Why we split Digital and Studio
A CTO and a brand director want opposite things from the same first page. So we stopped making them share one.
For a long time we listed everything we do on one page: enterprise systems next to food photography, AI next to campaign film.
It read as an agency that would take anything. A CTO evaluating us for a platform build saw photography in the same list and quietly downgraded us. A brand director saw infrastructure and assumed we were a dev shop moonlighting.
The work was never the problem. The structure was.
So there are two disciplines now, each with its own page, its own capabilities and its own selected work. Click Digital and you see complex systems. Click Studio and you see brand and film. Neither has to apologise for the other, and the company is still one company underneath.
Key takeaways
- A CTO and a brand director want opposite things from the same first page, and a single list serves neither.
- Everything on one page read as an agency that would take anything. The work was never the problem — the structure was.
- Two disciplines, each with its own page, capabilities and selected work. One company underneath.
Frequently asked
Does a split like this not look like two smaller companies?
It would if the two halves never met. They share a first page, a menu, one set of people and one way of working, and the case studies cross between them — a brand that also needed a platform is one project on both routes. What the split removes is the moment a visitor has to read past the half that is not theirs.
How do you decide which discipline a project belongs to?
By what the client came for, not by what was delivered. A campaign that needed a landing page built is still Studio work; a platform that needed a brand applied to it is still Digital. The capabilities listed on a project say what it actually took.