Before we position anyone, we read the company, the way a buyer reads it.
We have already pulled your website and your LinkedIn pages. The next four screens show you what a buyer actually sees, and where the two disagree. It takes about ten minutes, it produces four reports you can circulate, and you can stop at any point and go straight to onboarding partners, whatever we do not settle today becomes a company backlog we work through as each partner joins.
What we found
prefilledWrong or missing something? Every field is editable, and nothing downstream is locked by it.
Already read
Your website, read as a buying decision, not as a website.
We are not judging design, speed or copywriting. One question only: does a director with a payroll problem, three tabs open and four minutes to spare, work out that you are the answer?
Read in 4 minutes
A well-built site for a company that already has the relationship. Nearly opaque to a stranger with a problem.
What is great, protect it
The references section is the strongest asset you own, and it is nearly invisible.
- 225 named client accounts and 83 written case studies, most firms your size publish a dozen logos.
- Real specificity in the writing. “TMA fonctionnelle GTA sur Chronos V10” (their words: functional maintenance of time-and-attendance on Chronos V10) is the kind of sentence only a practitioner writes, and a buyer trusts it instantly.
- “No ESN, made in France”, a stance against your own sector's business model. It is the only sentence on the site a competitor cannot copy.
- Four practices with genuinely different capabilities, and the market rarely has all four in one house.
Is the USP clear?No
Four practices, one sentence, repeated four times: “transformation”.
Meanwhile the one uncopyable position, refusing the day-rate staffing model, lives on the Technology page, the least-visited of the four, carried by nobody by name.
A buyer reading two of your pages cannot tell which company you are. That is not a copy problem; it is four teams writing for themselves.
What needs improving
- Lead the practice pages with the failure you prevent, not the capability you have. “Payroll programmes fail on rules nobody validated” outperforms “we deliver HRIS transformation” with the same reader.
- Put the numbers where a stranger lands. 23 years, 290 active clients, 650 consultants, no vendor commission, all real, all verifiable, none on the homepage.
- Name the buyer out loud. A payroll director should read one line and think: that is me.
- Give the 83 case studies a route in by industry and by problem, not by practice. Nobody browses by your org chart.
What needs dropping
- “Leading player in #HumanTech.” A self-awarded title in a category you invented. It costs more credibility than it buys, and LinkedIn's own algorithm cannot parse it, see the next screen.
- “Whatever your needs … we will meet all your expectations.” This refuses nothing, and a firm that refuses nothing has no specialism.
- “Cultural transformation” as a standalone offer. One page, no case study, no named owner. It dilutes the other three.
- “Allier l'Humain & la Technologie.” (their words: bringing People and Technology together) Near-verbatim on competitors' sites. We will quote them side by side once you name your real top three.
What is missing
- A named human anywhere near the offer. Buyers hire people. Every practice page is written by the company about the company.
- Anything you refuse. No “we are not the right firm if …”. That single paragraph does more qualifying than the rest of the site.
- A reason to act now. No trigger, no diagnostic, no first step smaller than “contact us”.
- Client names on 40 of the 83 case studies. “A European technology company” proves nothing. Some of those could be named with a phone call.
The honest summary
You are not short of substance. You are short of a sentence.
Everything a buyer needs is on this site, the proof, the depth, the refusal, the range. It is spread across 34 pages in the company's own vocabulary, and the one position nobody else can claim is the one you whisper. We are not going to rebuild your website. We are going to make it unnecessary for lead generation, and hand your web team the findings.
Your manifesto is the only place a buyer hears the President speak. It takes 1,100 words to arrive at a hashtag.
Every other page describes what ACT-ON does. This one says what ACT-ON believes, signed by Philippe Ferry, and it is where a serious buyer goes to decide whether you think like them. We read it as that buyer, then rewrote it. The rebuilt version is below, ready to copy and paste.
Read out loud
The convictions are real. They are buried under four screens of throat-clearing about a world in transformation.
What the page actually says, in the order it says it
read from actongroup.com/manifesto, 20 September 2026| Section | Its message | What a buyer does with it |
|---|---|---|
| 1. A paradoxical world | The world is changing on every level, and denial is no longer possible. | Nothing. Every consultancy opens here. Three paragraphs before ACT-ON is mentioned. |
| 2. Opportunity or necessity | Companies must reconcile opposing forces and transform themselves. | Still nothing about you. A buyer who already knows they must transform is being told they must transform. |
| 3. Three priorities | Organisational, digital, cultural. Three levers of performance. | The first useful content, and the only part a buyer can place themselves inside. It arrives at roughly 60% of the page. |
| 4. The word from the President | People and technology are inseparable. Technology alone is nothing, it needs human buy-in. Activating both turns a project into performance. | Genuinely worth reading, and the only human voice on the whole site. Then it ends on “this is what we call #HumanTech” and turns a conviction into branding. |
| 5. The close | “We stand as the leading #HumanTech player”, then the four practices. | A self-awarded title, a made-up category, and four links. The one page that could commit to something closes by claiming a rank nobody gave you. |
What is great, protect it
There is a real thesis here, and one paragraph of it is the best writing you own.
