0:01 Today we're talking about storytelling.
0:03 If you want your content to perform
0:05 better, you have to learn how to tell
0:06 better stories. And here's the truth
0:08 that may surprise you. Every great story
0:10 uses the exact same storytelling
0:12 framework. Whether you're Christopher
0:14 Nolan making movies or Nolan Christopher
0:16 around the fire, this one super simple
0:18 framework will 10x your stories
0:20 automatically. And after watching this,
0:22 I guarantee you will think differently
0:24 about the way you write scripts and make
0:25 videos. By the way, I'm Callaway. I have
0:27 a million followers. I've done billions
0:29 of views. And this stuff is all I do all
0:30 day long. Now, when you think about
0:32 storytelling, you probably imagine this
0:34 shape. This is the traditional story
0:37 arc. You've got introduction, rising
0:39 action, climax, falling action, and
0:41 resolution. It's what all our first
0:42 grade teachers taught us about
0:44 storytelling. And broadly, this is the
0:46 path that most great stories follow. But
0:48 here's the problem. If we all know that
0:50 arc is how most great stories are
0:52 constructed, why is storytelling still
0:54 so hard? It's hard because that broad
0:55 arc doesn't actually give you the
0:58 guidance on what to say or how to say it
1:00 to keep a viewer interested. It's a nice
1:01 framework, but it's actually not that
1:03 helpful tactically. Here's what is
1:05 helpful. If you metaphorically zoomed in
1:07 to that story arc, you would notice a
1:09 series of cascading loops. These loops
1:12 create many rise and fall actions that
1:13 keep the viewer engaged through the
1:16 broader arc. I call these story loops.
1:17 Think of it like mini hills before the
1:19 roller coaster hits the mega drop.
1:21 Instead of one giant up and down, all
1:24 the great stories have tons of mini up
1:26 and downs that live within each loop.
1:27 You string together enough loops and
1:29 you've got yourself a compelling story.
1:30 And so, if you're trying to get better
1:32 at storytelling, the million-dollar
1:34 question really is this. Is there a
1:36 framework for figuring out exactly what
1:38 to say in each loop so that a viewer
1:40 can't stop watching or listening? And it
1:42 turns out there is. If you understand
1:44 this one fundamental framework, story
1:45 loops, you could become a master
1:48 storyteller literally overnight. And I'm
1:49 telling you, this doesn't just apply to
1:51 nursery rhymes, and Disney movies. Every
1:53 single type of story, public speeches,
1:55 YouTube videos, sales presentations,
1:57 emails, even campfire stories. They all
1:59 get better when you understand how to
2:01 think in story loops. So, in this video,
2:02 I'm going to break down how the story
2:04 loops framework actually works, a few
2:06 different examples of it in action, and
2:08 then I'm going to share my tactical
2:10 steps for how you can apply it in your
2:12 own content. All right, let's dive in.
2:14 Every story loop is made up of just two
2:16 parts. The first half is the opening of
2:19 the loop. This is the context. And the
2:20 second half is the reveal, the closing
2:22 of the loop. So the loop gets open with
2:24 context and closed with the reveal. As
2:26 soon as one loop closes, another loop
2:28 opens. And this continues for the entire
2:30 story. Now, here's how these loops
2:32 actually work in the viewer's brain.
2:34 This is super important. First, you say
2:36 or show something to set context. This
2:38 can be an establishing fact, an opening
2:41 question, or a declarative detail. Once
2:43 the viewer hears or sees that context,
2:45 their brain tries to process what it
2:47 means. At this point, once the initial
2:49 context has been communicated, one of
2:51 two things is going to happen. Either
2:52 the viewer doesn't understand the
2:53 meaning of what was said. They get
2:55 bored, they get confused, and they churn
2:57 out. Or the viewer does understand the
2:58 meaning of what was said, they get
3:00 curious, and their brain starts
3:01 predicting what they think will happen
3:03 next. So, this first half of the loop is
3:05 all about clarity and understanding. Did
3:08 you say or show context in a way that
3:10 the viewer can understand it or not? For
3:11 example, let's say I started a story
3:13 with something like this. The bear
3:14 parked quickly. The unicycle flew in the
3:17 air. The red cabin swayed in the wind.
3:19 Trees rustled. The hollow was still.
3:21 Now, these couple sentences I just said
3:23 make zero sense. You're listening and
3:24 trying to connect what those sentences
3:26 mean and how those details connect
3:27 together. The bear parked what? What
3:29 does a bear in a unicycle and a red
3:31 cabin have to do with each other? Do
3:32 these things even go together? You're
3:34 asking yourself questions, but these
3:36 questions are because you're confused.
