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

We spend so much time competing in online markets where everyone is running increasingly sophisticated distribution systems that we forget how primitive customer acquisition still is across entire industries It’s standard practice for anyone operating online to build and enrich lists, segment markets, identify decision makers, run cold email and cold DMs, build paid acquisition funnels, test offers and creatives, retarget and deploy all of it at scale One of our consulting clients runs an influencer agency in the European market, where nobody in the industry has a proper distribution system Deals are still generated through existing relationships, inbound opportunities, introductions, agencies circulating briefs within their existing networks, or managers manually pitching brands one by one Agencies representing large rosters of creators don’t have shit in terms of infrastructure for mapping the full universe of potential buyers, identifying the relevant decision makers inside those companies, segmenting them properly, reaching them across multiple channels and doing it at enough volume to generate a consistent flow of opportunities So we had our client run two test campaigns simultaneously for one of the influencers his agency represents She operates around motherhood, family and lifestyle, and the first step was figuring out how many different pools of buyers we could realistically sell her audience and content to We looked at the categories where she had already landed partnerships, the ones she wanted to enter and adjacent categories where her audience made commercial sense From there, we ranked each segment based on the depth of the brand pool and whether those companies had enough budget to make it worth attacking That gave us multiple segments across baby and kids products, skincare and clean beauty, home cleaning, home services, appliances, food, furniture, supplements and other consumer categories The segmentation matters because “brands that work with mum influencers” is useless as an outbound strategy A baby food company, a robot vacuum brand, a skincare company and a home services platform might all want access to the same audience, but the reason they would work with the creator, the person responsible for the budget and the angle you use to approach them can be completely different Once those segments were mapped, we built the first campaign around direct access to the buyers For each segment, we built the company lists, identified the people responsible for influencer marketing, partnerships and relevant marketing budgets, and reached them through cold email and cold DMs At the same time, we built a second campaign around access to the buyers We targeted media agencies, PR agencies, social agencies, influencer marketing teams operating on behalf of brands and other intermediaries already sitting on relationships with multiple companies in those segments The economics of that relationship are completely different Going directly to a brand gives you a shot at that brand’s budget Building a relationship with someone managing campaigns and creator spend across a portfolio of brands can give you access to multiple budgets and a recurring stream of briefs We ran both campaigns simultaneously because they compound each other The direct campaign created conversations with the companies holding the budgets, while the partnership campaign built relationships with people already managing those budgets across multiple brands Within a few weeks, the combination secured six figures in annual deals from a test campaign for a single influencer There are thousands of businesses with great products, real demand and shit distribution Meanwhile, online mfs are fighting over the same audiences with the same acquisition channels, bloated tech stacks and more expensive infrastructure A lot of the skills you had to learn just to survive online are still barely being used in other industries Take them somewhere distribution is shit and put them behind a banger product or service

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

If you're an online marketer and almost everything you consume was made by other online marketers, you're studying people who studied people who studied the same fucking people you did Which is how you end up with thousands of monkeys selling slightly different versions of the same shit At some point you have to stop jerking off the same five guys everyone else follows and go study completely different industries Look at how racehorses are marketed The racing itself can be a tiny part of the money made around a horse Once a stallion has won enough, people can pay six figures just to breed a mare with him, and the best ones can do that more than 100 times a year His offspring can then sell at a premium before they've ever raced because buyers are buying the bloodline If they start winning too, the father's breeding price goes up again There are breeding rights, syndicates, auctions and entire businesses built around this shit Then you have boring industrial businesses selling the most basic products imaginable that have controlled their markets for decades through a handful of key relationships and distribution deals The same goes for casinos, funeral businesses, private islands, sperm banks, fertility clinics, citizenship by investment programs and engagement rings, all running on completely different models of acquisition, distribution, trust, status and retention Cults are probably top 3 for me Ignore the morality of it for the purpose of the analysis They're obviously fucked, but very few organizations have ever figured out how to package this many human needs into the same system, with some basically covering every level of Maslow's pyramid At the physiological level, even sex gets covered because cults tend to facilitate relationships between members, giving you a dating pool where everyone already shares the same beliefs, community and social circle Then comes safety, which can mean housing, money when you're struggling, people around you when shit goes wrong, and a set of rules that removes a huge amount of uncertainty from your life Belonging is pretty obvious when your friends, family, social life, weekly activities and entire community can all end up concentrated in the same place Esteem gets built through internal hierarchy, recognition, responsibility, proximity to leadership and whatever signals that particular group uses to define a "good" member Then self actualization gets absorbed into the ideology itself The organization gives you the mission, tells you what your life is for, gives you a path to progress along and defines what reaching the highest version of yourself is supposed to mean So you end up with something that can touch all five layers of the pyramid at once, while also controlling a meaningful percentage of the person's social environment Leaving can mean losing your partner, friends, community, routines, status and the entire belief system you've spent years building your life around Some of these organizations are absolute cash machines Jehovah's Witnesses spent more than a century accumulating real estate in Brooklyn alone, then sold 37 properties between 2004 and 2018, with estimates putting the combined sales at around $2B You have millions of people spreading the message for free, recruiting new members, repeating the same rituals and using the same language, with internal status systems that reward certain behaviors, physical infrastructure everywhere, and relationships that make the network harder to leave as it grows These organizations have managed to make themselves part of where people live, who they marry, who their friends are, what they do every week, what they believe and what they spend their money on There is more marketing to learn from figuring out how a bunch of door to door preachers ended up owning billions of dollars worth of Brooklyn real estate than from watching another monkey explain how he structures his VSL

