Hey @Tony, and everyone here. Second auction I've attempted. Second auction that's flopped. The highest bid this time? $3. Three. Freaking. Dollars. Now, to be fair, I launched it at 2 AM my time and went to bed instead of actively running it. That's on me. But still. $3? And no, I'm not handing over my entire AI-powered content system for three bucks. Here's what I genuinely don't understand. I've been a copywriter for years. I've bought the 24-Hour Pop-Up Auction training and invested in other auction material too. In total I must have invested 110K USD in training. I'm not coming into this completely clueless. I've also generated millions of views with my own content, brought in roughly $20,000 in business from it, and built an AI system around the process. That's what I'm auctioning. And the audience isn't a bunch of random people who have never bought digital products. They're sophisticated marketers who already spend money on templates, skills, systems, and training. They've seen what I've accomplished. Yet nobody seems interested enough to bid more than $3. So what the hell am I missing? Is my offer badly packaged? Am I failing to communicate the value? Is there something about the auction mechanics I'm fundamentally misunderstanding? And before someone suggests I just need to buy another program, please understand something. I can't afford to join the coaching program right now. I've already invested in training, and I'm not in a position to keep spending money hoping the next purchase will finally make this click. I'm trying to raise money because my Yorkie, Joey, needs surgery. I'm not asking for sympathy or a free coaching session. I'm asking for an actual diagnosis. If you've run successful auctions, especially Tony and Travis, I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could tell me where I'm screwing this up. Because I know how to write copy that gets attention. What I can't figure out is why that attention isn't turning into bidders.

Hey Tony and @Travis Sago ! Could use your advice. @Tony Teegarden you told me I wasn't taking action. Well, I DID. 😂 I ran my first $1 auction in Duros del Marketing, MY OWN WhatsApp marketing group. Four people bid. The winning bid was $150. Not exactly what I was hoping for, but it was my first attempt. And I'm not stopping. On Monday, I'm running another auction for a dog-training client, targeting a Spanish-speaking audience. But I also want to make this work for MYSELF because, quite frankly, I need the cash! I'm testing an auction for my Social Media OS, the system I've used to generate millions of views, lots of business enquiries and downloads, and 4 job interviews. Here are my results so far: • My own Spanish-speaking marketing group: 1,000 impressions and 10–12 interested responses. • My personal Facebook feed: another 7–8 responses, although I know at least two probably won't bid. I'd love to generate $2,000–$3,000. So here's my question: Is that enough interest to launch? How do you distinguish real bidders from people who just want something for $1? And what would you change so I don't end up with another $150 auction? I'm sharing my original post below. Any feedback would be GREATLY appreciated. I'm taking action, Tony. Now I need to get better at turning that action into CASH! 😂

@Travis Sago and @Tony Teegarden , I need your brain on this one. I've been studying the auction model pretty hard. I get why starting at $1 works. I get the value of creating bidders, discovering what people are willing to pay, participation prizes, ECW auctions, all of that. My problem is that I don't have a giant catalog of digital products. I have a lot of things I can sell, but many of them involve my time. For example, I've built a pretty obsessive AI-powered social content system that helps take an idea and turn it into stronger content by using proven viral formats, winning hooks, platform context, voice rules, and learning from what actually performs. I have other assets and offers like that too. But here's why I'm asking this now. My dog Joey needs surgery on his dewclaw. I'm looking at roughly $1,000-$2,000. So my immediate thought was:b"Fuck it. Run an auction." Then I hit the obvious problem. If I'm auctioning a digital product and the highest bid is $17... fine. If I'm auctioning something that takes me 10 or 20 hours to deliver and the highest bid is $17... I've just invented a very creative way to work for free 😂 So how would YOU structure this? Would you: • Turn what I know into something digital first? • Auction access to one of my systems instead of my time? • Put a hard limit on what the winner gets? • Use an ECW auction with a secret reserve? • Auction something service-based but structure the upside/downside differently? • Do something else entirely? The goal is pretty simple: I want to use what I already know and have built to come up with the $1k-$2k for Joey's surgery. But I also want to actually understand how you'd use the auction model when most of your valuable stuff isn't a neat little course sitting on a shelf. How would you play this? @Travis Sago

Hey @Travis Sago I’m running into a friction point applying this no-upfront, revenue-share style model to email marketing, and I wanted to get your take on how you would think about it. Here’s the issue: Most businesses I see have completely neglected email. They send occasional campaigns, their list is half-dead, and open rates are usually sitting around 5% to 10%, sometimes even worse. So finding a partner with a healthy, properly activated email list is rare. Now, I do know how to rehabilitate lists. I can repair the setup, improve deliverability, reactivate the database, raise open rates, and turn email into a meaningful revenue channel again. But that process usually takes anywhere from 30 to 90 days. That’s where I’m getting stuck. I don’t think it’s reasonable for me to fully absorb all the cost, time, and effort of that rehabilitation work upfront under a pure performance deal, especially when the channel is basically broken when I come in. So my question is: How do you and your team think about partnerships when the asset is underperforming that badly from day one? Do you have a qualification threshold? For example, do you look at something like: minimum open rates list size recent sending activity offer quality sales process / close rate average order value or LTV And if the email list is clearly neglected but still has potential — say 100,000 subscribers but very low engagement — would you still consider that a partnership deal? Or would you charge something upfront first to rehabilitate the list before moving into a rev-share structure? I’d really love to understand how you draw that line

@Travis Sago — quick question on auction-style offers. I’ve studied your framework closely and I’m planning to test it publicly on my own profile. Context: I sell a high-ticket, done-for-you email growth system.Not templates. Full implementation. It includes: • Deliverability repair + list revival (getting open rates back to 20%+) • Strategic sequencing (custom multi-sequence architecture) • Conversion mechanism + messaging alignment • Framing the leads so they arrive at the call pre-sold and context-aware • CTA integrity so the right people book and show up When the ecosystem is built correctly, this has produced up to ~$300K in revenue from a single high-ticket offer. I normally sell it for $30K because it’s real execution work and long-term involvement. Here’s my dilemma. With an auction-style model, how do you structure it so you don’t end up in a situation where the top bid is $2K… and now you’re committed to delivering something that normally commands $30K? This isn’t information. It’s implementation. My SOPs. My time. My calendar. My current thought is to break the system into performance-based sprints: Start with a tightly scoped sprint (deliverability + revival + first revenue sequence), and then let higher bids unlock deeper access, more sequences, and broader ecosystem optimization. So the auction determines the level of execution and access. How would you structure guardrails for a high-touch DFY offer so the upside remains exciting, but the downside doesn’t wreck unit economics? Would love your take.