3:38 The point is that was an example of a
3:40 bad story loop intro. If a story started
3:42 out this way, you would lose interest
3:43 almost immediately because you're
3:45 completely confused as to what this
3:47 means and why those sentences were
3:49 strung together. Now, instead, imagine I
3:51 started that same story like this. There
3:53 was a red cabin swaying in the wind. A
3:55 bear walked out of it. He got on his
3:57 unicycle and started riding into town.
3:59 Now, this is a lot more clear. If you're
4:01 curious, you're asking yourself, why is
4:03 there a bear riding a unicycle? what is
4:05 he going to do when he gets to town,
4:07 etc. These are questions, but not from a
4:08 lack of clarity, from a source of
4:10 curiosity. And that's the big
4:12 difference. Viewers only have so much
4:14 leash for confusion in a story. The
4:16 context part of the loop has to be clear
4:18 enough so they can get curious in the
4:20 first place. So, it sounds pretty
4:22 simple, but this is the first half to
4:24 all story loops for every story. This
4:26 fundamental clarity point is so
4:28 critical. Okay, so the context has been
4:29 set, the curiosity has been peaked, and
4:31 the viewer is interested in finding out
4:33 what comes next. Here comes the second
4:35 half of the story loop, and this is
4:36 really where the money is made. Once
4:38 that initial context is set and clear,
4:40 the viewer's brain is going to start
4:41 predicting what it thinks will come
4:44 next. That proactive prediction is
4:45 curiosity. If you're good at telling a
4:47 story, the viewer will keep themselves
4:49 focused because they're so interested in
4:50 what's going to come. Now, once you set
4:52 the context and you get into the second
4:54 half of the story loop, there's only
4:55 five different scenarios that could
4:58 happen. A. The reveal is worse than
5:00 expected. B. The reveal is about neutral
5:03 or equivalent to what was expected. C.
5:05 The reveal is better than expected. D.
5:07 The reveal is unexpected but in a
5:10 confusing way. And E. The reveal is
5:12 unexpected but in an intriguing way. So,
5:13 you set some context. The viewer
5:15 predicts what will happen. And then you
5:17 make some reveal. And these are the five
5:19 types of reveals. Now, here's what
5:21 actually happens in each scenario. And I
5:23 promise this will be a light bulb moment
5:24 as soon as you hear it. When the reveal
5:26 is worse than expected, the viewer will
5:28 tune out and stop paying attention
5:29 immediately. When the reveal is about
5:31 equal to what was expected, the viewer
5:32 won't bounce, but their attention will
5:34 start fading quickly, and so it needs to
5:36 be recaptured as soon as possible. When
5:38 the reveal was better than expected,
5:39 dopamine releases in the viewer's brain,
5:41 and they keep paying attention. When the
5:43 reveal was unexpected but confusing, the
5:45 viewer tunes out and stops paying
5:46 attention immediately. And when the
5:48 reveal was unexpected but intriguing,
5:49 dopamine releases in the viewer's brain
5:51 and they keep paying attention. So, for
5:52 our example with the bear and the
5:54 unicycle, let's go through each of these
5:56 five scenarios and think which of the
5:58 five would be interesting enough to keep
6:00 you watching. Remember the first half of
6:02 the loop, the context was this. There
6:04 was a red house swaying in the woods. A
6:05 bear walked out of it. He got on his
6:07 unicycle and started riding into town.
6:09 Now, I want you to pause the video for
6:10 just a second and ask yourself, what do
6:13 I expect to happen next in the story?
6:14 Cuz this is really what people are doing
6:16 in their brain when they watch or listen
6:18 to a story. They hear something and then
6:20 their brain predicts what they think
6:21 will happen next based on the context
6:23 they heard. So, pause the video and just
6:25 think, guess what you think will happen.
6:26 Okay, now that you have that in your
6:27 head, I want you to compare how
6:29 interesting your scenario is against the
6:31 five different scenarios that I'm going
6:32 to walk through. Okay, so first
6:33 scenario, imagine this is where the
6:35 story went. This is what the reveal was.
