Are Standard Packages A Waste of Time?
One of the innovations I brought to Syska Hennessy Group was the idea of standard packages. Sure, we had brochures for each market sector, but I agree with Ford Harding that brochures are fairly useless. We also had lists of projects by sector, but that wasn’t enough.
What I developed was a standard package that illustrated who we were and why were the best at designing a specific type of facility (for example, pharmaceutical labs). It gave you examples of the projects we worked on and how the client benefitted from our work. It introduced you to our staff, not our President, but the people who would actually be doing the work.
I carried this concept to Trauner Consulting where I developed their first standard packages.
But something happened over the last seven years. I became a better and faster writer. In addition, the standard packages went from Microsoft Word files to become prettier QuarkXpress files. As a result, my packages became less standard and more tailored. It’s to the point where we don’t have a lot of standard marketing materials. Most of it is tailored to specific clients and specific needs. I even went as far as making our standard packages modular. Now you have to piece one together from several different parts (depending on what you want).
Not everybody embraces this more custom and time consuming approach. So the talk over the last couple months is about developing more “generic” standard packages. You can be too generic, but you can also be too tailored. I believe somewhere in the middle is the ideal compromise.
What are your thoughts on standard qualification packages. Are they worth the effort or a waste of time? Share your thoughts in the comments!
{sharethis}
