About a week ago, we released an updated version of my training program, Average to Savage. It is creatively and artfully named Average to Savage 2.0. The response has been phenomenal. Here’s how it looks graphically.
I’ve intentionally cut the units off. I’m not sharing this to flex. I’ll leave it up to your imagination.
I’m not completely naive to the world of digital product sales, so here’s how we “should have” sold it.
1) Before anything else, ideally a month or two in advance, we’d set up a system to curate an ideal list of people to launch to. This probably takes the form of a free downloadable product that’s related to the product in some way (which you could get for free, in exchange for your email address). After setting this list up, we’d start teasing the real product while providing free content to make sure the people on the list are happy and engaged.
2) At launch, test multiple versions of the sales page to see which one converts best. Ideally this would be an exclusive pre-sale for a select group of people, so we can get the perfect sales copy pinned down before the main event.
3) Also test multiple prices to see which one maximizes profit. People are less likely to buy at higher prices, but if the dropoff in conversion rate isn’t concomitant with the increase in price, you’re still good. 100 buyers at $50 nets you more value than 150 buyers at $25.
4) Give some exclusive offer to people who previously bought the first program to make the new program a tantalizing no-brainer upsale.
5) Use some form of scarcity. Maybe there’s an exclusive bonus for the first 1000 buyers. Maybe the price goes up if you don’t buy it within the first 72 hours. There are plenty of scarcity options.
6) Make sure we have an elaborate launch infrastructure in place. Affiliates are good, but might be challenging to get since most people are selling their own training programs. An article lined up for publication on the day of launch is a must – the first 90% of it is informative content that hits on a salient “pain point,” and then it smoothly transitions into a sales pitch at the end (still providing value while essentially serving as long-form sales copy). A series of emails each more desperate than the last (with subject lines tested and optimized for click rates) is also essential.
Here’s what we did instead:
1) About a year ago, I gave a beta version of the program away for free to everyone who bought the original version.
2) I let the program start being sold on another platform, and refused to take a cut of those sales (that requires more explanation than I feel like providing at the moment)
3) Once the program was finalized, I gave the final version away for free to everyone who bought the original version.
4) I also gave it away for free to everyone participating is a community program party on Reddit.
5) We dropped it at $5. Did we test that price? Fuck no.
6) Did we test multiple versions of copy on the sales page? Also, fuck no.
7) Did we run an introductory offer with some sort of scarcity component? Also…no.
8) Did we have any sort of launch plan or infrastructure, other than sending an email? I think you can guess the answer to this question.
Here’s how things performed:
1) Over 10% of the money we’ve made on Stronger By Science products (note, this is separate from MASS, which is a different business entity) since the start of 2018 was made in the past week.
2) My Facebook post about the program got the 2nd or 3rd most interaction of anything I’ve posted in the past year (a post explicitly to sell a product).
3) The post on the business page had more organic reach and more interaction than anything we posted since July of last year (now that I think about it, I should probably boost that post).
4) Similar story on Instagram (it didn’t quite beat out the donut I posted in my last article, but it’s one of my better-performing recent posts).
5) In spite of the fact that we gave the program away for free to everyone who bought the first edition and another ~1500 people on Reddit, more than half as many people bought AtS 2.0 in the past week as had bought AtS 1.0 since it launched 5 years ago.
Here was the thinking behind why we did what we did:
1) First and foremost, I thought it was the right thing to do. We are still a business, and we still need to make money. However, MASS has done so well that we don’t need to worry as much about profit maximization on Stronger By Science anymore. I mean, it’s not a charity, but if we can make high-quality products more accessible, I feel like we should. I think there’s value in selling it rather than giving it away for free (just because people tend to take things more seriously if they have to pay for them, even if the cost is relatively low), but I don’t want the cost barrier to be excessive for virtually anyone if it doesn’t need to be. This is especially true for something like a training program where all the work is on the front-end (sort of; more on that later). I put a high price tag on my time, but if all the work is on the front end, I don’t feel as much of a need to jack the price up when I know I’ll easily recoup the time cost.
2) I had a hunch that there was a pretty big untapped market. I constantly get tagged in posts and IG stories from people excited that they can afford MASS or Art and Science of Lifting now that they’re out of school and have a real paycheck. I get a ton of messages from students who want to buy something we sell but who can’t afford it. I also get a ton of messages from people who live in countries with lower overall incomes who want to buy our products but can’t afford what we charge. It wasn’t so long ago that I was in college and dead broke (rice, beans, bone-in-skin-on chicken thighs for $1.19/lb, and Wal-Mart brand peanut butter were 90% of my calories for about two years), so I feel that on a personal level. There were a lot of fitness resources I wanted but couldn’t even conceive of affording. For those reasons, it mattered to me to be able to make AtS 2.0 accessible to virtually anyone, but from a business perspective, it also struck me that there were probably a lot of people who were really eager and willing to buy a program, but they had been priced out of the entire market.
3) On a personal level, I think the current prices for training programs have gotten absolutely ridiculous. It wasn’t that long ago that most training programs sold for $20-30, with people who could command a premium sometimes selling programs for $50-75. Now $50 seems to roughly be the entry point, with lots of people selling programs for $100-150+. I’m sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, they’re fucking spreadsheets with an accompanying 10-15 page PDF, and maybe some basic accompanying pictures/videos to illustrate some exercises. I guess that whatever the market is willing to pay is technically the “fair price,” but it just strikes me as ludicrous.
