+A bonus is available only until X date. The core offer stays the same; the *added value* expires.
+
+> "Order by Friday and the 1:1 onboarding session is included. After Friday, the offer is the same but onboarding is +$497."
+
+Works for: anything with a launch window. Critical: actually remove the bonus when the date hits.
+
+### Price-increase scheduling
+
+The price goes up on a date. Communicate it transparently.
+
+> "On November 1, the program moves from $1,997 to $2,497. Anyone enrolled before November 1 keeps the $1,997 price for life."
+
+Works for: courses, SaaS, communities. Builds credibility because the buyer can verify it later.
+
+---
+
+## Fake scarcity to avoid
+
+Pattern-match and rip these off your page:
+
+### Countdown timers that reset
+
+The timer hits 0:00 and refreshes. The buyer comes back tomorrow, same timer, same urgency. Every buyer who notices loses trust.
+
+If you use a countdown, it ends on a real date. After that date, the discount or bonus actually ends - verifiably.
+
+### "Only 3 spots left"
+
+Especially on digital products where there's no capacity constraint. Especially when the number stays at "3" for weeks.
+
+Use this only when the constraint is real (cohort, capacity, inventory) AND when the number reflects reality.
+
+### Manufactured FOMO
+
+"127 people are looking at this page right now."
+
+These can be honest on some platforms (Booking.com etc.) when they reflect actual traffic. They're dishonest when fabricated. Buyers increasingly assume fabrication.
+
+### Bonus "stacking" that's always available
+
+"This bonus expires at midnight!" - but every page on the site says the same thing at midnight every night.
+
+The bonus has to actually expire, or the line is a lie.
+
+### "Last chance" emails for things that aren't actually last chance
+
+Repeated "FINAL HOURS" emails that send weekly. Every recipient who notices unsubscribes or stops opening.
+
+Use "last chance" once. If you use it multiple times, you've taught your list that "last chance" is meaningless.
+
+---
+
+## Why fake scarcity is uniquely costly
+
+Buyers compare notes. The internet is small.
+
+- One Reddit post about a fake countdown becomes the top Google result for your brand
+- One screenshot of "only 3 left" staying at 3 for a month becomes a viral thread
+- One "last chance" email that wasn't goes into a "marketing fails" newsletter
+
+Real scarcity converts ~the same as fake scarcity at the moment of purchase. The difference shows up at month 6, when fake-scarcity offers are facing trust collapse and real-scarcity offers are still compounding.
+
+If you have to fake it, you don't have an offer-design problem - you have a value-equation problem. Go back to [value-equation.md](value-equation.md).
+
+---
+
+## When scarcity isn't needed
+
+Some offers don't need scarcity:
+
+- **Subscription products** that customers can cancel anytime - the natural friction is low enough
+- **Low-priced impulse products** ($5-30) - the deliberation is short; scarcity feels forced
+- **Premium / luxury brands** - scarcity is implicit in the positioning; explicit scarcity reads as low-status
+- **High-trust audiences** who already know they'll buy - scarcity is unnecessary friction
+
+Don't force scarcity into offers that don't need it. The forced version is worse than no scarcity.
+
+---
+
+## The diagnostic
+
+For an existing offer with weak or no scarcity:
+
+1. **Is there a real constraint?** Capacity, cohort, inventory, season, batch. Find the real one.
+2. **What's the honest version of that constraint?** Write it in plain English.
+3. **Can the buyer verify it?** If you say "founding pricing for the first 50 members," can the buyer see the count?
+4. **Are you willing to actually enforce it?** When the constraint hits, do you have the discipline to actually close the door / raise the price / remove the bonus?
+5. **Where on the page does the scarcity appear?** It should be next to the buy button, not buried.
+
+If you can't find a real constraint, don't ship scarcity. The "trick" of fake scarcity is one of the most expensive shortcuts in marketing. The honest version is usually cheaper than people think - every business has *some* real constraint (capacity, calendar, batch, attention).
+
+---
+
+## Pairing with the rest of the offer
+
+Scarcity is the final lever. It only works if the rest of the offer is strong.