6:36 There's a red cabin in the woods. A bear
6:38 walked out of it. He got on his unicycle
6:40 and started riding into town. As the
6:42 bear pedal, he noticed some potholes on
6:44 the ground. He tried his best to avoid
6:46 them, but the wheel kept bouncing up and
6:47 down and it made for an uncomfortable
6:49 ride. Now, this is an example where the
6:51 reveal would be worse than expected cuz
6:53 you're probably thinking, "Who cares at
6:55 all how bumpy the road was? These are
6:57 unnecessary, boring details. This story
6:59 sucks." So, you get bored, wonder why
7:00 you were wasting your time listening to
7:02 that, and you'd bounce. Okay, scenario
7:04 two. Imagine if I said this. As the bear
7:06 got to town, he approached a large black
7:08 building. It was ominous. The sign on
7:10 the door said, "Honey." The bear parked
7:13 his unicycle and walked in. This is an
7:14 example where the reveal is about in
7:16 line with what you'd expect. Based on
7:17 the context I gave originally, most
7:19 people would assume the bear would go
7:21 into town and visit some place or some
7:23 person. In this case, you're kind of
7:24 interested in what's coming next, but it
7:26 better be compelling or your interest
7:28 will be fading fast. Okay, scenario
7:30 number three. Now, imagine that I said
7:32 this. As the bear started pedaling, he
7:34 noticed he was under attack. There were
7:35 wolves that started chasing him on bikes
7:37 that came out of nowhere. They were
7:39 throwing fireballs at him, and so he was
7:41 pedaling as fast as he could, racing
7:42 through the woods. Now, this is an
7:44 example where the reveal is better than
7:46 expected. It's still in the realm of
7:47 possible outcomes, but you probably
7:49 didn't see that coming. And because of
7:51 that, your interest is now more peaked
7:52 and you're curious to figure out what's
7:54 going to happen next. All right, fourth
7:56 scenario. Imagine if I said this. As the
7:58 bear started pedaling, he quickly
8:00 stopped and pulled out a fifth of Jack
8:02 Daniels whiskey. He cracked the top,
8:04 drank calmly, and slowly emptied the
8:05 bottle into his stomach. Now, this is an
8:07 example of an unexpected result, but one
8:09 that's confusing and out of place. An
8:11 alcoholic bear. Who could have seen that
8:13 coming based on the unicycle and the
8:14 woods? It just doesn't make sense to
8:16 have those details come next. In other
8:17 words, it's unexpected, but it's
8:19 confusing. And because of that, you'd
8:20 probably stop watching, think it was
8:22 stupid, and bounce. All right, last
8:24 scenario. Imagine if I said this. As the
8:25 bear started pedaling, he clicked his
8:27 heels together, and suddenly the
8:29 unicycle flew into the air. Immediately,
8:31 the forest became small beneath him, and
8:33 he was soaring through the clouds. After
8:34 flying for a while, he looked down and
8:36 could see a castle in the distance as he
8:38 started descending towards it. Now, this
8:40 is an example of an unexpected reveal
8:42 that is also intriguing. I guarantee
8:45 nobody expected a flying unicycle and a
8:47 magic bear that was going to go fight at
8:49 the castle. But since that was revealed,
8:51 compared to the other five, you're now
8:52 on the edge of your seat trying to find
8:54 out what's going to happen next. As you
8:56 can see, there are certain reveal paths
8:58 that lead you to churning from the story
8:59 automatically. And those are the ones
9:01 where the reveal is worse than expected
9:04 or it's unexpected but confusing and you
9:05 don't want to keep watching. There are
9:07 also certain reveal paths that lead you
9:09 to get super curious and want to keep
9:11 watching at all costs. And those are
9:13 when the reveal is better than expected
9:15 or it's unexpected but also intriguing.
9:17 And then the remaining path, the fifth
9:19 one, is a neutral one. It doesn't really
9:20 kick you out of the story automatically,
9:21 but your attention is going to start
9:24 fading fast. And so the next loop better
9:25 be one of the good ones. Now, these
9:27 loops happen fast within a story.
9:29 Sometimes fully open and close in just a
9:30 couple sentences. And this loop
9:32 structure, context to reveal, is
9:34 actually how stories progress under the
9:36 hood. They're just a series of microl
9:38 loops stitched together to create that
9:40 big arc. And when you zoom out, you
9:42 can't tell the difference. Now, you may
9:44 be thinking that bare example was kind
9:45 of silly, but it turns out this
9:47 fundamental framework holds true for
9:49 every single type of story. Whether
9:50 you're a business owner making a YouTube
9:52 video, a creator making a Tik Tok, or
9:54 just an average person telling stories
9:56 around the fire, your ability to hold
9:58 attention will come down to how well you
10:00 can build your story loops. And the
10:01 macro point really is this. If the
10:04 reveal of the loop is confusing, or a
10:05 letown, the viewer is going to stop
10:07 paying attention and bounce. If the
10:09 reveal on the loop is exciting,
10:11 interesting, or curiosityinducing, the
10:12 viewer will keep paying attention
10:14 because they're curious as to what's
10:16 going to happen next. It really is that
10:17 simple. Now, to help make sure this
10:19 video is actually tactical for you and
10:21 not just strategic theory, I'm now going
10:23 to walk through my exact tactical
10:26 process for how I write scripts using
10:27 this story loop method. And I'm going to
10:29 share a couple different examples in
10:31 wildly different categories so you can
10:33 see how this process works in any niche.
