Specific capability, not a technology wall
A grid of forty logos says nothing. Depth in named technologies, with the kind of problems you solve, beats breadth every time. Buyers discount capability lists they suspect are aspirational.
Your buyer has never met you, is in another time zone, and is comparing you against firms in Poland and the Philippines. The site is the entire case.
An IT services website selling internationally has to establish capability, delivery model, team scale and security posture without a call. The generic offshore services site is interchangeable with a thousand others, and the differentiator is specificity: named technologies, real team numbers, actual engagement models and evidence you have delivered.
A grid of forty logos says nothing. Depth in named technologies, with the kind of problems you solve, beats breadth every time. Buyers discount capability lists they suspect are aspirational.
Dedicated team, fixed scope, time and materials, staff augmentation. What each costs to run, how communication works, what the overlap hours are. This is what a buyer actually needs to plan around.
How many engineers, at what levels, and how long people stay. Attrition is the buyer's biggest unspoken concern about offshore delivery, and addressing it directly is unusual enough to differentiate.
NDAs, data handling, ISO or SOC position, IP ownership terms. Procurement will ask, and answering on the site removes a round before it starts.
Named clients where permitted, described work with real outcomes where not, and case studies with numbers. Buyers verify, and one unverifiable claim discredits the page.
Overlap hours, who the buyer talks to, response expectations. Practical, unglamorous, and the thing that decides whether an offshore engagement feels workable.
| Problem | What it signals |
|---|---|
| Wall of forty technology logos | Aspirational rather than actual capability |
| No team size or structure | Buyer cannot judge whether you can staff it |
| No engagement models | They cannot plan a commercial arrangement |
| Stock photos of a generic office | Undermines every other claim |
| Case studies with no numbers | Results may not exist |
| No security or IP terms | A blocker for enterprise procurement |
| Ask them | Good answer | Walk away if |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns the site and files? | You do, unconditionally, in the contract | Ownership depends on staying with them |
| Can I open three sites you built? | Live URLs you can check | Screenshots and a PDF |
| What is explicitly not included? | A written list with change pricing | Everything is included |
| How will we know it worked? | A metric agreed before work starts | Activity reports |
The exclusions question decides whether the final invoice matches the quote.
Specific capability rather than a technology wall, delivery and engagement models, team scale and retention, security and IP terms, verifiable proof, and practical detail on time zone overlap and communication.
Specificity. Named depth in fewer technologies, real team numbers, actual engagement models, and case studies with outcomes. The generic offshore site is interchangeable, which is why buyers default to price when comparing them.
No. A wall of logos reads as aspirational and buyers discount it. Depth in the technologies you genuinely lead in, with the problems you solve in each, is more persuasive and more honest.
Security posture, data handling, IP ownership terms, team scale and retention, and whether your references verify. Procurement applies these as filters, and answering them on the site removes an entire round of questions.
A model and a range helps, even if the exact figure depends on the engagement. Buyers comparing across countries need to know roughly where you sit, and no signal at all means they assume and often assume wrong.
More than most firms think. Overlap hours, who the buyer talks to daily and expected response times decide whether an engagement feels workable. Stating them plainly removes the main practical objection to offshore delivery.
Send us what you are trying to fix and we will tell you what it takes, what it costs, and whether we are the right people for it. If we are not, we will say so.