Brunson watched Jason Fladlien do something that looked like a mistake: after a webinar, Fladlien spent 90 extra minutes busting every objection he could think of, one after another.1
The format was relentless: "You're probably thinking X, right? Well, actually..." — over and over, for about 50 objections Brunson hadn't even mentioned in the main webinar.
Brunson started sweating; they'd been live three hours; what would people think?2
The result: they sold three times more during Fladlien's 90 minutes of objection-busting than in the first 90 minutes of the actual webinar.
The avalanche of pre-empted objections outsold the entire presentation.3
The mechanism is that every unaddressed objection is a potential no, and addressing all of them removes every exit.4
A prospect holds many objections, most unspoken. Each one is a reason not to buy. Address a few and the unaddressed ones remain as exits. Address all of them — including ones the prospect hadn't consciously formed yet — and there's no objection left to hide behind.
Fladlien's avalanche works by exhaustion of the objection-space. "You're probably thinking X" surfaces an objection the prospect might have, then dissolves it, before the prospect even uses it. By the end of 50 objections, every possible reason to say no has been named and countered. There's no resistance left.
This is the belief-inventory deployed at maximum volume — the 20+ pre-built counter-stories fired in sequence until the objection-space is empty. Volume isn't padding; it's coverage, and coverage is what removes every exit.
The subtlest part is that the avalanche addresses objections the prospect hasn't consciously thought of yet.5
"You're probably thinking you need to know how to code, right?" — said to a prospect who hadn't yet worried about coding. This does two things: it dissolves the objection before it forms, and it demonstrates the seller understands the prospect's mind so well they know the prospect's objections better than the prospect does.
The demonstration builds trust ("this person really gets my situation") while the dissolution removes the barrier. But it also plants objections — naming "you're probably thinking you need to code" introduces the coding worry to prospects who didn't have it, then resolves it. Net, it's usually positive (resolved objection beats unraised one), but it's worth noting the technique can install worries in order to resolve them, manufacturing the problem it solves.
This is why the avalanche feels like mind-reading and functions as control. The seller has mapped the entire objection-space in advance and walks the prospect through every exit, closing each — including exits the prospect would never have found alone. By the end, the prospect has been shown they have no objections, which is different from actually having none.
Brunson reports the technique replicating: Brandon and Kaelin Poulin, already selling ~$200k/month on webinars, added 30 minutes of objection-busting and doubled their sales.6
They didn't change the offer or the core presentation. They added a segment of "you're probably thinking X, right?" at the end — and sales doubled. The avalanche was pure addition, and it doubled an already-successful webinar.
This is strong evidence (self-reported, but replicated across operators) that the objection-avalanche is a large, real effect. Adding objection-busting to a working presentation reliably increases sales, because every working presentation leaves objections unaddressed, and addressing them captures the prospects those objections were losing.
The mechanism is capture, not persuasion of new believers. The people the avalanche converts are people who were going to say no because of an unaddressed objection — the avalanche catches them before they exit. It's a net that closes the holes the main presentation left open, which is why it adds sales to even a good webinar.
The avalanche's power is removing every objection — which is also removing every point at which the prospect might pause and think.7
The honest version: the prospect had real objections that had real answers, and the avalanche efficiently provides those answers, letting a prospect who would genuinely benefit stop hesitating over resolved concerns. Answering real objections with real answers is just thorough, honest selling.
The manipulative version: the avalanche dissolves every objection, including valid ones that should have stopped the sale, and pre-empts objections the prospect hadn't formed, leaving them with no space to conclude "this isn't for me." A prospect faced with 50 pre-answered objections has been given no moment to exercise the judgment that a major decision deserves. The technique doesn't distinguish the objection that's a mere hesitation from the objection that's correct — it dissolves both.
The line is whether the objections dissolved were genuinely unfounded. An avalanche that answers real concerns with true answers serves the prospect; one that dissolves valid concerns with clever counters, and floods the prospect's judgment so no doubt survives, overwhelms rather than informs. And because the avalanche is exhaustive by design, it specifically eliminates the pause in which a prospect might realize a dissolved objection was actually right. The vault marks this: removing every objection is powerful and can mean removing the one that should have won.
Like the stack's re-display, the avalanche triggers the operator's discomfort — and that discomfort is again misaligned with the audience's actual experience, which is worth understanding.7b
Brunson describes sweating during Fladlien's 90 minutes: they'd been live three hours, and surely the audience was exhausted and annoyed by the endless objection-busting. The operator's instinct screams that this is too long, too repetitive, insulting to the audience.
But the audience wasn't annoyed — they were buying, at triple the rate. The operator's discomfort was about the operator's self-image (am I being tedious? am I overstaying my welcome?), not about the audience's experience (which was: my objections are being resolved, one by one). The mismatch is the same as the stack's: the operator feels the technique is excessive while it's precisely serving the audience's need to have every doubt addressed.
This pattern — operator discomfort misaligned with audience benefit — recurs across the book's most effective techniques (re-stacking, dwelling on conflict, coming down from expertise, the avalanche). And it carries a warning the book doesn't state: an operator who learns to systematically override their own "this feels wrong" instinct as "just a limiting belief" is training away the very instinct that would flag genuine manipulation. The avalanche feeling too long is harmless to override; but the habit of dismissing one's own discomfort as mere self-image protection is exactly how an operator loses the internal signal that distinguishes thorough-and-honest from overwhelming-and-manipulative. The discomfort that's wrong about the avalanche's length might be right about a different technique's ethics, and a trained-away instinct can't tell the difference.
You have a working presentation but you're leaving sales on the table.
Build your objection inventory — every objection a prospect might hold, including ones they haven't consciously formed. The 20+ from the false-belief exercise, plus more.
