In hindsight, my thoughts at the time could have been summarized as follows:
Websites are non-recurring and non-revenue generating (making them hard to sell via any channel), becoming increasingly design-forward for high-ticket services. We should pivot because we're only 9 months in and could switch services, though this would be challenging. However, I believe GHC will eventually move in this direction anyway, so it makes sense.
This approach failed. If we had stayed in education for 10 years, it would have worked and had a good moat. However, my plan is to use the agency as an initial cash grab to transition into a holding company and buy/invest in other companies. Therefore, speed is the biggest factor.
Thesis v1 for Best Next Steps Forward
The constraint of our business is our offer. Therefore, we must change the offer.
Why:
B2B businesses must make other businesses more money. This is non-negotiable and requires a 6:1 ratio. One million framework: One offer, one avatar, one channel (the latter two are downstream of the offer). Hormozi Offer Framework: Outcome × Likelihood / (Risk & Sacrifice + Time) = Offering Value. Outcome is something really only ecommerce businesses care about (whole website redesigns rather than landing pages). Likelihood we achieve results is currently 0%. Clients take on all the risk.
Current constraint: Our offer to avatar match is not good enough. Client acquisition model is downstream of this issue.
Current Performance:
120 cold email campaigns and 80,000 emails resulted in 8 sales (1/10,000 conversion rate). Close rate is 10%. Less than 40% of our customers would be very disappointed if we disappeared (indicating another provider exists). Referral rate isn't bad, but comparatively not good enough to indicate high market pain.
Deal Analysis by Price Range:
$0-2500: 8 deals, $13,475 total revenue (avg $1,684 per deal)
Deals: Halo Music, Moda & Sponsorship Sales, Days Like This, Aurora Receptions, Race Training, PBS Accounting, ACMUSE, Mod Skills
$2500-7000: 22 deals, $108,130 total revenue (avg $4,915 per deal)
Deals: Advance Formwork, TanIQ, Justice Miller, SportsMed, InteractDm, Cannon Capital, Miller & Blake, Nitronic, Bewel Group, RedSim, CWC, Core Accounting, MedLife, Expert Training Group, Preview Health, NCP, HRMS, Aspire Education, Robinson College, Signature Learning & Development, RDP Training, Incompated Websites
$7000-9499: 3 deals, $24,550 total revenue (avg $8,183 per deal)
Deals: C Mobile, ACWA, Flexible Training Solutions
$9500-19000: 9 deals, $116,030 total revenue (avg $12,892 per deal)
Deals: Essential TradeWear, Safety Adviser, FIR, SpraySerart, CCWT, Manfred Gerlach, Jenegar Training, Highland Training, NECA Training
$19000+: 3 deals, $108,390 total revenue (avg $36,130 per deal)
Deals: Rural MedEd, Stanley College, TNLC
Total: 45 deals, $370,575 total revenue (avg $8,235 per deal)
This data reveals several critical issues: 67% of our deals (30 out of 45) are under $7,000, indicating we're stuck in low-value commodity pricing. Only 6.7% of deals (3 out of 45) are above $19,000, showing difficulty reaching premium pricing. The concentration of deals in lower price ranges confirms we're competing on price rather than value. Average deal size of $8,235 makes it extremely difficult to achieve profitable growth with our current cost structure.
Things to be cognizant of:
We're caught between a rock and a hard place. Would I personally choose websites given today's economy again? No. We already have 25 logos in the education niche with large companies like HRMS Group, ACWA, and Stanley.
Options for Changing Our Offer
Definite No-Go Options
1. Websites to Everyone (current process)
Pros: Very few benefits that come to mind.
Cons: No premium pricing potential. People don't care about the service. Poor offer that's commoditized. Hard to systematize backend operations. No clear value proposition. Validated outbound as a poor channel. Warm outbound not relevant. Ads and content fundamentally don't work because it's still a bad offer targeting everyone, making us a commodity.
2. Adding Another Service
Pros: Better offer, traffic issue would be solved.
Cons: "Everything to everyone" offer. When you look at large agencies, they have very little moat except if they have extensive case studies in one niche. Fulfillment becomes difficult when operating across many industries.
3. Websites to Ecommerce
Pros: Moderately good case studies, not a huge pivot, Ed knows delivery and would need to learn conversion rate optimization.
Cons: We'd essentially become a CRO agency (learning a new service). Ecommerce is the best niche for this approach, but we have 0-3 case studies.
4. Websites to RTOs
Pros: Generated $200,000 in sales over 5 months with 2 sales reps.
Cons: Doesn't solve a significant enough market pain point. 10% close rate. Still a poor offer. 90% of prospects don't care about the dream outcome; even clients aren't thinking about conversion. Customer acquisition cost of $33,000 over 4 months with 2 reps.