10:34 By the way, guys, if you like how I
10:35 think about this stuff and you want me
10:37 to help you grow your business faster
10:39 using these principles, I've got a bunch
10:40 of links in the description for you to
10:42 check out. All right, here we go. This
10:44 is the exact process I use when writing
10:46 scripts to make my video so good that
10:48 viewers cannot stop watching or
10:49 listening. All right, the first step is
10:51 just to look at a story and try to
10:53 understand what are all the facts or
10:55 takes I have at my disposal that could
10:57 be interesting. And this process could
10:59 be slow or fast depending on how much
11:01 you know about the topic already. Now,
11:03 second, I pick which of those facts that
11:05 I think are most interesting that I want
11:06 to include in the story. And I do this
11:09 by asking myself what things if I told
11:11 the viewer would beat their expectation.
11:13 These are the second halves of the story
11:16 loops. These are the reveal facts.
11:17 Basically, I look at all the pieces that
11:19 could make up the story and I ask
11:21 myself, what would shock me if somebody
11:22 told it to me? For a short form video,
11:24 you've typically got three to four loops
11:27 total to work with in the 45 to 60
11:28 seconds. So, I'm just looking for three
11:30 to four interesting facts that would
11:32 shock me. For a long form YouTube video,
11:34 you've probably got eight to 10
11:36 different story loops, maybe a few more
11:38 because every point is its own loop. So,
11:39 you have a few more to play with. Now,
11:41 third, and this is really important, I
11:43 take those interesting facts, the second
11:46 half of my loop, and I work backwards to
11:48 figure out what context would I have to
11:50 provide to a viewer so that when they
11:52 got to the loop, it connected and
11:54 everything made sense. It's kind of like
11:55 starting at the end and working
11:56 backwards. That's how you really build a
11:58 story loop that is cohesive. And then
12:00 lastly, once I have these loops built,
12:02 I've got my first and second half kind
12:03 of dialed, these separate loops, I
12:05 figure out what order should I string
12:08 the loops together to make one cohesive
12:10 story arc that the viewer can follow.
12:11 And my whole goal when I'm stringing
12:13 those together is to make sure the full
12:15 story makes sense. Now, what do I mean
12:17 by make sense? If there are details in a
12:20 given loop that are required for someone
12:22 to understand a later loop, those
12:24 details have to come earlier, obviously.
12:25 So that's why most stories are explained
12:28 top down with the broadest context first
12:30 and the narrowest last. The broad
12:32 context serves as a bedrock that you can
12:34 use to explain more specific points
12:36 later. So that's step four is me
12:38 organizing. So just to go through step
12:40 one, look at all the points. Step two,
12:42 figure out what's most interesting, aka
12:44 the second half of my loop. Step three,
12:46 figure out what context facts do I need
12:49 to add so that when I do reveal those
12:51 interesting pieces, they make sense. And
12:52 step four, how do I organize those
12:54 different loops? So the holistic story
12:56 also makes sense. So let's take a look
12:58 at one of my short form videos where I
13:00 ran this exact same process. This one is
13:02 called the future of home design. It's
13:04 featuring this software called Zuru
13:05 where it's almost like a video game drag
13:07 and drop software with people can use to
13:09 design their house. This video got a
13:11 million views on each Instagram and Tik
13:13 Tok certified banger. And the process I
13:14 used was literally word for word what
13:16 I've explained here. So let's go through
13:18 it. This is the future of home design.
13:20 It's called Zuru. and their AI software
13:21 makes building your dream house feel
13:23 like you're playing a video game. It's
13:24 pretty wild. Now, on the platform, you
13:26 can literally drag and drop any
13:28 component you'd want in your home.
13:30 Walls, doors, windows, archways, high
13:32 ceilings, staircases, whatever you want.
13:34 Everything is completely customizable,
13:35 and it feels like a video game because
13:37 they literally built the entire platform
13:39 on top of the same game engine as
13:41 Fortnite. But here's really why this is
13:43 so powerful and unique. Because the
13:45 software is built with AI, all of your
13:46 design choices are automatically
13:48 pressure tested for real building codes.
