Trying to describe what we do. It’s complicated.
We’ve found it really challenging to boil down what we do into one of those little paragraphs much beloved of professional services companies – the so-called ‘elevator pitch’ that neatly encapsulates the so-called ‘offering’.
It’s been driving me nuts.
Since we started in September 2007, we’ve made several attempts. We launched with this at the top of the page:
…And this on the sidebar:
Our Twitter feed says:
Very Social Digital Stuff.
My Twitter describes Made by Many as:
A platform-building mutant network design company.
And in our creds we initially summarised it as:
We help brands and publishers create, manage and monetise community and Rich Internet Applications
Which has recently been changed to:
We help Media Owners, Brands, Start-ups and Organisations to create & manage owned & earned media platforms
And even more recently on our website, and on a bit of a late-night impulse (fueled in part by the frustration of not having nailed it, in part by some over-excited thoughts about the changing meaning of the words “awesome”, “awesomeist”, “awesomeness”, and partly by alcohol) we changed it to:
Made by Many creates very social digital stuff. We are an awesomeness agency. We design and make new services and utilities for communities and we work in an integrated and Agile way.
We know none of these is quite right, and that some are quite wrong.
But as we try once again to create a canonical definition, I wonder if we’re barking up the wrong tree.
Why limit ourselves to one little line?
Why try and cram everything we do into a single paragraph?
We have feet in many camps: we make stuff, we consult. That’s the way we roll.
We’re a design shop and a software developer, but we’re not a production house. What we do is both complex and evolving quicker than words can keep up with. For example, it’s become more difficult every week since we started to draw the line between what used to be called ‘marketing‘ and what used to be called ‘product and service design‘. Everything is converging.
I wonder if what we are might not really have emerged yet. I don’t even want to be an agency any more – I think network is more accurate.
There isn’t a right or wrong answer to any of this (that’s part of the problem), but I wanted to share our dilemma. I imagine it’s a problem a lot of other people have too and we’d be interested in how you’ve solved it (if it can be – or should be – solved, that is). And let us know what you think we should do.
One thing we’re toying with at the moment is having lots of lines. Maybe the elevator pitch belongs to the world of scarcity, and we’re about the long tail of meaning – an abundance of lines, each unpacking a different facet – potentially for a different audience. Sara and I are working on a long list, and thinking about how we might use all of them. We aim to share the whole process, at the risk of being quite boring.
About the author
Tim has been creating innovative online community stuff since 2000 and was recently named as one of Revolution Magazine's 'Future 50' - one of the the "marketers, authors, entrepreneurs, and thinkers who will shape the digital industry of tomorrow". It also called him "disruptive and challenging". Tim is a founding partner of Made by Many, Agilist, strategist, Dad and designer of social software.
-
Comments (23)
-
Responses (0)
This is actually one of those situations where ‘lowest common denominator’ thinking comes into play and is to your benefit. Ideally, you should have the one memorable, punchy, distinctively differentiating soundbite that EVERYBODY knows and references, because to work to your advantage it needs to be what everyone defaults to in the throwaway reference. ‘Oh, you need to work with MadeByMany – they’re the guys who…(zingy soundbite goes here)’.
That’s important because for business and profile-raising purposes, you want as many people as possible to talk about you as possible, and people don’t like to bring something up in conversation they’re not sure they’ve remembered correctly or think they might get wrong (also why any brand name with the slightest hint of ‘not quite sure how to pronounce’ is the kiss of death – nobody ever wants to look stupid).
This is also an interesting exercise in itself. Imagine someone who doesn’t know you very well or whom you’ve come across in a casual way in business or in life, is referencing you in a throwaway fashion because you’ve come up in general conversation. What is your own individual default ‘throwaway reference’, delivered in a wholly objective, dispassionate, ‘this is how the rest of the world sees you’ mode? ‘Oh, he’s that guy who…’ ‘She’s that one with..’
You want to do everything you can to make that as compelling and attractive as possible.
Cindy Gallop
March 3, 2010
at 6:54 pm
Hi Cindy,
Thanks very much, that is good advice. I agree with you on how people how people use the soundbite, especially in a throwaway sense ‘Oh, you need to work with MadeByMany – they’re the guys who…(zingy soundbite goes here)’, and I think very often that zingy soundbite goes ‘who.. did (insert hero project here)’
Some examples
BBH -> The Levis’ Ads (others obviously)
RG/A -> Nike+
Fallon -> The Gorilla Ad
Barbarian Group -> Subservient Chicken
Six to Start -> We Tell Stories
I don’t any of those companies likes being thought of in that way, but honestly I think it is the way the majority of people express it.
