Why you need to attack your end-goal multi-directional

So here’s the background story: We wanted to scale this ONE OFFER that was converting like crazy on both warm and cold traffic. The One-Time-Offer (a recurring offer) was converting at 35% on cold traffic – which makes it super rarer. But we had one problem, people weren’t sticking long enough for us to get a decent 100% ROI (that was our end-goal). So we said, let’s focused on solving the retention problem. Long story short, 3 months down the road, and we still couldn’t solve the retention problem. What hurt really bad was the time lost, and the lack of direction moving forward was paralyzing.

We eventually reached our end-goal not through solving the retention but by implementing various other strategies (high backend offers etc). Had we done that earlier, we would have been highly profitable so much earlier.

So the reason why I mentioned this story is so often too many of us attack our problems one-directionally, very linearly.

“I want to be a hedge fund manager, and to achieve that I will have to do this X”. And what if X fails? Especially when doing X is based on many variables beyond your control? More importantly, why is doing X the only way to your end-goal?

Why can’t as you do X, you do Y, and Z as well? And hedge your risks?

No matter how well-prepared you believe your approach to be, there will always be variables and assumptions you can’t account for. So attack it from multiple directions, and those variables will have a lesser weightage in the overall outcome.

As long as you’re clear of your END-GOAL, attacking it from multiple directions is never a case of spreading yourself too thin.

Add Comment