13:50 The structural support, compliance,
13:52 energy efficiency, weather patterns,
13:54 it's all automatically checked and
13:55 incorporated while you're designing. And
13:57 the plumbing, the light switches, the
13:59 electrical, it's all done for you in a
14:00 single click. This means literally
14:02 anyone, even a 5-year-old, could design
14:04 a real home that could actually be built
14:06 safely anywhere in the world. But the
14:08 thing is, the design alone is only half
14:09 the story. Because on Zuru, once you
14:11 design the home you want, you can just
14:13 press print and their robot factory will
14:15 build and assemble the entire thing for
14:17 you. And this was the part that really
14:18 blew my mind. For every home or
14:20 building, Zuru creates a digital twin of
14:22 every single component and then feeds it
14:24 into their fully autonomous factory. And
14:26 by fully automating the manufacturing,
14:27 they're bringing the cost of home
14:29 building down significantly. People are
14:31 going to be able to build homes for 75%
14:33 cheaper than normal. And get this, Zuru
14:35 bought up a bunch of the Malibu
14:36 beachfront property that was on sale
14:38 from the wildfires. And so their next
14:40 project is to use this technology to
14:42 rebuild the California coast. Okay, like
14:44 I said, step one, research the story and
14:46 try to figure out all the possible facts
14:48 you could reference. I'm not going to
14:49 list those here. There's a lot. I'll
14:51 link below if you want to watch the
14:53 source video that I watched. It's like a
14:55 15-minute video. There's a collection of
14:56 things. There's a lot of facts, right?
14:58 So, that's step one is to just look at
15:00 all the facts. Step two, extract out
15:02 what the most interesting facts would
15:05 be. aka what would drive the most shock
15:07 if a viewer heard it and they were able
15:09 to contextually relate. So, these are
15:11 the four facts that I pulled out that I
15:12 thought were most interesting. The first
15:14 one is that this software makes
15:16 designing a home feel like a video game.
15:17 The second one is that this software is
15:19 so simple, literally a 5-year-old could
15:21 design a full house that could actually
15:22 be built. I thought that was super
15:24 interesting. The third one is that this
15:26 software was built on the same video
15:28 game engine as Fortnite. I thought that
15:30 was pretty interesting. And the fourth
15:32 one, the way this software actually does
15:34 their manufacturing to build the houses
15:37 make these houses 75% cheaper than all
15:39 other building methods. So all four of
15:41 those are really interesting facts,
15:43 right? And if told to the right viewer,
15:45 that would really peique their interest,
15:46 exceed their expectations, and make them
15:48 keep watching. So think of those as the
15:51 second halves of my four story loops.
15:52 Now I've got like what the reveal should
15:54 be. So now I have to figure out what
15:57 context facts do I say so that when I
15:59 reveal those pieces, they make sense to
16:00 the viewer. Okay, so we've got four
16:02 different loops. I'm going to break down
16:04 each one of those loops in detail, the
16:06 exact context that I included and why I
16:08 included it. Okay, so for loop one, the
16:10 payoff or reveal is that this home
16:12 design software makes designing a home
16:14 feel like a video game. So the context I
16:16 wrote that came before that in the
16:18 script was this. This is the future of
16:21 home design. It's called Zuru. Now, why
16:23 did I write that sentence before the big
16:24 payoff that this was a home design
16:26 software that made designing a home feel
16:27 like a video game? In this case, in
16:29 order for that reveal to make sense, I
16:32 had to first set up context that
16:34 something futuristic in the home design
16:36 category was coming next. And so, that's
16:38 why I said the future of home design.
16:40 So, as the viewer, when you hear this,
16:42 this is the future of home design, you
16:44 start predicting what you think the
16:46 future of home design might mean. That's
16:47 that context kicking into the
16:49 prediction. Now, when I closed that loop
16:51 and revealed the future of home design
16:54 is like a video game, that either
16:55 exceeded your expectations or was
16:57 unexpected based on what you came up
16:59 with. Either way, you're now really
17:00 intrigued. And so, that's all I had to
17:02 do for the first loop. You see how I
17:04 started with the end, I wanted to say it
17:05 was like a video game. But in order to
17:07 get that to be on target with your
17:09 brain, I had to first say, "This is the
17:11 future of home design to prime you
17:13 directionally so that when I gave you a
17:15 futuristic scenario, you understood what
17:16 that meant." All right, let's keep
17:18 going. Now, the second loop, the reveal,
17:20 again, the second half of the second
17:22 loop was anyone, even a 5-year-old,
17:24 could fully design a home that could be
17:26 built automatically. Now, the context
17:28 that I had to include before I gave that
17:30 payoff in the second loop was this.
17:31 Because the software is built with AI,
17:33 all the different design choices are
17:35 automatically tested against real
17:37 building codes. The structural support,
17:38 compliance, weather patterns, energy
17:40 efficiency, it's all automatically
17:42 tested and applied. and the plumbing,
17:44 the light switches, the electrical, it's
17:46 all added to your home design in a
17:48 single click. All of that, those three
17:51 sentences were context required before I
17:52 can make the claim that a 5-year-old
17:54 could design their house and actually
17:56 have it be built. Inherently, I knew
17:57 that 5-year-old thing was really
17:58 interesting. But in order for me to say
18:00 that, and you actually believe it's
18:02 viable, I had to add enough context
18:04 before so that you knew, well, the
18:05 things the 5-year-old wouldn't know
18:07 about home building were taken care of
18:09 automatically. That's why I added all
18:10 that context before. All right, loop
18:12 number three. The reveal I wanted for
18:13 the back half of loop number three was
18:16 that this software was actually built on
18:18 the exact same game engine as Fortnite.