Personally I would settle for ‘who.. get it’
Stuart Eccles
March 4, 2010
at 12:35 am
Cindy – thanks for taking the time to write that. I was really hoping that by opening up some of these internal debates we would elicit some advice from someone like you.
I think you’re right. You’re *obviously* right. I was being a bit lazy. But why stop at one? I’m wondering if you benefit from having, say, twenty throwaway defaults rather than one? A mosaic rather than a portrait… I don’t know – I think we may need one really high level one (although it might have to pose questions as well as answering them), but we could fill that out with another twenty, sprinkled manifesto-like, elsewhere.
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 12:58 am
How about instead of focusing on what you do, focus on what you do for your clients.
Something like, ‘We solve brand communication challenges with technology.’
James
March 3, 2010
at 10:16 pm
Thanks James,
We’ve always talked about trying to explain what we do through the work. It can be a very powerful way of explaining what you’re planning to do… but I do think we might need a line that gets people to the stage of even wanting to understand what we do.
Unfortunately, for me, ‘We solve brand communication challenges with technology.’ sounds too much like marketing, both literally and conceptually.
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 1:03 am
Hey Tim,
Here’s my thinking:
What do the clients you work with right now expect you to deliver for them that no one else can deliver? ‘Rich Social Media Solutions’, maybe?
I guess your approach to publicly explain your problem is probably the right way to go – have you asked other outsiders to summarize your business for you? Maybe your wife, or best mate, or accountant see your work from a totally different angle.
Good luck on creating that meaningful and precise mission statement that you’re looking for!
Alex
March 4, 2010
at 3:28 am
It’s that darned SEO. You HAVE to condense it down so people can search you on Twitter & whatnot. But it’s good for you. It makes you constantly rethink what it is you do.
Erica
March 4, 2010
at 4:03 am
As one of the Many, it has been fascinating to watch and participate in this debate/discussion. For a long time I was in the ‘distil to one good line’ camp – and certainly the way we sometimes do that has been clumsy – but I’m fast coming to the ‘Malbon position’ of multiple articulations that can serve different purposes. The truth is that we are extremely multi-faceted, we do do different things most projects and while this would be suicide for most companies, we bring always bring a unique approach; iterative, co-creative, collaborative, visual and Agile.
And +1 for not being an agency (we’re NOT!)
Justin McMurray
March 4, 2010
at 8:55 am
That’s unfortunate, because I’ve come round to the idea that we need one, super-simple, lowest common denominator line – AS WELL AS a long tail of other expressions. It’s Cindy’s fault.
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 9:54 am
Truthfully I can relate, on a much humbler scale.
Being a person who touts a Resume which features a bachelors degree from a developing world public university (Bachelors in Social Communication from a university in Venezuela), going to a masters course that no one can categorize in traditional standards (Masters in Imagineering from a university in the Netherlands) and with a seemingly unfocused panorama of fields I have delved into through collaborations (sports, urban planning, advertising, media) it becomes increasingly difficult to sell myself without feeling I’ve failed to capture the essence of what I can do.
This has sent me into a spiraling descent into reflective madness that has had me at times reaching for Heidegger’s Being and Time and other times finding comfort in Popeye’s ‘I am what I am and that’s all that I am’.
Yet, through this puzzling search into the definition of (professional) self in society has had me coming to the conclusion that while there is great communicative value in packing one’s representation of self into either a dazzling conceptual soundbite or finding shelter and safety in a clearly established category of practice, it is impossible to do so when one considers the convoluting context that surrounds us: new technology, new ways of organizing, new ways of production, new political dynamics… heck, even (apparently, arguably) new climactic realities.
Not only that, but the sheer plurality of available, undefined problems and theories in the world means that restricting yourself to one bookshelf of the library will have you missing out on the full reach of your possible contribution.
Having said that, I would recommend seeking to define what your organization does (now, practices) through what your organization wants to do (future, goals). This way (a future focus) helps add a sense of cohesion to what the members and the clients want, plus gives you the openness to try different tools, methods, theories, etc without compromising you possibly ambitious vision.
Mario Ramirez Reyes
March 4, 2010
at 10:14 am
Mario – thank you so much for such an interesting and well considered comment. Much appreciated.
The analogy with your frustrations at not being able – adequately, in your eyes – to sell your skills is a really interesting one. I particularly like what you say here:
“Not only that, but the sheer plurality of available, undefined problems and theories in the world means that restricting yourself to one bookshelf of the library will have you missing out on the full reach of your possible contribution.”
And I’m going to try out some definition of practice through the ‘future-lens’ right now!
It *is* impossible to be content with it. I know whatever we come up with I shall hate almost immediately.
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 12:14 pm
Correction: It is not impossible to do so, but impossible to be content with it.
