Find the agencies your buyers could choose instead.

1. Write the brief your buyer might use

Describe a specific situation. “A regional hotel group needs more direct bookings without creating a second job for its small marketing team” is a stronger research brief than “hospitality marketing.” Include the service, business model, constraints and decision the buyer faces.

Write down the words that buyer might search. Use Browse Agencies to try service-led, industry-led and relevant platform searches. Record the queries so you can explain how you selected your comparison set. Search coverage and agency profiles change; this is a dated sample, not a permanent league table.

If your searches mostly return agencies that could never serve that brief, revise the query or broaden one constraint. Do not fill the worksheet with irrelevant firms merely because the results page supplied them.

2. Choose a set with a reason behind it

Aim for five to eight agencies, enough to expose meaningful differences without producing an unreadable document. Include direct alternatives, an adjacent specialist and perhaps a larger firm a buyer might consider. Put your own agency through the same review.

For every entry, finish the sentence: “A buyer might choose this agency because…” Use visible evidence, such as relevant case studies, a clearly described service or experience with a particular type of customer. Record whether that reason is the agency's claim or your interpretation.

Brand pages can help you find additional candidates. Look up businesses similar to the buyer, inspect the agencies naming them and follow the sources. A shared client name does not establish that two agencies competed for the same project.

3. Compare promises and evidence separately

Open each AFG profile and the agency's own relevant pages. Capture a brief paraphrase of the promise, then record the evidence supporting it. Resist polishing a vague claim into something more specific than the agency actually says.

• Buyer fit: who the agency says it serves and which named work supports that.
• Problem and offer: what it helps change, what it delivers and what remains unclear.
• Proof: project scope, dates, results, measurement context and who did the work.
• Operating model: who appears to own strategy and execution, and what the client must supply.
• Commercial information: published pricing, minimums or engagement terms, where actually available.
• Next step: what a buyer is asked to do and how easy it is to understand that commitment.

Use “not published” where information is missing. Do not infer price from client logos, delivery quality from a polished website or current capacity from headcount. A thin AFG profile can reflect limited coverage; inspect the agency's own material before drawing even a tentative conclusion.

Worked example: similar labels, different buyer choices

Illustrative example: these agencies and observations are fictional, not directory findings.

For the regional hotel brief, your research produces three plausible alternatives. Harbor Studio publishes hotel website projects. Demand Lodge describes ongoing paid acquisition for travel businesses. Broadview Collective presents an integrated hospitality offer, but the public material gives little detail about the proposed delivery team.

A weak comparison labels all three “hospitality agencies.” A useful comparison asks which buying situation favors each one. Harbor may appeal to a buyer prioritizing a rebuild. Demand Lodge may suit an ongoing acquisition need. Broadview may attract a buyer who wants coordination across services, with team detail still to confirm.

Suppose your own agency has strong experience improving direct-booking journeys without a full rebuild. That suggests a claim worth testing: you can help under-resourced teams improve the existing setup. It does not prove that the other agencies cannot do the same thing.

Your next action is to publish a case explaining the starting constraints, the changes your team owned and the outcome. You also ask recent buyers how they compared a rebuild with improvements to the current site. Those conversations test whether the proposed difference matters.

4. Turn the comparison into decisions

Separate three kinds of findings. A common promise is language many agencies use. A proof gap is something your buyer would need to believe that your material does not demonstrate. A potential difference is a capability or operating approach you can support and a buyer might value.

“Everyone says they are strategic” does not mean you should invent a more elaborate adjective. Explain a decision you helped a client make and why it mattered. “Nobody mentions this service” does not prove an open market. It may reflect low demand, a different name or simply your limited sample.

Choose one action in each of these areas:

1. Message: make one buyer problem or condition more explicit.
2. Evidence: publish or improve one case that demonstrates your role under relevant constraints.
3. Conversation: ask a question that reveals what the buyer is actually comparing.

Useful question: “When you compare the options, is the bigger concern improving performance or how much work your team will need to manage?” Let the answer shape the discussion. Do not force it into the difference you hoped to sell.

5. Build a sales note your team can use

For each recurring alternative, write four short lines: why a buyer might choose it, when your approach may fit, what evidence supports your approach and which question reveals the difference. Keep source links in the note and date the review.

Speak about your own trade-offs. “Our approach is designed for teams keeping their existing platform” is a claim you can support. “They will trap you in an expensive rebuild” is speculation about a competitor's behavior.

When you lose a deal, compare the buyer's explanation with your research. If you thought the competition was about capabilities but the buyer chose based on implementation ownership, update the map. Public material helps you prepare; buyer conversations tell you how the decision was made.

Keep the research small enough to use

Download the worksheet and review one actual buying situation. Revisit it when your offer changes, you enter a new market or a deal reveals an unfamiliar alternative. Avoid maintaining a sprawling competitor database nobody consults.

Before finishing, check your own entry for the same missing details you noticed elsewhere. Buyers cannot give you credit for experience you have not explained. Your most valuable finding may be the evidence already inside your agency that still has no useful public home.

Continue with the prospecting workflow to investigate buyers, or partner research when a complementary specialist would serve the client better.