# The Nine Sales Page Blocks — Worked Twice **From Chapter 8.1 of *The 4-Hour Side Hustle*.** The structure, then two complete pages at opposite ends of the price range: a **$47 template** and a **$2,500 cohort**. Marcus's $340 workbook is in the book itself; these are the two it doesn't have room for. --- ## Before you write a word **Collect twenty verbatim sentences** from real prospects and customers describing their problem in their own words. Demand-test comments, support emails, sales-call notes, DMs. Leave the typos in. Don't paraphrase. Don't tidy. If you skip this, block 3 will be written in your vocabulary instead of theirs, and block 3 is the block that decides. --- ## The structure | # | Block | Words | Job | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Outcome headline | 8–15 | The specific result, in their words | | 2 | Subhead | 15–25 | Who it's for and how long it takes | | 3 | The problem, stated back | 80–120 | Prove you understand before you pitch | | 4 | What it is | 60–100 | Plainly. A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet | | 5 | What's inside | 100–150 | Bullets, each one an outcome not a feature | | 6 | Proof | 40–80 | One specific, verifiable thing | | 7 | Who it's *not* for | 40–60 | Disqualify honestly | | 8 | Price + guarantee | 30–50 | Plain number, plain refund terms | | 9 | Buy button | — | Repeat after blocks 5 and 8 | **Under 700 words total** for anything from $47 to $340. At that price a long page reads as overselling. **Build one block at a time.** Never generate the whole page in one pass — see P5 in the prompt library. --- ## WORKED ONE — Priya's $47 template *Pharmaceutical operations. Validation documentation. The cheapest thing she sells, and the one that feeds everything else.* **418 words.** --- > **[1] OUTCOME HEADLINE** > Write a validation protocol that passes review the first time. > > **[2] SUBHEAD** > A protocol template for pharma ops and quality teams. Fill it in over one afternoon; use it for every system after that. > > **[3] THE PROBLEM, STATED BACK** > You've written the protocol. It came back with fourteen comments, eleven of which are formatting, and two of which are the same person disagreeing with themselves in different sections. > > So you fix them, and it goes round again, and the thing that was supposed to take a week has taken three — none of it spent on whether the system actually works, all of it spent on whether the document describing it is shaped correctly. > > And the part nobody says out loud: you're not sure which version is current. There's one in the QMS, one in your drafts, and one someone emailed you on Friday with "minor edits." > > **[4] WHAT IT IS** > A Word template and a one-page decision guide. Nine sections, pre-structured to the format reviewers expect, with the acceptance-criteria language already written so you're editing rather than composing. > > It's a file. No login, no subscription. > > **[5] WHAT'S INSIDE** > - The nine-section protocol skeleton, in review order rather than logical order — that's why it comes back clean > - Pre-written acceptance criteria for the six most common system types > - The traceability table that reviewers ask for and nobody includes first time > - A one-page "what changed and why" cover sheet that ends the version confusion > - The eleven review comments I got most often, and the sentence that prevents each one > > **[6] PROOF** > I've written or reviewed about ninety of these in nine years of pharma operations. The eleven comments in that last bullet are from my own returned drafts — I kept them. > > **[7] WHO THIS ISN'T FOR** > If your organization mandates its own protocol template, use theirs. This won't override a corporate standard and you shouldn't try to make it. > > If you're validating one system, once, this is probably more structure than you need. > > **[8] PRICE + GUARANTEE** > $47, one time. Thirty-day refund, no questions — there's a form, and it processes within the hour. > > **[9] BUY** --- **What's doing the work here.** Block 3 never mentions the product, and the strongest line — *"you're not sure which version is current"* — is the private, slightly embarrassing detail nobody puts in marketing copy. That's lifted from the collected language. Block 6 is a single sentence with a scar in it: *from my own returned drafts — I kept them.* Proof with a failure in it outperforms proof without one, because nobody makes that up. Block 7 turns away two whole categories of buyer in fifty words. Both would have refunded. --- ## WORKED TWO — Dana's $2,500 cohort *HR. Compensation benchmarking. A live program, not a file — which changes four of the nine blocks.* **630 words.