Let's get right into it.
STEP BY-STEP
How to make a $10k/mon agency in less than 3 months
Thread:
Let's get right into it.
VALUE THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO YOUR CLIENTS SO THEY PAY YOU EVERY MONTH.
YOU NEED TO TARGET RETAINER BASED SERVICES TO GET TO $10k/mon fast.
Now, what can you charge a retainer for?
Not logo design/branding.
Try to sell a service which they need every month.
- Lead generation
- Email Marketing
- High ticket sales
- Cold email
Choose one and watch 25 hours of content about it on youtube dot com
Then buy a good course if you can
Don't sell anything to anyone
SEE WHAT'S WORKING
Cold email 50 people asking for a call
Pay 3 of them $20/hr and get to know all their pain points and problems
2 main types for client acquisition:
1. Organic
Cold email, through Facebook groups, engaging in communities, using your social media followers, etc.
2. Inorganic
Paid shoutouts, Facebook/google ads
You need proof of concept before you try to spend $300/day on ads.
Use organic methods.
Engage in communities, add value in Facebook groups, and so on
BUT WAIT
THE BEST CLIENT ACQUISITION CHANNEL IS COLD OUTREACH
How to find clients the right way:
> Scrape emails using kleanleads
> Hire a $8/hr research guy
> Write good & short cold emails
> Send 50 cold emaols EVERYDAY
> Ask for a call
Hire from Upwork for $7-8/hr
YOU NEED TO GET THEM RESULTS TO GET PAID.
If you're just starting, you have 2 options:
> WORK FOR FREE
> WORK FOR A CHEAP PRICE IN EXCHANGE OF A VIDEO TESTIMONIAL
AND HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES.
EMPLOYEES WHO LOVE TO DO WORK YOU DON'T WANT TO DO FOREVER AND FOR CHEAP.
Hire project managers.
Admin guys who report to your client and manage the payments.
Data entry guys who do the most monotonous work.
GET YOURSELF OUT OF YOUR BUSINESS.
My name's X and I just helped {{another company like their}} get {{desired result}} using {{your method}}
Now I would like to do the same for you.
Are you free for a quick call this week or next week?
WORK WITH people only if they fulfill your preset criteria.
If they don't, JUST DON'T WORK WITH THEM.
YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THEM RESULTS AND THEY WON'T PAY YOU ALSO.
> Find a problem
> Skill
> 50 cold emails a day
> Get on sales calls with prospects
> Close
> Fulfill
> $$$
STEP BY-STEP
— Devesh\u26a1 (@Devesh_wy) January 26, 2021
How to make a $10k/mon agency in less than 3 months
Thread:
More from Devesh⚡
More from Startup
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?