Add an avalanche segment: "you're probably thinking X, right? Well, actually..." for each objection, fired in sequence. Push past the discomfort of the length; the volume is the coverage, and coverage is what captures the prospects each objection was losing.
Understand you're capturing, not persuading anew. The avalanche converts people who were going to say no over a specific unaddressed objection — it closes the exits.
Then the honesty gate: the avalanche dissolves every objection, including valid ones, and pre-empts objections the prospect hadn't formed, leaving no space for the judgment a major decision deserves. Only dissolve objections that are genuinely unfounded, with true answers. If an objection is correct — the thing genuinely isn't right for this prospect — don't bury it in the avalanche. And notice that exhaustive objection-removal eliminates the pause where a prospect might realize a dissolved concern was actually valid; that pause is their protection, and the avalanche is designed to remove it.
Thorough objection-handling answers the prospect's real, unfounded objections with true answers, letting a prospect who'd genuinely benefit stop hesitating over resolved concerns. Real objections, real answers, genuine fit.
Overwhelming dissolves every objection including valid ones, pre-empts objections the prospect hadn't formed, and floods their judgment so no doubt survives — leaving no space to conclude "this isn't for me" even when it isn't. The volume overwhelms rather than informs.
The test is whether any objection should have survived. If the avalanche is designed to leave zero doubt regardless of whether some doubt was warranted, it's overwhelming judgment, not serving it — and the tell is that it dissolves objections indiscriminately rather than distinguishing the founded from the unfounded.
The objection-avalanche is attributed to Fladlien, replicated by the Poulins, self-reported but consistent across operators.8 The mechanism (unaddressed objections are lost sales; addressing all captures them) is sound.
Tension: the avalanche removes every objection, including valid ones, and pre-empts objections the prospect hadn't formed, leaving no space for judgment. Honest use (answer real objections with true answers) and manipulative use (dissolve valid objections, flood judgment, plant-and-resolve worries) use the same exhaustive technique, which doesn't distinguish founded objections from unfounded.
Second tension: pre-empting unformed objections builds trust (mind-reading) and plants worries to resolve them, manufacturing problems to solve. Net usually positive, but the technique can install the objection it then dissolves.
Open question: since the avalanche is exhaustive by design and specifically eliminates the pause where a prospect might realize a dissolved objection was valid, does thorough objection-handling inherently overwhelm the judgment that a major decision needs — or is there a version that answers real objections while preserving the prospect's space to conclude "no"?
Convergence with the belief-inventory, false-belief-patterns, and teaching-kills-sales pages is total — the avalanche is the belief-inventory fired at volume, doing belief-breaking rather than teaching. It's the maximum-coverage deployment of the whole objection-handling apparatus.
The tension with the vault's deliberation standards is clear. The vault values the pause where judgment operates; the avalanche is engineered to leave no pause, dissolving every objection so no doubt survives. It's the most exhaustive of the book's judgment-bypassing techniques — not moving the prospect past evaluation via emotion (like the Epiphany Bridge) but via sheer coverage, closing every exit until "no" has nowhere to stand.
To Build an Inventory of Stories. The avalanche is the story-inventory deployed at maximum volume — the 20+ pre-built counter-stories fired in sequence until the objection-space is exhausted.
Held together: the objection-avalanche is what the story-inventory is for — you build 20+ counter-stories precisely so you can fire them in an exhaustive sequence that leaves no objection unaddressed. The inventory page explains building the stock; this page shows deploying it at volume. Neither states it alone: the inventory's purpose isn't to have the right story ready for the objection a prospect raises — it's to have a story for every objection so you can pre-empt all of them, which is the avalanche. The inventory is the ammunition; the avalanche is emptying the magazine.
To They Must Reach the Conclusion Themselves. The "you're probably thinking X, right?" format lets the prospect recognize their own objection and watch it dissolve — a self-generated agreement rather than a told one.
The insight neither reaches alone: the avalanche's "you're probably thinking X, right?" format applies let-them-conclude-it to objections — the prospect recognizes the objection as their own, agrees they were thinking it, then watches it dissolve, so the resolution feels self-reached. The let-them-conclude page explains self-generated conclusions resist less; this page shows the format applying it to objection-dissolution. Together: the avalanche doesn't tell the prospect their objections are wrong (which would trigger resistance) — it names each objection so the prospect claims it, then dissolves it, so the prospect experiences agreeing that their own concern was unfounded, which is far stronger than being told it was.
Sharpest implication. Every unaddressed objection is a potential no, so addressing all of them — including ones the prospect hasn't consciously formed — removes every exit, which is why 90 minutes of "you're probably thinking X, right?" outsold an entire webinar and adding the segment doubled the Poulins' sales. The avalanche works by exhaustion of the objection-space, and it feels like mind-reading (the seller knows the prospect's objections better than the prospect does), which builds trust while closing every exit — including exits the prospect would never have found alone. But removing every objection is also removing every point at which the prospect might pause and think: the technique is exhaustive by design and specifically eliminates the pause where a prospect might realize a dissolved objection was actually correct. It doesn't distinguish the objection that's a mere hesitation from the one that's right — it dissolves both — and it can plant objections in order to resolve them, manufacturing the problem it solves. That pause it removes is the prospect's protection.
Generative questions.
Is there a version of exhaustive objection-handling that answers real objections while preserving the prospect's space to conclude "no" — or does thoroughness inherently overwhelm the judgment a major decision needs?
If the avalanche can plant objections to resolve them and dissolves valid objections indiscriminately with founded ones, is the prospect who emerges "with no objections" actually free of objections, or has their objection-forming capacity simply been overwhelmed for the duration of the close?