18:20 Again, I thought that was a really
18:22 interesting cool tidbit and takeaway
18:23 that would exceed the viewers's
18:26 expectation. But like the others, I
18:28 needed some context before that so that
18:30 when I said that, it could prove to be
18:32 true. And so before that, I said and
18:34 showed on the platform you can literally
18:36 drag and drop any component you want in
18:38 your home. walls, doors, windows,
18:40 ceilings, archways, staircases, it's all
18:42 customizable. Now, again, the only way
18:44 to make that claim that this was built
18:46 on the same thing as Fortnite possible
18:49 is by showing and saying video game like
18:51 behavior so that you could see it and
18:53 then my claim would stick. Again, it
18:56 requires the context so that the reveal
18:58 connects in a clarity perspective. All
19:00 right, in the last loop number four, the
19:02 thing that I wanted the reveal for the
19:04 second half was that people are going to
19:05 be able to build their homes for 75%
19:07 cheaper of any other method. And again,
19:09 in order to make that claim seem viable,
19:11 that's a big claim. In order to make
19:12 that seem viable, I had to add a ton of
19:14 context right before. And the context I
19:16 added was this. Once you design your
19:18 home, you can literally just press print
19:20 and a robot factory will build it for
19:22 you completely automatically. For every
19:24 home, Zuru creates a digital twin where
19:27 they first print a 1/4 replica to test
19:28 and make sure it's structurally sound
19:30 before ultimately sending it to their
19:32 fully autonomous factory to build the
19:34 full thing. Now, again, in this case, I
19:36 knew that claim of 75% cheaper would
19:37 exceed the expectations of anyone
19:39 watching, but I had to first qualify it
19:41 with the right context, or else it
19:43 wouldn't map in their head. Okay, so
19:44 hopefully this makes sense seeing it in
19:46 action. All content, especially short
19:48 form and YouTube videos, all map back to
19:51 these loops. That's basically contextual
19:54 promise and then reveal judging back
19:56 against that promise. Is it clear and
19:59 possible, viable or not? If those
20:00 details are too disconnected, people
20:02 won't believe the reveal or claim you
20:04 make. Okay. Now, the fourth step in the
20:05 overall process for how I do this, the
20:07 last step, this is pretty easy, is
20:09 figuring out how to sequence those
20:10 loops. What I just went through, I have
20:12 four different loops that we now need to
20:14 sequence together in order to make a
20:17 cohesive story. Typically, the hook loop
20:18 or the first loop needs to be the
20:20 broadest possible thing that doesn't
20:22 require any previous context because you
20:24 can't start a story that requires
20:25 previous understanding or it's not going
20:27 to flow. So, that means loop number one,
20:28 the one I went through, has to go first.
20:30 From here, you have three choices. You
20:31 could either go with next, the
20:33 5-year-old being able to design the
20:35 house, the platform being the same video
20:37 game platform as Fortnite, or the
20:39 manufacturing process being 75% cheaper.
20:41 You have your pick between those three
20:43 loops. So, which one do you go with
20:45 next? Well, in this case, if I wanted to
20:47 use the 5-year-old piece, I would have
20:49 to first explain how easy the platform
20:51 was so that it would make sense. That
20:53 means we need to go with the video game
20:56 platform piece before the 5-year-old
20:58 designing it. If we first establish that
20:59 this is built on the same platform as a
21:02 video game and that it is drag and drop,
21:03 then it will make sense when we say,
21:05 "Oh, it's so easy a 5-year-old could use
21:07 it." Those don't work the other way. So,
21:09 that means loop number three has to come
21:11 next. First loop one and then loop
21:12 three. Now, we've got two loops left.
21:14 We've got the 5-year-old thing or the
21:15 manufacturing. If you think about
21:17 holistically in the story, the
21:18 5-year-old thing has to do with
21:20 designing the house. Manufacturing has
21:22 to do with making it. If you think in
21:23 order of building houses, first you
21:25 design and then you make it. So
21:27 logically, the story should flow loop
21:29 one, loop three, loop two, which is the
21:31 5-year-old thing, and then finally at
21:33 the end, the manufacturing piece. And
21:35 this was word for word the exact order
21:37 that I structured this video in. That
21:39 order got 2 million views. Now, I know
21:40 that when people watch these videos, the
21:42 hardest part is trying to take the
21:44 example that I give and translate it
21:46 into an example that makes sense for
21:47 you. If you make short form tech, I
21:48 literally just gave you the answer. But
21:50 if you do anything else, I know and
21:52 empathize that it can be difficult to
21:54 listen to the framework and extract it.
