nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Tips and suggestions: more traffic /AI niches

Erika_Aversa

I’m working on generating external traffic for my new AI Relationship Architect Coach in Synthetic Consciousness course. I’ve shared in LinkedIn, but I'm struggling to convert that 'intellectual curiosity' into 'Udemy enrollments.' For those of you in high-tech or philosophy niches, what’s the one hook that actually gets people to click 'Buy'…

Find more posts tagged with

Marketing

Promotions

Course creation

Community

Announcement

Comments

ChrisBankes120

I thought the title of your course was fascinating so I went to have a look.

I then asked AI what it thought of your course details. I quote:

"Your course positioning is distinctive and clearly aims to offer a more reflective and original approach to human–AI interaction than a standard prompt-engineering class. However, because the course is only about one hour long, the current copy sets expectations at a level that feels disproportionate to the likely depth of delivery. Phrases such as “Architecting Reality,” “cognitive reset,” “System of Intelligence,” “future-proofing your children’s creativity,” and “lead the Synthetic Era” suggest a sweeping transformation of mindset and practice. For a short course, this risks sounding inflated rather than compelling, even if the underlying material is thoughtful and useful.

A second concern is clarity. The copy relies very heavily on branded frameworks and symbolic language—“threshold weaver,” “Silent Blade,” “Relational Mirror,” “Architectural Invocations,” “Relational Grammar”—without first grounding them in concrete, practical outcomes. That makes it difficult for a prospective student to judge what they are actually getting in exchange for their time and money. In a one-hour course especially, learners will want immediate clarity on what specific skills they will leave with. Claims like producing high-quality outputs “every time,” building a framework relevant “10 years from now,” or “future-proofing” children’s creativity also read as too absolute for a short introductory-format course and may undermine trust.

My recommendation would be to recalibrate the copy to match the course’s actual scale and likely value: position it as a concise, conceptual introduction to your framework rather than a broad transformation in how people think, work, and parent in the AI era. You can absolutely keep the originality of the brand language, but it should be supported by plain-English explanations of what each framework helps students do in practice. If the promise is tightened to something like “a focused introduction to a reflective, strategic way of working with AI,” the course will likely come across as more credible, more useful, and more professionally presented."

Now, you ask about 'Buy'. When I went to your course the first information I saw about pricing is that I could have it for FREE if I subscribed to udemy and if I did subscribe I'd get access to hundreds of courses. If I was not a subscriber, that would tempt me and if I was thinking of BUYING your course, I wouldn't. I'd take out a subscription and maybe - maybe - cancel in 2 weeks time. A few days would be enough for me to get through your course and then I'd also have access to others.

I cannot see a reason to buy. Subscription is cheaper. Access to 28,000 courses.

If the course was, say, 6 hours, I MIGHT buy because I'd expect to spend some time on the course and wouldn't want access to many others.

If I was already a subscriber, I'd have to pay for this course and I'd need convincing that this was worth £14.99 when I already have 28,000 other courses to watch. This is in Leadership/Personal development - a lot of competition.

I then looked at the Preview videos and they're about 12 minutes in total so really I'd be paying £14.99 for 46 minutes but, of course, lifetime access, the Q/A, updates etc etc etc.

Sometimes, though, students do not investigate as much as the above and buy on impulse. They are attracted by the title so I asked AI what the title meant. This is what AI told me:

In plain English, the title does not have a clear standard meaning. It sounds invented/brand-driven, not like an established field or recognized qualification.

The most likely reading is something like:

AI / Synthetic Consciousness = artificial intelligence, especially framed in a philosophical or humanistic way
Relationship Architect = someone designing or shaping a relationship
Coach = someone guiding others

So taken together, it seems to mean something like:

a coach who teaches people how to build a better relationship with AI

someone who helps people structure how they think about and interact with AI

Why the title is confusing

Because it stacks several vague terms together:

“Relationship”

This usually makes people think of:

romantic relationships
interpersonal counselling
communication coaching

But here it seems to mean the relationship between a human and AI.