4) Regarding the minimalistic launch, I think people are getting better at immediately recognizing that they’re being sold to, and they’re becoming more likely to be turned off when marketers try to be slick about it. Maybe this isn’t true, and it’s just my audience. But we’ve found that a lot of our best-performing messaging is basically just, “We have this product. Here’s what problem it solves. Here’s why it’s better than its competitors. You should consider buying it. The end.” People are bombarded with marketing that tries to be sneaky and clever (which is never as sneaky or clever as the marketers think it is), and I think they’re getting wise to it. A simpler, more straight-forward pitch is almost refreshing. And like I said, my audience may just be weird (in a good way), but that’s been our experience.
5) Our business is built on long-term trust and relationships. That’s what was behind the decision to make the updates free to previous buyers. When you treat people well, they’ll be loyal to you, and we go out of our way to treat everyone who interacts with our content really well, whether they buy our products or not. If we lost out on some degree of short-term profit (and I’m pretty sure we did lose out on some degree of short-term profit), but we built up even more goodwill, that’s a net win. Goodwill doesn’t pay the bills, but since we’re paying the bills just fine, goodwill is more valuable. Maybe that will turn into more income at some point, or maybe it’ll just mean better vibes on a day-to-day basis. It’s hard to put a price tag on day-to-day good vibes.
5b) [soapbox] I think a lot of people in the fitness industry fail to adequately consider long-term costs and benefits. The thing that maximizes your profit or market penetration this month may cost you big time in the long run, and the thing that leaves some revenue on the table this month may pay off big in the long run. If your first thought is, “how much money will this make me?” and not “how will this make people feel about me and my company?” … you done goofed. People have long memories if you treat them well, and longer memories if you treat them poorly.
6) I’m becoming more interested in only doing projects that have larger potential upside. AtS 2.0 may end up just being a program that’s really good while also being really cheap, and sell about as well as its predecessor. However, at its price point, it also stands a chance of becoming really big. The barrier is low enough that it may just become a near-default plan the same way something like 5/3/1 was a few years back. Essentially, it’s a high-variance play with huge potential upside and virtually no downside. Using a more traditional pricing approach, maybe I could guarantee that it would net 10-30% more profit than AtS 1.0. However, with a lower price, I open up the (small) possibility that it could net 1000% more. If I’m happy with the possibility of it doing 0% better long-term (and I am), “locking in” 10-30% doesn’t particularly interest me if it takes massive potential upside off the table.
Clarification: I’m not calling you (or anyone) out
1) I’m not trying to “call out” people who use pushier, bigger, or smoother marketing tactics. We’ve done it before. In some cases, we’ll do it again. Heck, we use scarcity all the time (the last day of a sale is a magical time). We’re also fairly pushy about getting email addresses. The main reason we’ve gotten more direct and straightforward with our sales copy is simply that it generally works better, but there are a lot of things we simply won’t do for ethical reasons. However, it’s a tough industry, especially for people just starting out. I do think there are some bright lines people shouldn’t cross, but I’m far from “anti-marketing.” However, I’d recommend you at least try a more straightforward approach in your messaging and sales tactics. The stuff that was smooth and convincing to naive consumers in 2005 may not be the best thing anymore now that everyone is hip to it.
2) I’m not necessarily trying to “call out” people who sell programs at high price points. This is especially true for people with smaller audiences who are trying to get their footing in the industry. We have the luxury of not needing to profit-maximize anymore, but I’m definitely not going to be preachy towards people who do need to do so. It still doesn’t make a lick of sense to me for people/companies who are already clearly successful, but I’m not going to be moralistic about it. I don’t understand it, but I’m not trying to say it’s “bad.” However, I do think it’s worth at least considering having a really cheap product, unless you’re intentionally trying to alienate people with lower incomes.
What’s the plan from here?
Well, for starters, I’m going to be making small tweaks and improvements to the program based on feedback. We’re not approaching this with the perspective of, “it was only $5, so people should just be happy with what they get.” We’re approaching it with the perspective of, “if we can blow them away with a $5 product, a) good vibes (very important) and b) they may be more interested in other things we’re selling.” Second, I was already planning on an unconventional approach to selling the second editions of Art and Science, and this experience has further emboldened me to do so. Lastly, we’re going to keep treating our readers, listeners, and customers really, really well because it’s the right thing to do.
Also, just to make a couple things clear:
1) I’m not trying to make a play at being a fitbiz guru. If I ever go down that road, please take me out to the pasture and put me down. I’ll probably talk about business stuff on this blog from time to time, but I don’t consider myself an expert by any means, and I never plan to monetize the modicum of expertise I have.
2) My wife is the business and marketing whiz behind Stronger By Science and MASS. I’ve been telling her to start a blog for years (since she’s the one with actual expertise in the area), but since she’s no longer freelancing, it’s not worth her time. We discuss strategy together, but she’s the one who knows how to implement everything, and when we disagree, I defer to her.