JVJustViralsGet your Rabk
Playbook

Format cards, production plan, and the weekly loop

Generic placeholders below — swap in your app, ICP and proof points and the same structure holds. Four cards are scoring as Viral DNA; one is kept as a worked example of a vanity format so the failure profile is unmistakable.

Deliverable 1

Format cards

F-01 · Problem-aware · 'why is [task] so hard'

Problem Receipt

Rabk 812 · Viral DNA

ICP target: Solution-unaware power user drowning in a manual workaround

Hook bank (10)

  1. 01I did this manually for 9 months. Here's the receipt.
  2. 02This spreadsheet cost me 40 hours a month.
  3. 03Nobody tells you what [task] actually costs you.
  4. 04POV: it's 11pm and you're still doing [task] by hand.
  5. 05I timed it. [Task] took 3h 12m. Watch.
  6. 06The dumbest part of my week, ranked.
  7. 07Show me your [task] setup, I'll show you the leak.
  8. 08I was wrong about [task] and it cost me [number].
  9. 09Three tabs, two apps, one nervous breakdown.
  10. 10If your [task] looks like this, stop scrolling.

Script skeleton

  • 0:00–0:02Hook over the literal mess (screen or desk).
  • 0:02–0:07Quantify the pain: time, money, or missed outcome.
  • 0:07–0:16Show the old workflow at 2x speed, narrate the failure point.
  • 0:16–0:26Same job in-app, one continuous take, no cuts.
  • 0:26–0:32Result number on screen + CTA.

Visual structure

Handheld screen-record + face cam corner. Real artifacts, zero stock footage.

Proof points

Timer overlay · Before/after count · Named outcome metric

Objections handled

  • 'Another app to learn'→ One screen. I set it up on camera in 22 seconds.
  • 'My setup is different'→ Mine was too — here's the messy version, not the demo.

CTA options

  • · Link in bio → deep link to the exact screen
  • · Comment 'RECEIPT' for the template

Variants (10)

Desk POVScreen-onlyVoiceover-onlyText-on-screen silentCost-in-dollars framingCost-in-hours framingTeam-of-one framingManager framing60s long-form15s cutdown

Failure modes

  • · Hook shows the product before the pain
  • · Pain is abstract, not numeric
  • · Cuts break the one-take proof

tracking_tags: fmt=problem-receipt|angle=cost|hook=Hxx|cta=deeplink|creator=Cxx

F-02 · Comparison · '[category] vs [competitor]'

Head-to-Head Teardown

Rabk 774 · Viral DNA

ICP target: Solution-aware buyer already comparing two tools

Hook bank (10)

  1. 01I ran both for 30 days. One of them lost.
  2. 02Same task, two apps, split screen. Go.
  3. 03The comparison nobody in this category will post.
  4. 04Stop reading review sites. Watch the stopwatch.
  5. 05It's not about features. It's about step 4.
  6. 06Both are good. Only one survived my Tuesday.
  7. 07I cancelled one of these this morning.
  8. 08Round 1: setup. Round 2: the part that matters.
  9. 09The 'cheaper' one cost me more. Here's the math.
  10. 10Fair test: same data, same day, same hands.

Script skeleton

  • 0:00–0:03Split screen, both apps open, stakes stated.
  • 0:03–0:12Task 1 head-to-head with a visible timer.
  • 0:12–0:22The decisive difference, slowed down and labelled.
  • 0:22–0:30Honest concession to the other tool, then verdict + CTA.

Visual structure

Locked split screen, on-screen scoreboard, consistent labels.

Proof points

Timer · Scoreboard · One honest concession

Objections handled

  • 'Biased ad'→ I gave them the round they win. Watch 0:22.
  • 'Switching cost'→ Import took one file and 40 seconds — unedited.