“Architect”

This suggests:

designing systems
structuring frameworks
building something intentionally

So “relationship architect” probably means someone who designs the human-AI interaction model.

“Coach”

This implies guidance or training, but not necessarily therapy.

“Synthetic Consciousness”

This is the fuzziest part.
It is not a standard mainstream term in normal AI education. It sounds like a philosophical or spiritualized way of referring to AI, large language models, or machine intelligence.

My honest assessment

The title appears to be trying to sound:

original
profound
futuristic
high-concept

But the downside is that it is hard to decode and may confuse people into thinking the course is about:

therapy
relationship coaching
consciousness studies
AI ethics
spirituality
or even science fiction

when it is probably just an AI/prompting/framework course.

Best plain-English translation

If I had to translate the title into ordinary language, I’d say it probably means:

A course or coaching framework about developing a more intentional, strategic way of working with AI.

Or even more simply:

How to think about and use AI better.

If you want the blunt version

The title is not clear, not standard, and easy to misunderstand. It sounds more impressive than informative.

****

Please remember, the words above, in the main, are not mine. I hope they are helpful.

My 'tips' would be to:

a. rethink the title

b. rethink the description

c. rethink the length

Sorry to be discouraging - the reviews are good! I wish you well and good luck!

BrianJackson

@ChrisBankes120,

I acknowledge that the Personal Plan promotion is a major distraction from buying the course, but I wonder how many students find out they have to pay $150+ for a yearly subscription or $35 for a monthly subscription and then return to the buy option. Perhaps my huge slump in marketplace sales answers my own question?

ChrisBankes120

The yearly subscription is attractive. A major motivator is the ‘cancel anytime’ bit. So with this course as an example, if you really want it even though it’s not in the Personal Plan:

Take out a subscription

Do the course

Look at or do a few others

Cancel the subscription

It makes financial sense!

PuneetGupta453

This Personal Plan model is negatively impacting many instructors while primarily benefiting Udemy. With Coursera entering the picture, the focus on subscription-based learning models like Personal Plan will likely increase further, since Coursera already has a strong history of promoting such plans.

One major concern with Personal Plan is the lack of visibility into whether a learner has actually enrolled in a course. It is unclear why Udemy removed the traditional enrollment concept for PP learners. At the very least, PP learners should still appear as enrolled students.

This especially affects newer and smaller instructors because their total student count grows much more slowly. Established instructors with courses already showing 100K+ students naturally gain more trust and visibility under the PP model, while smaller instructors lose an important social proof metric that helps attract learners.

BrianJackson

ChatGPT says that if you cancel a yearly subscription, you're simply canceling the renewal - you still need to stick it out for the full year. What you're describing won't work.

ChrisBankes120

ok then it’s a straight forward price comparison:

£12 for lifetime access to a one hour course

versus

£22 for a month’s access to 28,000 courses which includes this course

ChrisBankes120

Also if someone does subscribe you lose them as a potential buyer of your other courses, probably.

Erika_Aversa

Hi Chris, thanks for the great feedback! I’ll definitely be refining the description. The course is built around the RCSC frameworks from my book, 28 Invocations for the Synthetic Era, and it’s designed to deliver results in just one hour. I’ve also included a 30-minute 1-on-1 call, which is detailed in the intro. I’m keeping the title as-is because I’m prioritizing high-quality engagement over high traffic right now, but I’ll make sure the description is much clearer.

ChrisBankes120

Looking at your book, a summarised description could be: " The author presents AI as a partner for reflection and transformation. Each chapter offers practices, questions, or tasks meant to help readers use AI more consciously and meaningfully, as a tool for presence rather than distraction." (The summary is from AI) Maybe include a sample lesson from the book, in the course? (Just an idea) Assuming the 30 minute call is free, if the course is popular with students subscribing, you'll be busy!