The real problem is that there isn't a unified, singular problem large enough to solve in the marketplace.
5. Becoming a Growth Education Company
Pros:
Keep our niche and channel (cold outbound plus content). Case studies are highly relevant and useful. Ed's understanding of the niche is valuable. Excellent offer. Protects us significantly from AI disruption and allows us to leverage future changes - Tom and I can create content and lead magnets for education. Superior brand, positioning, and moat. TAM is large enough if we capture 5-10% of the market. Sales becomes more meaningful with high personalization and relationship building - Cold calling can meaningfully return. LinkedIn DMs can be a major lever. Higher margins because we're serving one avatar, allowing us to deploy systems (similar to GymLaunch).
Cons:
We'd need to learn new services ourselves or hire for them, operating on a performance basis. This is challenging but necessary because B2B offers depend on making clients more money. I believe websites alone don't effectively accomplish this when marketing to cold traffic, making this change inevitable. Pushing websites for the next 1-1.5 years to hire a sales rep and product manager would direct the business in a way that doesn't make long-term sense anyway. Companies like AdVisible and Online Marketing Gurus use websites as upsells and referrals, turning Google Ads on and off with 10-15% close rates. Many education companies are B2B, meaning they do less advertising and marketing. Education isn't the largest marketing niche. Ecommerce is a $17 trillion industry with 25-30% marketing spend, which is why 80% of marketing companies operate primarily in that space. I believe education is large enough, and considering the trade-offs, this is the best path to pursue.
Personally, I think we should go with option 5.
Strategic Considerations
How This Plays Out with AI
In an AI-first world, the things that will matter most are brand, network effects, data, and distribution.
Thesis: You cannot be everything to everybody and run a successful company, because AI will replace those companies easily and quickly over the next 2-3 years. Knowledge work will be easily replicated unless you have substantial standalone data.
For people offering SEO as a standalone service, clients will use SEObot. For people offering Google Ads as a standalone service, clients will use adcreative.ai
Brand: Specialist skill and good positioning. Content: Tom and I posting on LinkedIn to a specific avatar and audience. Our positioning improves close rates because we have one offer for one avatar. Tom and I can create posts about education and the future of education, leveraging our high school experience for a compelling story.
Network Effects: In education, people talk to other education owners, creating natural network effects.
Data: Over 2-3 years of providing ads, content, and SEO for education companies, we'll have extensive data on what works and industry trends. E-learning and education are ripe for change. The fundamental problem in education is that personalized learning has never been accessible—that's going to change.
Distribution: Content, ads, cold outbound, etc. Positioning challenge: standing out in a sea of people offering the same services.
Education Market Analysis
Key questions and observations: Is education a marketing-first industry? (Online education, e-learning, colleges, universities, schools, training). 200,000 CEOs worldwide on Apollo represents a substantial TAM. 6% traditional education decline year-over-year (fewer people attending college). Growing industry in Australia with significant exports overseas. Substantial government funding in this niche to grow the economy. 20% growth in online education year-over-year (courses, training programs, products, services).
Medium-Term and Long-Term Strategy
1. Expand services within the education niche: Offer recruitment services (major issue with companies finding qualified trainers). E-learning is a growing market with significant upside potential.
2. Launch another agency in a different niche using our education playbook: Consider financial services or healthcare. Develop a replicable playbook for building agencies that solve customer acquisition challenges.
Next Steps Forward
Positioning toward education companies as "GHC Education"
Take on education website clients for cash flow:
Play 1: Free websites leading to content and referrals (next 1-2 months) Identify 10-50 thought leaders in the space. Referral strategy based on free work.
Play 2: Affiliate partners specifically in the RTO/Education space (next 1-2 months) Target all major players in the education space.
Play 3: LinkedIn ads with retargeting (2-3 months) Current offer not strong enough to justify ad spend.
Play 4: Cold calling with SDR to break even (4+ months if other strategies fail) Plan for 4,000 cold calls as a long-term strategy. Goal to hit $1M from education companies within 2 years.
Additional activities: Talk to 10+ agency owners per week. Analyze how successful agencies handle referrals.
Industry Comparison
Market size by industry: Construction, real estate: $450,000. Education, retail, wellness, healthcare: $600,000. Software and financial services: $1,000,000.
Product vs. Custom Approach
I'm deciding whether our marketing agency should pursue a productized route or a custom/big brand approach.
Examples:
Custom approach: StoryArb has 25 clients at $10,000/month, providing highly customized content for each SaaS brand. While the backend may be productized, they create substantial unique work and content for each client, including SME interviews for each company.
Productized approach: Stryker Digital charges $3,000/month for SEO and Google Ads for home service companies, allowing them to repeat the same playbook across one niche.