** --- > **[1] OUTCOME HEADLINE** > Build a defensible comp structure your executive team stops arguing about. > > **[2] SUBHEAD** > Six weeks, live, for HR directors at companies of 150–1,500. Four hours a week, and you finish with the actual structure — not notes about building one. > > **[3] THE PROBLEM, STATED BACK** > You have three salary bands, two of which were set before the last two years happened, and a spreadsheet where four people are paid outside their own range for reasons that were documented by someone who left. > > Every quarter somebody senior asks why a new hire is earning more than a five-year employee, and you give the honest answer — market movement — and it lands as an excuse rather than a fact, because you can't show the work. > > So you start rebuilding the whole thing, get four hours in, hit the question of what to benchmark against, and put it down. That's the third time this year. > > **[4] WHAT IT IS** > A six-week cohort. One two-hour live session a week, capped at twelve people, plus a working session where you build your own structure with me in the room. > > You leave with a finished, defensible comp structure for your organization. Not a framework you'll adapt later — the actual thing, built on your actual headcount. > > **[5] WHAT'S INSIDE** > - Week 1: what to benchmark against, and why three of the four common sources are wrong for your company size > - Week 2: banding that survives a promotion cycle — built on your real roles, in the session > - Week 3: the compression problem, and the two ways out that don't require a budget you don't have > - Week 4: writing it down so it holds up to a question from a board member > - Week 5: the rollout conversation, including the one with the four people paid outside band > - Week 6: your structure, reviewed live by me and by two peers in the cohort > - Every template, every calculation, and the benchmark-source comparison — yours permanently > > **[6] PROOF** > Eleven years as an HR director, most recently at 900 people. I've run this rollout three times, and the third one still went badly in a way I'll walk you through in week 5, because that's the week people underestimate. > > Two previous cohorts, twenty-three people. I'll put you in touch with any of them before you decide — ask me. > > **[7] WHO THIS ISN'T FOR** > Under about 150 employees, you don't need a formal structure yet and this will be over-engineered for you. > > Over about 1,500, you have a comp team and probably a consultancy on retainer, and this is the wrong shape entirely. > > If you can't protect four hours a week for six weeks, don't join this round. It's live, it's cumulative, and people who miss week 2 don't recover. > > **[8] PRICE + GUARANTEE** > $2,500. Payment plan available — three payments, no interest, ask. > > Come to the first two sessions. If it isn't what you needed, tell me before week 3 and I'll refund you in full, no questions. After week 3 I won't, because by then you have the material. > > **[9] APPLY** --- ## What changes at $2,500 Four blocks behave differently, and it's worth knowing which: **Block 4 gets longer and more concrete.** At $47 nobody asks what a template is. At $2,500 they need to know exactly what happens on a Tuesday evening, how many people are in the room, and what they physically leave with. **Block 6 needs a second kind of proof.** A credential carries a $47 file. It does not carry $2,500. Dana adds cohort numbers *and* an offer to connect prospects with past participants — the strongest proof available to anyone who doesn't want to write testimonials. **Block 7 adds a commitment disqualifier.** At $47 you disqualify on fit. At $2,500 with live sessions you also disqualify on *capacity*, because someone who can't attend will refund and will be right to. **Block 8 stops being unconditional.** A thirty-day no-questions refund on a six-week program means someone can take the whole thing and ask for their money back on day thirty. Dana's window closes when the value transfers — after two sessions of six. That's still generous, and it's honest about why. **And the page runs to 630 words rather than 418.** The under-700 rule holds, but a live program legitimately needs more of it than a file does. If yours is running past 900, the extra words are almost certainly reassurance, and reassurance is what block 7 is for. --- ## Checklist - [ ] Twenty verbatim customer sentences collected before writing anything - [ ] Typos and awkward phrasing left in the collected language - [ ] All nine blocks built in order - [ ] One AI call per block — never the whole page in one pass - [ ] Block 3 mentions the product zero times - [ ] Block 3 uses at least one phrase near-verbatim from a real customer - [ ] Block 6 contains one specific, verifiable thing — ideally with a failure in it - [ ] Block 7 disqualifies someone real, with a number where possible - [ ] Above $1,000: block 7 also disqualifies on capacity, not just fit - [ ] Block 8 states the refund in plain language, with the actual mechanism - [ ] Buy button repeated after blocks 5 and 8 - [ ] Under 700 words for a file; under 900 for a live program - [ ] Page published before it's good — see 8.1's last section