CTA options

  • · Deep link to import flow
  • · Pinned comment with the test methodology

Variants (8)

Vs. spreadsheetVs. category leaderVs. doing nothingPrice-per-outcome cutOnboarding-speed cutSupport-response cutCreator-as-skepticCreator-as-switcher

Failure modes

  • · No concession → reads as ad
  • · Unfair test setup
  • · Competitor named in a non-compliant geo

tracking_tags: fmt=head-to-head|angle=comparison|hook=Hxx|cta=deeplink|creator=Cxx

F-03 · Objection · 'is [product] safe / worth it / a scam'

Objection Autopsy

Rabk 731 · Viral DNA

ICP target: High-intent lurker blocked by one specific fear

Hook bank (10)

  1. 01'It's too expensive' — okay, let's do the math on camera.
  2. 02The #1 comment on my last video, answered properly.
  3. 03You're not wrong to be suspicious. Here's the receipt.
  4. 04Three reasons not to buy this. I mean it.
  5. 05I read the terms so you don't have to.
  6. 06'What happens to my data?' Let's open settings.
  7. 07If you're in [segment], skip this one.
  8. 08The refund I got in 4 minutes, timestamped.
  9. 09This is the part they don't show in the ad.
  10. 10Answering the meanest comment I got this week.

Script skeleton

  • 0:00–0:03Read the real objection verbatim from a comment.
  • 0:03–0:10Validate it, state who should NOT buy.
  • 0:10–0:22Show the evidence in-app: pricing, settings, policy.
  • 0:22–0:28Reframe to cost of inaction + CTA.

Visual structure

Comment screenshot pinned top-third, app evidence underneath.

Proof points

Real comment · In-app screen · Disqualification statement

Objections handled

  • 'Too expensive'→ It's [price]/mo against [pain cost]/mo. Break-even is day 6.
  • 'I'll get locked in'→ Export is two taps — filmed here, unedited.

CTA options

  • · Trial deep link
  • · Comment your objection for the next autopsy

Variants (8)

Price objectionTrust/data objectionTime-to-value objectionTeam-buy-in objectionCancel-anytime proofRefund proofWho-shouldn't-buy cutReply-to-comment stitch

Failure modes

  • · Defensive tone
  • · No disqualification (kills credibility)
  • · Evidence off-screen

tracking_tags: fmt=objection-autopsy|angle=objection|hook=Hxx|cta=trial|creator=Cxx

F-04 · Tutorial · 'how to [outcome] fast'

60-Second Setup

Rabk 688 · Candidate

ICP target: Ready-to-install user who fears onboarding friction

Hook bank (10)

  1. 01Zero to [outcome] in 60 seconds. Timer starts now.
  2. 02No edits, no cuts, one take. Setup.
  3. 03If this takes longer than a minute, roast me.
  4. 04The three taps that do 80% of it.
  5. 05Fresh install → first result. Watch.
  6. 06Steal my exact setup, screen by screen.
  7. 07Day one, done right — skip my mistakes.
  8. 08This is the only setting that matters.
  9. 09Setup speedrun, any%.
  10. 10You already have everything you need. Go.

Script skeleton

  • 0:00–0:03Timer on screen, promise the end state.
  • 0:03–0:45One-take setup, each step captioned as a numbered chip.
  • 0:45–0:60Show first real result + CTA to the same deep link.

Visual structure

Full-bleed screen record, numbered step chips, timer always visible.

Proof points

Unbroken take · Visible timer · Real output at the end

Objections handled

  • 'Setup will eat my week'→ Sixty seconds, on camera, no cuts.
  • 'I'll do it wrong'→ Every step is numbered — pause and copy.

CTA options

  • · Deep link to onboarding step 1
  • · Save this for your setup night

Variants (8)

Fresh installMigration from spreadsheetTeam setupMobile-onlyDesktop-onlySilent captionsSpeedrun 30sExtended 90s with commentary

Failure modes

  • · Cuts destroy the one-take claim
  • · Steps too small to read on mobile
  • · Ends before showing a result

tracking_tags: fmt=60s-setup|angle=tutorial|hook=Hxx|cta=onboarding|creator=Cxx

F-05 · Contrarian · 'is [common advice] wrong'

Contrarian Myth-Bust

Rabk 412 · Vanity

ICP target: Category-skeptical scroller with strong existing beliefs

Hook bank (10)

  1. 01Everything you've been told about [task] is backwards.
  2. 02Unpopular opinion: [common advice] is why you're stuck.
  3. 03I built my whole workflow on a lie.
  4. 04Stop doing [popular tactic]. Seriously.
  5. 05The advice that costs beginners the most.
  6. 06Three myths, sixty seconds.
  7. 07Your favourite guru is wrong about this one.
  8. 08I tested the advice. It failed.
  9. 09This take will annoy half of you.
  10. 10The boring thing that actually works.

