This is the exported report. Use Print to save it as PDF. ← Back to setup

Assessment report

Website vs LinkedIn · contradiction report

Seven claims placed side by side across both surfaces, and what a buyer concludes from reading both.

ClientACT-ON GROUP
Prepared byB2G · Authority
Date20 September 2026
Baselinefrozen 20 Sep 2026
Everything in this report was read from ACT-ON GROUP's own public surfaces, the website, the manifesto, all nine LinkedIn pages, the published references, on the date above. Figures are the baseline frozen at the start of the engagement; any claim we make in ninety days is measured against them.

Your website and your LinkedIn page are selling two different companies.

Same claims, both surfaces, and what a buyer concludes when they see both, which they do, because they check LinkedIn before the call and the website after it.

Website

5/10

Substance without a sentence. Undersells a real position.

LinkedIn

4/10

Production without aim. Oversells a generic one.

Together

3/10

Lower than either alone. The two surfaces contradict each other, and a buyer reading both trusts neither.

ClaimWhat the website saysWhat LinkedIn saysWhat a buyer concludes
Who you areA consulting & services firm with four practices, 23 years, 290 clients“The leading player in #HumanTech”Two different companies. One is credible, the other is a slogan.
What you refuse“No ESN, made in France”, on the Technology pageNothing. “We will meet all your expectations.”The strongest thing you have is absent from the surface buyers check first.
Proof225 named clients, 83 case studies, real numbersNo client names, no numbers in any AboutYour proof never reaches the audience of 42,211.
Who does the workA team page, no practice owner namedNine pages, 588 members, not one person named on any of themNo human to hire. Buyers hire people, not pages.
Your specialismHRIS is clearly the deepest, 131 referencesHRIS is third of nine, 6,844 followers, behind DATAYour best business has your weakest voice.
Your marketETI, SBF 120, CAC 40 and public sector, everyoneAuto-classified against McKinsey and DeloitteNobody, human or algorithm, can tell who you serve.
What to do next“Contact us”Nothing. No link, no offer, no diagnostic.A convinced visitor leaves. Twice.

The one sentence

Your website undersells a real position. Your LinkedIn page oversells a generic one.

Fixing either alone makes the gap worse. The order that works: settle the position once, then let both surfaces say the same thing, and let named humans carry it, because that is the only version a buyer can act on.

What this means for the partners

Every partner we position inherits this. If the firm says “we do everything”, a partner claiming one specialism looks off-message, and if the firm says nothing checkable, the partner carries the proof alone.

Which is why we do not wait. We onboard the first partner now, and each partner's positioning forces one company decision at a time, in the order the business actually feels it.

The alternative, fixing the firm first, then the partners, means a four-practice consensus before anyone publishes anything. That takes a quarter and produces nothing.

Not a blocker. This report is the one to circulate internally. It is also the argument for a single approver: seven contradictions exist because four teams each wrote their own version.
Confidential · prepared for ACT-ON GROUPcomparison · en