Mario Ramirez Reyes
March 4, 2010
at 10:17 am
Hi there,
It seems like a lot of the above examples of “what you do” are actually about how you work. Which is fine and needs explaining. But it might also be worth thinking about how you explain the benefit of working with Made by Many to different stakeholders. I.e. what you do for them, rather than simply what you do. James touched on this above.
After all, you are different things to different stakeholders, and it’s what you do for them, rather than how you do it, which is often more compelling, and certainly more consistent. Whereas how you work might change week to week, as you mention above. So for instance:
- i can’t imagine any prospective employee not being enticed by the prospect of working in a Network of Awesomeness!
- but your existing clients probably value you because your the agency who helps them create a better/more profitable business.
- prospective clients might see you as the agency to help get the CEO to see the business opportunity in, and increase investment in, digital platforms.
- while readers, like myself, might come to you for very social digital stuff and the fact that you work (and write about working) in an Agile way.
Great post.
Michaeljon
March 4, 2010
at 10:57 am
Another fab comment – thank you so much. And once again, I think you’re spot on – we’ll definitely have a bit of a think about how to frame benefits for potential clients. This whole exercise has been brilliant in terms of eliciting some advice and helping us to see this problem from a range of external perspectives…
The collective thinking cap is set to ‘on’…
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 12:19 pm
I think it might be a good thing that you can’t boil it down. From what I understand of Made by Many, the approach and solutions you develop can vary quite a lot from one client to another, or even from one brief to the next.
So, in keeping with the superb post from @stueccles a few weeks back ( http://madebymany.co.uk/the-more-you-try-and-practice-agile-the-less-agile-you-become-and-vice-versa-002607 ), perhaps it works in your favour to keep the ‘elevator pitch’ fluid and undefined.
If no-one can quite put their finger on ‘the one thing’ that you do, it gives you broader scope to explore the tough briefs no-one else can crack. And sometimes, a little bit of mystery only makes people more interested.
eskimon
March 4, 2010
at 11:55 am
Hey Simon – thanks for this. I have been obsessed with the mystique angle for ages.. I think that’s right – and there are other companies that we really admire who totally nail the mystique bit. I’m thinking of Anomaly in particular – I like the way that they don’t attempt to unpack the whole gamut of what they do. Mystery is built into their name: the page at Anomaly.com simply defines the term:
“Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form or rule. Syn: Abnormality, deviation, exception, irregularity, rarity”
It says, “We’re different”, with the implicit understanding that this is a ‘good thing’. I’m sure this must help them find the right clients – it must help the wrong clients self-select themselves off (that sounds a bit weird but you know what I mean!). What makes ‘being different’ valuable to clients is then unpacked through the quotes on the “Why We Exist” page.
In other words, they appear to be having their cake and eating it. In style…
Tim Malbon
March 4, 2010
at 12:30 pm
It’s an tricky one. I really like the idea of a mosaic, of fluid definition, but I do accept you need the simple version, even if only for the metatags.
One thought for the mosaic would be this: in the spirit of “You’re only as good as your last campaign / album / film / line of code…” why not have a live stream describing what types of projects or problems or ideas you are working on?
So that the definition of what you do is particular to that particular moment (or whatever unit of time / media you think appropriate) and at the same time, not very particular to any moment.
The only downside is that you might spend a lot of time deciding how best to describe that moment rather than just getting on with being in the moment. Which is a bit like being in social media…
Nathan McDonald
March 5, 2010
at 12:45 am
Great post that brings to the surface something we’ve been (painstakingly) working through internally for some time now. Unfortunately I dont have any answers but perhaps a couple of perspectives to throw into the mix.
1: The idea of having a single, compelling ‘elevator pitch’ is empowering. it makes it easy for people to talk about you, makes it easier for you to talk about yourself and helps everyone sleep better at night because things are all wrapped up in a nice tidy package. We had a brief moment in history (2007-2008ish) when we were undeniably a ‘website company’. Our one liner was ‘we build websites that people are proud of’, and man it felt good when somebody asked what we did (as opposed to know when i dread it!). The old line is now completely redundant but replacing it has been near impossible.
2. One liners make a big assumption – that anyone who asks what you do has the same context to put your answer into. When you’re playing in a well established market this is a much safer assumption. Everyone knows what an accountant is, so ‘the accounting firm for rock stars’ or ‘the accounting firm for left handed jugglers’ is immediately meaningful.
It’s my experience that people in our industry haven’t even worked out what we do (if anyone has a definitive list i’d love to see it!) or what our category’s meant to be called (digital agency, interactive agency, new media agency, plain old agency etc). So how on earth do we explain to outsiders something that’s not even clear to us? there is no established context within which to specialise or draw a hard line in. i cringe to think what my mum would say if someone asked her what hard hat does.