+
+- Strong offer + real scarcity = the buyer decides now
+- Weak offer + scarcity = the buyer decides not to buy, faster
+
+If conversions are bad, scarcity is rarely the first thing to fix. Run the diagnostic from [value-equation.md](value-equation.md) first.
+
+The order is:
+1. Strong dream outcome
+2. Specific perceived likelihood (proof + methodology + guarantee)
+3. Compressed time delay
+4. Reduced effort & sacrifice
+5. *Then* scarcity to get the decision now
+
+Scarcity is the close, not the offer.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-offers/references/value-equation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# The Value Equation
+
+The single most useful frame for offer design. Originated in Alex Hormozi's *$100M Offers*; the underlying idea (multiply benefits, divide costs) is much older - direct-response copywriters have been doing it for a century.
+
+## The formula
+
+```
+              Dream Outcome  ×  Perceived Likelihood of Achievement
+  Value  =  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+              Time Delay     ×   Effort & Sacrifice
+```
+
+The customer compares the *Value* score to the *Price*. If Value > Price, they buy. If not, they don't, no matter how good the copy is.
+
+**Price is the comparison, not the value.** Most "lower the price" requests are actually "raise the numerator or lower the denominator" requests.
+
+---
+
+## Lever 1: Dream Outcome (numerator)
+
+What the customer *actually* wants - usually one or two levels above the surface ask.
+
+### Surface ask → dream outcome
+
+| Surface ask | Dream outcome |
+|-------------|---------------|
+| "I want a website" | "I want more qualified leads I can close" |
+| "I want to learn copywriting" | "I want to write copy clients pay me $5K+ per project for" |
+| "I want a meal plan" | "I want to feel confident in a swimsuit on a beach in 12 weeks" |
+| "I want fitness coaching" | "I want my back pain gone so I can pick up my kids without thinking about it" |
+| "I want a Notion template" | "I want to feel in control of my work for the first time in years" |
+| "I want to lower CAC" | "I want a marketing engine I can step away from for two weeks without things breaking" |
+
+### How to increase
+
+- **Name it specifically.** "Feel confident in a swimsuit" beats "lose weight." The specific name is the offer.
+- **Connect to the bigger goal.** The dream outcome behind the surface ask is almost always emotional or identity-based.
+- **Show the future state in concrete sensory terms.** What does the morning of day one *after they have it* actually look like?
+
+### Common mistake
+
+Pitching the surface ask. ("Get a website" instead of "get a website that brings you 5 qualified leads a week.") The bigger the buyer's pain, the more important this is - they're not buying a deliverable, they're buying a future.
+
+---
+
+## Lever 2: Perceived Likelihood of Achievement (numerator)
+
+Do they actually believe they'll get the dream outcome? This is the single most underweighted lever - most offers are perfectly fine on the dream outcome side but the buyer just doesn't think it'll work *for them*.
+
+### How to increase
+
+- **Proof** - case studies with names, numbers, before/after metrics, photos. Specific > glossy.
+- **Methodology specificity** - name your process. "The 5-step VAULT framework" beats "our proprietary system." Even if the substance is the same, naming it raises perceived likelihood.
+- **Guarantees** - risk reversal directly raises perceived likelihood (more in [guarantee-design.md](guarantee-design.md)).
+- **Reduce sample-of-one objection** - show people *like them* who got results. "Other people get results but I'm different" is the universal objection.
+- **Pre-empt the failure path** - explicitly address what could go wrong and how you handle it. Builds trust faster than hiding the risk.
+
+### Common mistake
+
+Stacking more features ("we also include X, Y, Z") instead of stacking more proof. Features address dream outcome. Proof addresses likelihood. Most stuck offers need proof, not features.
+
+---
+
+## Lever 3: Time Delay (denominator)
+
+How long from purchase to result. The denominator is doing a lot of work here - slow results don't just feel slow, they erode perceived likelihood (the longer it takes, the less the buyer believes it'll work).
+
+### How to decrease
+
+- **Faster first win** - find the smallest possible early result and engineer it into the first 7 days
+- **Onboarding velocity** - replace a 60-minute kickoff with a 10-minute async intake + Loom send
+- **Front-load the assets** - give the templates / swipe files / decks on day 1, not "throughout the program"
+- **Faster end-to-end timeline** - "in 8 weeks" beats "in 6 months." If you can credibly compress, do.