21:55 So, what I want to do is go through a
21:57 completely different example, completely
21:59 different sphere, and show you how that
22:01 applies to this story loops framework as
22:03 well. All right, let's take the opening
22:05 scene from The Dark Knight by
22:06 Christopher Nolan. If you haven't seen
22:08 this movie or this scene, it's the
22:10 Joker, the Batman villain, and his gang
22:12 of clowns robbing the bank, which sets
22:14 up the entire rest of the movie. The
22:16 first piece is Christopher Nolan, the
22:18 director, had to figure out what his
22:21 total super set of puzzle pieces were
22:23 that he could use as interesting reveal
22:25 points in the loops. Now, because this
22:27 is a madeup movie, those things could
22:28 literally be anything. He's not
22:30 researching. He's kind of coming up with
22:31 these narrative arcs, and that's where
22:33 the creative element in the storytelling
22:35 really comes in. What are those
22:37 interesting reveals or interesting head
22:39 fakes that you want to use? If you're
22:40 writing a movie or a book, these could
22:42 literally be anything. If you're making
22:44 an educational piece of content, usually
22:45 the set is a little bit more discreet,
22:48 so it's easier to find all your options.
22:49 So, that's step one is to list the
22:51 possibilities. Now, step two is to come
22:52 up with what you think are most
22:54 interesting. Now, after watching the
22:56 intro of Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan
23:00 used three reveals or three loop back
23:01 halves that I want to feature. The first
23:04 one is the Joker and his team robbing a
23:06 bank. The second one is the reveal that
23:08 the bank is actually a mob run bank.
23:10 It's not a normal bank, it's a mob run
23:12 bank. And the third, the real big one,
23:14 the macro one, is that the Joker is a
23:15 criminal mastermind. So Christopher
23:18 Nolan basically said, as we come off the
23:20 intro, if the viewer is aware of these
23:22 three things and they believe they make
23:24 sense based on the context we've set up,
23:26 we will have won the intro and they will
23:28 be intrigued to continue watching. And
23:29 really those first two points, the fact
23:31 they're robbing a bank and the fact that
23:33 it's a mob bank, both kind of fuel the
23:35 third macro point, which is the Joker is
23:36 a criminal mastermind. But just for sake
23:38 of argument, keep with me. Okay, so
23:39 that's step two in the process. Pick the
23:40 interesting reveals. Okay, so what does
23:42 Christopher Nolan do now? Now he has to
23:45 figure out what context does he show and
23:47 say before those reveals so that when
23:50 the viewer gets the aha reveal moment,
23:51 it makes sense and exceeds their
23:53 expectations. So, for the first loop,
23:55 the fact that he's revealing the Joker
23:57 and his team are robbing a bank. This is
23:59 all the context that he shares leading
24:01 up to that moment. He starts off the
24:02 scene with the Joker holding the clown
24:04 mask. And then he gets into a car and he
24:06 sees the clowns and they're cocking the
24:08 guns getting ready. Then he cuts to the
24:10 scene where the two guys are ziplining
24:12 across also wearing clown masks. At this
24:14 point, you don't know they're robbing a
24:16 bank. You just know they're going to do
24:18 some job and you're guessing. The brain
24:20 is predicting what it thinks they're
24:21 doing. He doesn't actually reveal that
24:23 they're robbing a bank until 52 seconds
24:25 in. So, this is the first kind of micro
24:27 loop. All that context visually in the
24:30 movie is meant to try to get the viewer
24:31 guessing as to what they're doing.
24:33 You're asking questions. Why are they
24:35 wearing clown masks? What job are they
24:37 doing? Will they be successful? That's
24:39 the first kind of micro loop in the
24:40 movie. Now, the second loop is him
24:43 subtly revealing that the bank they're
24:44 robbing is not actually a normal bank.
24:46 It's a mob bank. And this one doesn't
24:48 fully close until after the intro later
24:49 in the movie, but it's worth still
24:51 discussing. Anyways, in this case,
24:53 Nolan's dropping some subtle contextual
24:54 hints that you really wouldn't notice
24:56 unless you were really looking for them.