Script skeleton

  • 0:00–0:03Name the belief bluntly.
  • 0:03–0:12Show why it fails with one concrete example.
  • 0:12–0:24Replace it with the better rule, demonstrated in-app.
  • 0:24–0:30CTA — must be explicit or this format leaks to zero.

Visual structure

Talking head, bold kinetic captions, minimal product until the reframe.

Proof points

One hard example · One in-app demonstration

Objections handled

  • 'Rage bait'→ Here's the test that changed my mind — same data, two methods.

CTA options

  • · Explicit deep link
  • · Comment 'RULE' for the checklist

Variants (8)

Single mythThree-myth rapidStitch-a-guruData-led versionStory-led versionSoft-CTA controlHard-CTA testProduct-first cold open

Failure modes

  • · High views, near-zero link clicks — classic vanity profile
  • · Product appears too late for intent to form
  • · Comment section debates the take, not the product

tracking_tags: fmt=myth-bust|angle=contrarian|hook=Hxx|cta=deeplink|creator=Cxx

Deliverable 2

30-day production + experimentation plan

Volume ramps while the read sharpens. Allocation shifts only when a rule fires.

Week 1 · Signal build

Volume
20–25 posts/day · 140–175 posts
Allocation
Even split across 10–20 starter formats
Experiments
Hook bank A/B per format (5 hooks × 2 creators)
Stop-loss
None — volume before judgement

Week 2 · First read

Volume
25–35 posts/day · 175–245 posts
Allocation
60% top-8 formats by early Rabk, 40% remainder
Experiments
CTA test: bio deep link vs. comment keyword
Stop-loss
Cut formats with 0 link clicks across 30+ posts

Week 3 · Chain tuning

Volume
35–45 posts/day · 245–315 posts
Allocation
70% top-5 formats, 30% exploration
Experiments
Landing/app-store flow test on the two highest-Rabk formats
Stop-loss
Cut any format with install→signup below its guardrail floor twice

Week 4 · Extraction

Volume
40–50 posts/day · 280–350 posts
Allocation
80% confirmed winners, 20% new variants
Experiments
Variant expansion on winners (≥8 variants each), offer framing test
Stop-loss
Vanity formats capped at exploration budget or retired

Creator assignments (conceptual)

Creator A · Operator voice

8–10 posts/day

Problem Receipt, 60-Second Setup

Creator B · Skeptic voice

8–10 posts/day

Head-to-Head, Objection Autopsy

Creator C · Story voice

6–8 posts/day

Problem Receipt variants, Myth-Bust

Creator D · Screen-only faceless

10–15 posts/day

60-Second Setup, Head-to-Head

Deliverable 3

Weekly self-improvement loop

Six boxes, one hour, every week. The library only changes here.

1 · Performance snapshot

Rabk by format and creator, N per format, revenue D0/D7, refunds.

2 · Chain diagnosis

Which conversion step lost the most efficiency this week, and where.

3 · Hypotheses

Max three, each written as: if we change X, then metric Y moves because Z.

4 · Decisions

Scale / hold / retire per format and per variant — with the rule that triggered it.

5 · Updated format cards

New hooks in, dead hooks out, failure modes appended.

6 · Next-week plan

Volume target, allocation split, creator assignments, decision date.

Fail-safe

30-Day Signal Plan

Runs instead of a Viral DNA Report whenever evidence is insufficient. No winners are named on thin data.

Volume required

Minimum 20 posts/day to clear 30–50 posts per format per week across 10–20 formats; 40+/day for a two-window read inside 30 days.

Starter formats

10–20 formats spanning problem-aware, solution-aware, comparison, objection, proof, tutorial, story, contrarian and myth-busting angles — at least one per ICP segment.

Tracking requirements

MMP live with deduped events; deep links per format; UTM template utm_source=platform, utm_campaign=format_id, utm_content=hook_id|cta_id|creator_id; D0/D1/D7/D30 windows locked before launch.

Decision date & criteria

Day 30. Extract Viral DNA only if ≥5 formats cleared minimum N in two consecutive windows and revenue attribution covers ≥90% of link clicks. Otherwise: extend volume, do not name winners.