+- **Quick-start path** - explicit "first thing to do today" so they don't lose momentum
+
+### Common mistake
+
+Promising a faster timeline than you can deliver. The first time you miss it, perceived likelihood for every future buyer drops permanently as the failure story spreads.
+
+---
+
+## Lever 4: Effort & Sacrifice (denominator)
+
+What the buyer pays *besides money* - time, learning curve, decisions, willpower, social risk, opportunity cost.
+
+### How to decrease
+
+- **Done-for-you over do-it-yourself** - DFY tiers move the effort to you. Charge accordingly.
+- **Fewer decisions** - every decision the buyer makes is friction. Bundle, default, recommend.
+- **Lower learning curve** - pre-built templates, examples, defaults. "We did the thinking, you do the executing."
+- **Removed risk** - emotional risk (am I dumb if this doesn't work?), social risk (what will my team think?), opportunity cost (what am I not doing while I do this?). Address all three explicitly.
+- **Async over live** - for many buyers (founders, executives), removing synchronous commitments is huge value
+- **Less willpower required** - automation, accountability, environmental design
+
+### Common mistake
+
+Overestimating how much your buyer *enjoys* the work. They want the outcome, not the process. (Exception: identity-buyers - fitness, learning, mastery. For those, the process *is* part of the dream outcome. Read your buyer.)
+
+---
+
+## Diagnostic: scoring the levers
+
+When an offer is stuck, score each lever 1-10 honestly. The lowest is the binding constraint.
+
+### Quick scoring prompts
+
+- **Dream outcome (1-10)**: Can the buyer picture, in concrete sensory terms, the day after this works? Is the outcome named specifically enough that they can repeat it back to a friend?
+- **Perceived likelihood (1-10)**: Do they have at least three named, comparable proof points? Is the methodology specific enough to repeat? Have you addressed the "but my situation is different" objection?
+- **Time delay (1-10)**: What's the first concrete win, and how soon do they get it? What's the end-to-end timeline? Are there any "delay surfaces" (onboarding lag, asset drip, week-1 friction)?
+- **Effort & sacrifice (1-10)**: How much work does the buyer do? How many decisions? How much learning curve? How much synchronous time? How much emotional/social/opportunity-cost risk?
+
+### Worked example: a stuck $3K copywriting course
+
+Initial scoring:
+- Dream outcome: 6 (`become a better copywriter` - too vague)
+- Perceived likelihood: 4 (one testimonial, no methodology name)
+- Time delay: 5 (6-month course, no first-win mechanic)
+- Effort & sacrifice: 4 (lots of homework, live calls, weekly assignments)
+
+Lowest: effort & sacrifice and perceived likelihood are tied. Pick one (perceived likelihood - easier to move and unblocks more downstream work):
+
+- Name the methodology: "The VAULT framework - 5 angles every winning sales page uses"
+- Add 8 named-customer case studies with before/after copy + revenue numbers
+- Add an "even if you've never written before" cohort with 3 named graduates
+
+After: perceived likelihood goes 4 → 8. Course converts at ~3x baseline. Two months later, attack effort & sacrifice (replace weekly live calls with async + 1 live Q&A).
+
+---
+
+## Key idea to internalize
+
+**The price-vs-value comparison happens in the buyer's head, not yours.** You only know it's working when the buyer can articulate the dream outcome back to you in their own words, and when they don't need to ask "but does this actually work?"
+
+If they're asking either of those questions, you have a value equation problem, not a copy problem.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-onboarding/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Corey Haines
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-onboarding/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Source and license
+
+Adapted from [coreyhaines31/marketingskills](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills),
+revision [1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tree/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff),
+upstream skill `onboarding`, version 2.0.1.
+The original MIT copyright and permission notice is in [LICENSE](LICENSE).
+
+Stacks supplies a namespaced entrypoint, shared implementation guidance, mapped
+related-skill links, and regular-hyphen copy. The playbook and its supporting
+references/templates are retained. Tool integrations remain optional linked
+references; upstream CLI programs, servers, and packaging scripts are not
+bundled or installed. Source examples are illustrative and changing platform
+facts require verification.