Eric Yim: Why relationships are hard to copy

I think the hardest parts of Protocol Text to copy would be the relationships, going out in person, and the care of telling the stories. The small product details matter too. Someone would need really high attention to detail to notice them and understand why they're there.

By Eric Yim, Protocol Text

What a feature list doesn't tell you

If you run an independent service business, two marketing providers can look similar on paper. They might describe similar technology or show you similar-looking content. That comparison leaves out how they learn about your business and what happens to that understanding afterward.

Right now, I'm going out to people in person and asking them what their story is. I don't know if that will be forever, but that's what I'm doing now. Talking with each person gives me a way to hear the story from the person whose business it is.

That's part of why I think the relationships would be hard to copy. Another company could arrange an in-person meeting. But arranging the meeting doesn't automatically give them the understanding that comes from listening carefully and following up on something they didn't understand.

For an owner comparing providers, the useful question is what they do with what they learn. Does your explanation shape the work, or does it disappear once the conversation ends?

Small details carry decisions you can't see

I think the way a product feels and looks matters. With all the new technology and all the slop that's coming out, I believe work that someone spent a lot more time on will stand out. Real-life experiences, thoughts, and fights over why something was built a certain way can shape the result.

A person copying the visible product may see the wording or the layout without seeing the decision behind it. They might copy one detail and then remove it later because they never understood what problem it was solving.

For example, a marketing tool could make it easy to correct a factual claim before approving a draft. That's an illustrative detail, not a claim about a specific Protocol Text feature. Its value would depend on the whole experience: can the owner spot the claim, explain the correction, and check that it was actually changed?

When you're watching a walkthrough, ask to follow one ordinary task all the way through. A polished opening screen tells you less than seeing what happens when the information needs correcting.

A practical way to test care with your story

Here's an exercise I'd suggest when comparing marketing providers. Bring one real explanation from your business. Choose something customers regularly misunderstand, or a decision you often have to explain. Leave out customer names and private information.

For an illustrative example, imagine a service business owner says: “Customers ask for a price before we have enough information to explain what the work involves.” A provider could flatten that into a generic promise about great service. A more useful response would start by asking what information is missing and how the owner explains the next step.

Ask the provider how they'd turn that explanation into a post. If sample work isn't available, talk through their process. Listen for the questions they ask before they start writing.

• Check the meaning. Does the proposed wording preserve the owner's actual point?
• Check the claims. Have they added promises, services, or results the owner never supplied?
• Ask for a correction. Find out who makes it and how the owner reviews the revised version.

This gives you something concrete to compare. Friendliness matters, but accurate handling of your explanation shows whether that attention carries into the work.

Personal connection still needs a workable process

I think Protocol Text's combination matters: being able to work with a founder at a personal level, having the in-person connection, and using technology. My view is that some technology-led providers miss the personal connection, while some providers with a higher personal touch lack the technology. I think we have both.

That doesn't mean an in-person meeting guarantees good marketing. A remote provider can listen carefully, and a friendly meeting can still produce vague work. Look at the questions, the draft, and the way corrections get handled rather than judging by the meeting format alone.

Care also shouldn't become endless polishing. Before committing, clarify what you'll need to supply, who approves the work, and how you raise a concern. Relationships can support better understanding, but they don't promise immediate marketing results. Choose a provider whose attention you can see in the work and whose process you can realistically take part in.

Frequently asked questions

What if I don't have an interesting business story?

Start with an ordinary explanation you give customers. Why do you ask for certain information? What affects the work you recommend? You don't need a dramatic origin story. A specific explanation gives a provider something useful to understand and communicate without inventing a personality for your business.

How can I evaluate a provider that won't create a free sample?

Ask them to walk through an existing example they're allowed to share, or explain their process using your scenario. Focus on where they get facts, when you review the work, and how corrections happen. You can learn about their judgment without asking them to complete unpaid work.

Should a personal relationship justify a higher marketing price?

Not by itself. Ask what the relationship includes in practice, such as access to the person doing the work or time spent understanding your business. Then compare the scope, your responsibilities, and the cost. A good conversation alone doesn't tell you whether the service fits your budget or workload.

What should I ask if the founder won't always handle my account?

Ask who becomes your contact and how your explanations, preferences, and approved facts will carry over. Find out who is responsible when something is wrong. A relationship is more useful when the understanding behind it survives a handoff instead of requiring you to explain everything again.