Custom build
If your team can map it, we can build it.
The clearest example is running with real teams right now, and it is not a data product at all. It is the handoff between the people who ask for content and the people who make it, broken in almost every marketing organisation and almost nobody's job to fix.
- One workflow, one output
- A handover date, written first
- You keep the runbook
- Performance needs three creatives by Thursday
- Brand already has that week committed elsewhere
- Neither side can see the other's queue
- So it happens in messages, and the deadline is a surprise
- Requests raised in one place, with what is needed and when
- Work moves through the brand team's own stages
- Overdue, and who it waits on, is a view rather than a question
- Status posts itself to the right group, nobody types it
Both sides are being reasonable. That is exactly why nobody fixes it.
A worked example
Content requisition, between performance and brand.
Chosen because it is in practice today rather than because it demonstrates well. Every marketing organisation has this seam and almost none of them have instrumented it.
One tracker both sides can see
Requests raised in one place, with what is needed and when. Work moves through the brand team's own stages and comes back as a delivery rather than a chase. What is overdue, and who it is waiting on, becomes a view rather than a question.
It tells people without anyone typing
A status change posts itself to the right group. A requisition raised, a deliverable finished, a handover due. The reason trackers die is that keeping them current is somebody's unpaid job; this one updates the people who need to know as a side effect of the work.
What else gets built
Whatever your team does by hand, every week.
- Measurement builds: tag audits, event and parameter journeys, conversions API troubleshooting including deduplication, and analytics source diagnostics
- Event pipelines into a warehouse, and audiences built from that data and pushed back to the ad platforms automatically
- Campaign operations: setup, media plan generation, monitoring and alerting tuned to your own targets
- Competitor and content research that runs on a schedule instead of when somebody remembers
- Copy and creative production pipelines, including static and motion output
- Whatever your team does every week, by hand, and complains about
How it runs
Mapped, written down, then built. In that order.
Map the process as it actually runs
Not as the org chart says. Every step, every decision point, every place someone waits for someone else. This part is usually the most valuable hour, and it happens before any money changes hands.
A free scoping session
A written mini-proposal
One workflow, one defined output, one handover date, and what it costs. Written down before anything is built, because scope that lives in a conversation expands in a conversation.
You keep this whether or not you proceed
Built with a human in the loop
The first version asks for confirmation at every step that matters. That is not a limitation, it is how you find out where it is wrong while being wrong is still cheap.
The loop comes out as accuracy is proven
Step by step, on evidence rather than on schedule. Some checkpoints stay forever because they should.
Handover with a runbook
Documented, in your hands, with your credentials. You could run it without us, which is the condition that makes a retainer a choice rather than a dependency.
Before you ask
Scope, lock-in, your existing tools, and not knowing yet.
How do we know the scope will not creep?
One workflow, one defined output, one handover date, written before anything starts. New scope is a new written proposal rather than a quiet expansion. That discipline exists because unbounded custom work is the documented way engagements like this fail, and it protects you more than it protects us.
Will we be locked into you?
You own the credentials from day one, the systems are documented, and at handover you get a runbook. On exit you keep the accounts, the data, the outputs and the documentation. If the retainer stops being worth it, it should stop.
Can you build it on the tools we already use?
Usually yes, and where it is genuinely better to build against your own database or sheet rather than adding a platform, we will say so. The point is to fit your stack rather than to sell you a new one.
What if we only half know what we want?
That is the normal state and it is what the mapping session is for. Plenty of these conversations end with a smaller build than the one that was imagined, which is a better outcome than a large one nobody needed.
Start here
Tell us what your team copy-pastes every week.
A free session mapping it properly, and a written proposal at the end. If the honest answer is that you do not need us for it, that is what you will get.