Every agency opens with a request. This one opens with the answer.
Fifteen minutes, a discovery call, an audit you have to book. Publishing the prices is what lets this one lead with the finding itself, already done, with the price already on it.
The offer is the price list.
Most agencies do not publish what things cost. This one publishes everything, both ways round: a catalogue where every service carries its own starting price, and a ladder where a visitor picks the size they are today and sees the bundle sized to it.
The campaign document states why that is structural rather than clever: an agency that has to protect its quote cannot lead with the answer. The qualifying signal for outreach is a visible, checkable fault — a profile with no categories, a site with no title tag, a booking page that fails on a phone, reviews from two years ago with no replies.
- Relationship to the work
- Executed
- Written to
- The person whose name is on the door, not a marketing manager
- Objective
- Money received. Not awareness, not a list, not a call calendar
- Results recorded
- None
No countdown timers. Written down, not left to taste.
In the system that builds the page
- The design-system header: no countdown timers, one accent-coloured call to action per view.
- The claims register: no guaranteed results, no promised rankings, no implied revenue, no popularity claim nobody measured.
- The campaign guardrails: no claim that a price is limited in time, because it is not.
A real deadline, enforced rather than promised
- A genuine introductory discount shipped on 29 September 2026, with a real end date.
- The deadline is implemented, not asserted: the offer stops working when it says it will.
- That is the distinction the rules actually draw. The objection is not to a deadline. It is to one that resets when the page reloads.
Smallest client first, so a visitor self-identifies by size.
- Before
- A pricing ladder ordered largest first, which asks a visitor to work out which tier they have been excluded from.
- What forced it
- At 04:01 on 25 August 2026 the ladder was reordered as a growth ladder, smallest client first, with no gimmick prices. The commit landed hours before the project's forensic archive was compiled, which is how precisely it is dated.
- The decision
- Nothing about the offers changed. The reading order did, and the reading order decides whether a visitor finds their own row. Ordered smallest first, the same list asks a question they can answer about themselves: what size am I today.
- What it changed
- The same correction landed again a month later, when the fourteen design directions were re-filed by the kind of business each suits instead of by the order they were built. Two instances is not a pattern worth over-claiming, but it is the same move twice: sort by the reader, not by the maker.
Three lists, and several of them fail the build.
| May be said | Must be said carefully | May never be said |
|---|---|---|
| Prices are on the page, every service with its own starting price | Every price is a starting price, always framed as from | A client the studio has agreed never to name |
| One hundred percent ownership, on delivery and payment | Timelines are typical, not promised | Any tax line, because the studio is not registered |
| No lock-in contracts, and a reply within one business day | Research is a simulated panel, not fieldwork, and the sample on the site is explicitly illustrative | Cheap, cheaper, affordable, low cost |
| A bill with every order | Popularity claims nobody measured | |
| Nothing publishes without your approval | Guaranteed results, rankings or revenue; personalised financial advice |
The middle column matters most: holding the product's own marketing to the product's own anti-fabrication rule. The last column anticipates products that do not exist yet, which is the right time to write a rule like that.
Nine drafts, all rejected, none deleted.
When the campaign was rewritten, nine drafts were waiting for approval. Eight quoted rupees to a reader who does not spend them. Every one was rejected with a reason rather than removed, so they stay in the record for a future India campaign.
rejected with a reason
A deleted draft teaches nobody anything. A rejection with a reason is a training signal and an audit trail at once.
replacements written
Every figure in dollars, and every figure taken from the published price table rather than composed for the campaign.
scanned clean
The eighth was held by the compliance scanner and had to be substantiated. The claim was true; the point of the flag was that nobody had written down why.
Five pillars, so everything published has somewhere to belong.
Test it first
Why an idea should meet fifty strangers before it meets your money. Draws on Research.
Look like the business you are
Naming, identity, the physical half. Draws on branding and print work.
The version that can exist now
Shipping small and early. Draws on Build.
Marketing you can actually run
The department as software. Draws on Marketing OS.
Keeping the customers you win
Reviews, replies, the enquiry that does not get lost. Draws on the CRM being built.
The studio thinking out loud, used sparingly
Prices published in the open, why we refuse things, what we got wrong. The one that earns trust, and it only works if it is honest.
What could not be verified.
- One number decides whether the campaign worked: paid projects from the United States. Not opens, not replies, not connection requests
- Five tagged links exist and the site records page views first-party, which partly answers the strategist's objection that there was no conversion denominator
- The saved replies carry one governing instruction: never quote a figure that is not published
- No campaign has been measured. No sends, no replies, no visits, no conversions
- Whether publishing prices wins more work than it loses is the studio's own open question about itself; this study repeats it rather than answering it
- No competitor set exists anywhere in the repository, so every statement about what other agencies do is a characterisation of the trade, not a catalogued competitor
- The banned words and the never-named client are described as failing the build; those tests arrived on 1 October 2026 and the suite was not run for this study
- The materials inventory names what is missing rather than filling it: no photographs of the studio or founder, no video of a build, and no written testimonial from any client
Read the full study.
Ten panels, ending on what could not be verified.