It struck me a couple paragraphs in tbh
We only take on committed work. It ensures we have the time needed to deliver on projects.
Efficient allocation of resources, as the kids call it. (The kids going to school for economics, anyway.)
You know, what literally every other service business with a brain does. Ad firms. Tech consultancies. Skilled trades. You name it.
The alternative is taking on uncommitted work. Contingent (maybe you’ve heard of it.) Sometimes the client needs you. Sometimes they don’t. You’re rolling the dice, in the actual gaming sense.
Funny thing happens when you start gambling with your resource allocation: you get it wrong. A lot. You spend 50% of your time (I’ve moved on to coin tosses) working on things that go nowhere.
👉Pulling that time away from clients who actually needed you.
And to those clients, you’re “that firm.” The one who said the right things up front but kind of disappeared. Didn’t adjust the search. Didn’t recalibrate with live checks ins. Didn’t explain what the problem was. Didn’t deliver.
Because you were too busy losing your valuable time at the track. (A horse racing pivot!)
Look, there are countless organizations who insist on large vendor lists. Making a dozen firms play slot machines under the misguided idea that it’s somehow more efficient.
They struggle to hire more than anyone. And their big idea is to double down on more and more uncommitted agencies who overextended themselves at the tables. (2 in 1 sentence, I’m that good.)
Smart companies don’t gamble with their hiring. Smart agencies don’t gamble with their time.