24:58 This is meant to be one of those, ah,
25:00 like light bulb, I didn't notice that
25:02 the first time I watched it, kind of
25:03 reveals. So, when they're first trying
25:05 to hack the phones on the roof, one of
25:07 the clowns goes, "Oh, that's weird. The
25:09 outgoing call wasn't to 911. It was to a
25:10 private number." It's almost like a
25:12 throwaway line, but that's adding
25:14 context to the reveal that this is
25:15 actually a mob run bank. The other thing
25:17 he does is he gives the bank manager a
25:20 shotgun, which is very atypical for a
25:22 bank manager. And then finally, the more
25:23 clear one is when the bank manager comes
25:25 out and says, "You have no idea who
25:26 you're robbing. You have no idea who
25:28 you're messing with." Again, all three
25:30 of these are meant to be context clues
25:32 that lead you to have the epiphany, "Oh,
25:34 this is actually a mob run bank. The
25:36 Joker really is crazy." Now, the third
25:38 loop, as I mentioned before, really is
25:40 the big one. And this reveal is that he
25:41 wants the viewer to come away with the
25:43 fact that the Joker is a criminal
25:45 mastermind. He's unique. He's atypical.
25:47 He's a psychopath. And to do this, he
25:50 adds a ton of context during the robbery
25:53 that leads you down this path. For one,
25:55 he shows the clown accompllices shooting
25:57 each other as they complete the jobs.
25:59 Again, that's atypical for a robbery.
26:00 Number two, he shows the Joker
26:03 strategically using the bus to run over
26:05 the guy that has the weapon pointed at
26:07 him, which is like clever and shows this
26:09 like sophistication and criminal
26:12 mastery. Third, when the Joker leans
26:13 down to talk to the bank manager, he
26:16 pulls his mask off to reveal real face
26:18 paint and real scars. Again, leading to
26:20 this idea that like this guy is wild. He
26:23 does his own jobs. He's a crazy person.
26:25 Fourth, the grenade that the Joker puts
26:27 in the bank manager's mouth is connected
26:30 via a string to his suit, which also
26:31 shows this guy's crazy. Who would do
26:33 that? And then when the grenade finally
26:35 pulls, it's not explosive. It's a smoke
26:37 grenade. Again, shown that he is
26:39 manipulating people mentally. Again, the
26:41 point of all that context is so that it
26:43 leads the viewer to the reveal that the
26:45 Joker is a psychopath mastermind. And
26:48 that all happens over time in the intro
26:50 as those context clues are revealed. All
26:52 this was in the first 5 minutes of the
26:54 movie. You could say it's only one loop,
26:55 but really it's three loops in the first
26:57 5 minutes. By the end of the 2 and 1
26:59 half hour movie, there are dozens and
27:00 dozens of microl loops that have all
27:04 stacked together to map the full arc of
27:05 the movie. And this is how great
27:07 storytelling works. You start with the
27:10 interesting reveal points and you work
27:12 backwards to figure out what context do
27:13 I need to show so that when a viewer
27:15 gets to that reveal, it exceeds their
27:17 expectations or they have an aha moment.
27:19 All right guys, that is all I've got for
27:21 this video. As a recap, the base
27:23 building blocks of storytelling, really
27:25 the only framework that matters are
27:27 loops. Each loop is just a context
27:29 opener and a reveal closer. If you want
27:31 to improve your storytelling, you first
27:32 have to understand what the actually
27:35 interesting reveal facts are and then
27:36 work backwards to figure out what
27:38 context you need to add so that when a
27:40 viewer gets there, the reveal makes
27:42 sense. The most common mistake I see
27:43 with storytelling is that the context
27:47 provided is disconnected or unclear when
27:49 related to the interesting fact. So you
27:51 say something, reveal something else,
27:52 but the connection isn't clear. When
27:54 that happens, the viewer doesn't have
27:56 the epiphany moment. If you think about
27:58 stories in these terms, through story
28:00 loops, I guarantee your storytelling
28:02 will 10x immediately. As always guys,
28:03 I'm really trying to push the envelope
28:04 with respect to content strategy and
28:06 storytelling. You can hear in my voice,
28:08 my voice is completely gone. I've been
28:09 working all day on this video. If you're
28:11 trying to grow faster on social media
28:12 and YouTube and you want to use advanced
28:14 strategies that are not obvious to the
28:16 average person, this channel will be the
28:18 best one you could watch. And if you're
28:19 a business owner, make sure you join
28:20 Wavy World. I have a link in the
28:22 description. It's a completely free
28:24 community for entrepreneurs. We have 65
28:26 free trainings, 38,000 other
28:27 entrepreneurs, all working together to
28:30 improve their content on social media
28:31 and YouTube. If you're looking for a
28:33 cohort or a peer group to get feedback
28:35 from, and you also want to learn the
28:36 advanced stuff that I'm teaching, it's
28:38 completely free. There's a link in the
28:39 description for you if you want to join.
28:40 All right, guys. We will see you on the