3. in line with being a category thats still in its early days, demand is massively outstripping supply (in australia anyway). more clients are demanding digital expertise than ever before, and many of the people demanding it have never bought from the category before.
this means that often, ‘the agency who did x’, ‘the digital shop owned by the same group as my traditional agency’ or ‘the nice guys my last employer worked with’ is enough to get a call up. A willingness and ability to educate clients as you go also seems to be a key ingredient.
Perhaps if/when things settle down (possibly never in this space) it’ll become easier, and more important for agencies to draw a hard line around what they do, but for the time being it just seems futile.
Embrace the insomnia!
Dan Monheit
March 5, 2010
at 12:58 am
We are a collective of surprisingly agile geeks?
Robin Grant, We Are Social
March 5, 2010
at 6:22 pm
Made me laugh Robin, visions of Malonster doing the splits
Stuart Eccles
March 6, 2010
at 3:03 pm
So true. When we’re focused on applying innovation and creativity to invent solutions to problems that cross demographics, psychographics, verticals, languages, etc, how can agencies use a list of ’services’ or ‘competencies’ to define what it is they do. Certainly a 200 word description or a 30 second elevator pitch cant define it. We’re constantly struggling with this too. Businesses that exist in the creative space seem to be plagued with such a unique and challenging set of issues, and yet, we still love doing what we do.
@mrstephenbeck
Stephen Beck
March 7, 2010
at 8:37 am
[I tried this up earlier, but to no avail. If there is a duplication, due to moderation, or whatever, I do apologise.]
The more you add to the descriptor, the less it means. Sort of like a fraction…the bigger the denominator, the smaller the “overall” number.
It goes a little like this – the fraction four over one is four. (4/1 = 4). Lump more stuff into the denominator and it becomes, say, four over one hundred (4/100 = 0.04). Point-oh-four is smaller than four.
Seeing as I’ve just made this up (I think), I’d like to call it the Denominator Effect!
But after a quick search I’ve found that the term, unfortunately, already exists – in Real Estate. http://bit.ly/cDTxUH
So we’ll leave the inventing of a term, just for now.
What I’m suggesting is a tiered system.
I get turned off a little when I see words like platform and network. These are words you use to describe the descriptor.
The “knowledge” is at the top (the descriptor), say -
“Very Social Digital Stuff”
and you use “information” (or data even) to describe it – “monetise”, “rich internet applications”, “platform” and “network”.
These words are useful, I guess, but if I hear too many of them strung together in mangled shapes I begin to feel like I’m talking to someone with Tourette’s Syndrome.
We went through this for a project that didn’t go ahead.
The knowledge (at the top) for the product/service was:
“Smart stuff for a better life”
and then to describe it:
“A revolutionary new way to continuously measure and manage health and well being”
There was a third tier that had even more information in it, but I can’t remember it. It was just too mucky.
So I reckon you should go for a tiered or hierarchical system, and try not to use the mucky or course words at the top because it’ll end up meaning less.
It’ll be meaningless.
@MarcJar
Marc Jarman
March 7, 2010
at 3:21 pm
Very interesting post. And comments!
We’ve been struggling with the same thing for a year now.
And recently again, with the Guided Collective that we’re involved in.
It’s a bloody nightmare.
Yes, how do you explain what you do in this world of convergence to someone who is now coming round to the idea that they may have to get into ‘Social Media’.
And also important, how do you give them some ammunition to prove to their boss that you’re the right choice for this project?
How do you explain that you develop ’stuff’ as well as think about ’stuff’.
That you can do different things for different people.
That the solution to their communication problem might be a digital platform, but that it may as well be a spaceship.
That you are forever in Beta?
My gut feeling is that the ‘elevator pitch’ is over-rated (I like your connection with the world of scarcity).
I also believe that clients get the agencies they deserve; and the other way round.
So, in a bout of cockiness, I sometimes argue that clients that rely on the elevator pitch may not be the right clients.
It’s the difference between a chat-up line and a proper conversation.
I might be naive.
For now we’ve settled on the fact that we’re a ‘plug-in’, not an agency.
However, we found that clients care more about what you can do for them.
So we have been trying to focus on that a bit more.
Still, the problem is similar. “Putting people in touch with their crowds” is still pretty broad. But at least you have a few more floors in the elevator to talk and you may get to things like increase sales, increase awareness, explain a complex problem,…
Finally, Cindy has a good point about getting remembered. So I guess at the end of the day the work you do for clients (and also the projects you do for yourself) can be an important tool.
Good luck with it!
BTW: nice to meet you guys the other day.
Gerrie Smits
March 9, 2010
at 1:25 pm