We're running a very similar email right now but with the intention of booking in-person meetings Targeting family offices, private banks and wealth managers with this specific consulting offer Recently had partner at a multi family office managing clients at CHF 50M minimum inviting us for coffee off the back of a cold email we sent Historically, deal flow prior to us implementing this strategy came from 3 places: - Word of mouth inside closed finance circles - Trusted referrals between operators - Private dinners, in person meetings and invitation only conversations The model produces high quality conversations, compresses trust fast and generates interest from serious counterparties But it also scales linearly with time, presence and social bandwidth, and concentrates risk in a handful of relationship nodes If one node goes quiet, an entire stream of mandates goes quiet with it But being able to combine a well crafted outbound method solves the throughput problem entirely So we structured the outbound as our way to generate and qualify demand, and then use private dinners and in-person meetings to secure the deal Sitting down face to face amplifies trust in a way no other channel can touch and it matches the internal dynamics of how this market has always moved These circles built their entire commercial logic around physical presence decades before digital infrastructure existed Capital moves between people who've shared a table Reputations get transferred over lunch Mandates get agreed on walks between office buildings When you show up through the same rituals the market already uses you become perceived as one of their own This is how you become a chameleon inside any market You study how it operates on a daily basis including its rituals, trust mechanics and unwritten rules Then you camouflage your way in and infiltrate circles that stay permanently closed to outsiders The private wealth world will ignore a vendor for a decade but will open completely to a mf who moves like the market moves So what we needed to implement for ourselves was simple We needed to structure an entry point into a high skepticism, over contacted, reputation sensitive market without diluting the trust signal that referrals and private dinners naturally provide That constraint dictated everything about the outbound strategy It had to behave like a referral, carry reputation without an introduction and signal relevance instantly It had to avoid the appearance of BS at all costs too Anything else would damage positioning in the market Which is exactly why most operators going upmarket can never get their offer to land They treat outbound as a volume game The moment the message resembles marketing you’re immediately categorized into a specific category and it’s difficult to revert back So the messaging was built on a different principle Buyers in finance do NOT respond hype, novelty or promises They respond to messaging that understands their position, constraints and timing without needing any of it explained When a partner at a family office reads a message that demonstrates fluency in his world, the message comes off like a peer surfacing something relevant The reply happens because the offer required no explanation That's the point where outbound starts functioning like a warm introduction Then when you book the in person meetings, they have the cleanest way to evaluate whether you’re worth working with or not This market runs its due diligence face to face So the relationship itself is becomes the infrastructure behind a deal Then that relationship node produces mentions to the lawyer who feeds him clients, who mentions it to the banker he knows Introductions are the only acquisition channel this market actually trusts, and they typically flow exclusively between people who've physically met One good meeting can quietly work its way through an entire backend over the following years

How to craft a multi 7-figure B2B offer by targeting yacht brokers: 99% of agencies and clients work with clients who don't have money,and it has nothing to do with their skill Nobody ever showed them where the money actually lives, who controls it and how to plug into it Mfs watch agency tutorials on YouTube and then start targeting infopreneurs, coaches and SaaS companies So the ceiling gets locked in from the first client When instead you’re meant to apply the exact same delivery and target premium yacht brokers in Monaco, Miami and Dubai Every single one of brokers run their acquisition like its the mid-2000s Hulls trade between $10-$300M with 8-10% commission on new builds and resales The same companies run charter desks renting those boats at $200K to $400K a week The way they source these deals is boat shows, marina walk-ins and referral loops built over 30 years worth of dinners But the mfs holding those networks are ageing out and there’s been no strategy to be able to adapt to the new UHNW wealth sitting in Miami, Dubai and Singapore Structured outbound doesn't exist anywhere in this segment, retargeting is an unknown concept, and the closest thing to a qualification layer is a receptionist The exact acquisition mechanics that got commoditized in SaaS have never once been deployed in this vertical They haven't realized that an UHNWI never really searches for his own boat He delegates and gets a shortlist built by family office analysts, executive assistants, business managers and yacht-adjacent concierges An entire gatekeeper layer decides which 3 hulls the principal ever sees and there isn’t a single brokerage that runs structured outreach to get in these ecosystems They're all trying to target the principal himself, through channels he never reads While the people who actually filter the decision have never received a single intelligent outbound message in their careers Which is exactly what you deliver for these clients The system you build: Paid distribution aimed at UHNW geographies with retargeting pools that follow the buyer for the six months a yacht decision actually takes Automated qualification that separates price shoppers from serious buyers before a broker ever touches the conversation And outbound into the gatekeeper layer that Claude runs targeting every family office with a marine asset or charter history + the yacht management companies and concierge networks between London and Dubai The broker can't build any of this, and he doesn't have the vocabulary to hire for it either You always structure the conversation with the frame of pre-existing demand: "I'm in contact with UHNW buyers and family offices looking at charters and acquisitions this quarter. Are you the right person to speak with about how you'd handle those introductions?" Now you're routing deal flow and the conversation carries a completely different weight On the call you run the math with him - Average commission - Deal count last year - How much of it traces back to 2 relationships - What his pipeline looks like the year one of those relationships retires Then you hold one incremental sale against your fee and let him realize the logic himself Charge $10K-$25K upfront + $5K-$8K to run the system + 5-10% of the brokerage commission on deals your system sourced One sourced hull per year across the roster turns your agency into a multiple 7-figure operation with less than 5 clients and no external team beyond your agents