The case with no website in it.
A games studio that already had a site, a brand and a sales team. What it needed was the layer most agencies quote last: content that says precisely what the studio does, written for a buyer in Los Angeles and a buyer in Warsaw who are not the same person.
Where it started
Every other project on this site is a client, and starts with a website. This one is neither: it was an in-house marketing copywriter role, and that is the reason it is worth reading. Kevuru Games is a game art and development studio - characters, environments, 2D and 3D assets, full-cycle production for other people’s titles. It had a site, a brand and people selling. The gap was in the words.
Outsourced game production is bought quietly, on a shortlist, before anyone gets in touch. A producer with a title to ship compares four studios on whether they have done this exact kind of work before, whether the art style in the portfolio matches the one in their head, and whether the pipeline can take the volume. None of that is a design problem. All of it is a content problem.
A studio can have the artists and still lose the brief, because the page describing the work was written by someone who had never sat in a production meeting.
The approach
Two things shaped everything: the buyer is technical, and there were two markets reading the same English.
Service pages precise enough to be quoted against
Nobody searches for "game development". They search for the exact shape of what they need to have made, and a page that says "we do everything" disqualifies a studio on the spot. So each service had to stand on its own terms, in the vocabulary the buyer already uses:
- Game art - concept, characters, environments and props, split by style rather than bundled, because a buyer arrives with a style already in mind.
- 2D and 3D production - two different pipelines, two different buyers and two different budgets, so two sets of pages rather than one.
- Full-cycle development - the engagement that separates a studio from a contractor, and the one where the buyer needs most reassurance about process.
- Porting and co-development - searched in a completely different vocabulary, usually by someone already mid-project and under a deadline.
- Platform and engine specifics - Unity, Unreal, mobile, console. Frequently the filter the shortlist is actually built on.
- NDA, IP and pipeline questions - what a serious studio asks third, and what quietly decides it.
One language, two markets
The content is in English for both the US and Poland, which sounds like it removes the localisation problem and does not. An American publisher and a Polish studio search the same English words with different assumptions behind them - about pricing, about time zones, about what "full-cycle" includes. Writing one page for both means choosing phrasing that survives both readings rather than flattering either, and it is the part of this job that took the longest.
English is the working language of outsourced game production on both sides of this engagement - the US buyer and the Polish one are both reading it. That is a constraint, not a shortcut: it means every sentence has to survive two sets of assumptions about price, process and what is included, without being written twice.
Infographics, because some answers are not sentences
A production pipeline explained in three paragraphs is a paragraph nobody finishes. The same pipeline as one diagram is the thing a producer screenshots and sends to their lead. Infographics here are not decoration on top of the copy - they carry the parts of the answer that prose handles badly: sequence, hand-off points, and who is responsible at which stage.
What got built
- SEO content - written against what the buyer actually types, rather than against the studio’s internal service list.
- Service pages - one per discipline, each answering the objection that belongs to it rather than repeating the company boilerplate.
- Social media strategy - what to post, in what rhythm, and which of it supports a sale rather than a follower count.
- Infographics - pipeline, process and scope explained visually, for the parts a producer needs to pass on to someone else.
- Two-market phrasing - one English that reads correctly to a buyer in the USA and a buyer in Poland.
Layers live
Shorter than every other checklist on this site, and honestly so. My remit was the content layer, not the system - the studio already had the rest, and pretending otherwise would make this page fiction.
Results
I wrote the content; I did not hold the analytics. Attributing a studio’s pipeline to the pages I wrote would be a claim I cannot back, and this site does not make those. The client’s own letter, quoted below, says traffic and conversion both moved. That is her account and worth reading as such - but it is hers, not a figure I measured, and it is not the same thing as a number I could show you. What I can say myself is narrower: the service pages now describe distinct services in the buyer’s vocabulary, and the pipeline questions are answered before the contact form rather than in the first call.
"She has been instrumental in creating high-quality content for our blog, landing pages, and social media channels. Her ability to craft compelling and engaging copy has not only increased our website traffic but also improved our conversion rates and social media engagement. Her writing style is clear, persuasive, and tailored to our target audience, which has greatly enhanced our brand’s voice and presence online."
What is next
A Polish-language track is the obvious gap. Selling into Poland in English works for the studios that already operate in English and loses the ones that do not, and the phrasing compromises described above would stop being compromises. After that, the infographics deserve to be distributed rather than published once - the same diagrams carry a LinkedIn sequence almost unchanged.
Every other case here is a system I assembled from nothing, for a client, which makes it fair to ask whether the method needs the whole system - or the client relationship - to work. It needs neither. Inside somebody else’s company, on one layer of their stack, with no control over the design, the platform or the analytics, the same discipline applies: find out how the demand is actually phrased, write to that, answer the objection before the form. The layer is smaller. The thinking is identical.
Good work, badly described?
The most expensive gap in B2B is usually not the design. It is a service page that could describe any of your competitors just as well.