- “Seule, la Technologie n'est rien.” (their words: technology alone is nothing) Five words, a position, and a competitor selling licences cannot sign it. This is the sentence the whole firm should be built on.
- The President signs it in the first person. On this page, where his leadership team says nothing in its own voice, he publishes a conviction. That is the raw material for every partner profile we will write.
- Three priorities, named plainly: organisational, digital, cultural. A buyer can locate their own problem in that list, which is more than the practice pages let them do.
- It exists at all. Most consultancies of your size have a values page. A manifesto signed by the President is rarer and worth more.
Is the USP clear?Partly
The conviction is real. The page turns it into a hashtag before a buyer can use it.
Then the page names it #HumanTech and claims to be the “leading player” in it. A category you invented has no competitors, no search volume and no buyer asking for it, so leading it means nothing, and it is exactly the phrase your sales director now carries as his own headline.
The failure is structural, not stylistic. A buyer reaches the President's conviction at roughly three-quarters of the page, after four sections about a world in transformation that would sit unchanged on any competitor's site. The best content is behind the most generic content.
What needs improving
- Open on the conviction, not on the world. “Technology alone is nothing” in the first line does the work that four sections currently attempt.
- Put a cost on the belief. A conviction a buyer can check is worth ten a buyer must take on faith: no day-rate bench, no vendor commission, salaried consultants. Those are refusals with a price tag, and they are already true.
- Keep the first person and extend it. The President says “nous”; let him say “je”, and let it read like a person who has watched programmes fail.
- End on one next step. The page currently ends on four practice links, which is a menu, not an invitation.
What needs dropping
- Sections 1 and 2 entirely. Roughly 400 words establishing that the world is changing. Your buyer knows. Every competitor says it.
- “The leading #HumanTech player.” Self-awarded rank, invented category. It is the single most damaging sentence on the site because it is the one the algorithm reads.
- “Symbiotiques.” (their words: symbiotic) The vocabulary of a brand deck. Nobody briefs a payroll programme in these terms.
- The stacked one-line poetry layout. Short centred lines make a short text feel long and a serious argument feel like a slogan.
What is missing
- A single thing you refuse. A manifesto that refuses nothing commits to nothing. Yours has three refusals available and uses none of them here.
- Evidence. 23 years, 290 clients, 650 salaried consultants, 225 named references. A belief supported by a track record reads as judgement; a belief alone reads as marketing.
- A failure he has seen. One sentence about a programme that went wrong for human reasons would make the whole argument concrete.
- Anywhere to go. No diagnostic, no conversation, no first step. The most persuasive page on the site is a dead end.
The honest summary
You wrote a conviction and published a preamble.
The President's paragraph is the strongest positioning material ACT-ON owns, stronger than anything on the four practice pages, and a buyer meets it only if they read 800 words about a changing world first. The rebuild below adds one thing their page does not have: a story. It opens on a Friday evening when a payroll would not run, so that his sentence is earned rather than asserted, puts a price on the conviction, keeps their three fronts, restores the four practices as the places a programme gives way, has him sign it in his own name, and ends on a form instead of a slogan.
Your manifesto, cloned and rebuilt · the real page, not a mockup
the only page we redesignBoth versions below are real pages built in your design system: AvenirNext, your #141720 ink and #F2F3F5 light, your gradient hairline, your gradient headline treatment, your three bordered cards, your outlined hero title, Philippe Ferry's own portrait. Live today is your current page, cloned. Rebuilt is the same page told as a story. Both pages, side by side puts them next to each other with every change annotated, and Export the rebuild as HTML downloads one self-contained file your web team can open with no server and no assets folder.
Our manifesto
Philippe FERRY
President, ACT-ON GROUP
23 years leading the firm
One Friday evening,
a payroll that will not run.
The software worked.
The configuration was correct.
The project was “on schedule”.
And yet that Friday, eleven thousand people were at risk of not being paid the following month, because one seniority rule had never been signed off by anyone who carried the consequences.
Nobody had lied.
Nobody had picked the wrong tool.
One decision was missing, and everyone believed somebody else had taken it.
Technology on its own
is nothing.
In 23 years I have never seen a programme fail because of software.
They fail on rules nobody validated.
On governance nobody held.
On teams nobody explained the reason to.
That is why we do not sell technology.
We make transformations hold.
What this conviction costs us
A conviction you can check is worth ten a client has to take on faith.
Here are ours, and above all what they stop us doing.
650 salaried consultants.
No day-rate bench.
The people who open your programme are ours, from the first workshop to go-live.
No vendor commission.
We do not sell the tool we install.
Our recommendation costs you nothing but our time.
We do not answer every brief.
If you want man-days at the best price, others do that better than we do.
We say so before the proposal, not after.
23 years
An independent firm, led by the same partners, across three economic cycles.
290 active clients
Mid-caps, SBF 120, CAC 40, public sector and non-profits.
225 references published under their own names.
83 written case studies
Payrolls that run, HR systems rebuilt, HR data people can trust again.
Where transformations actually give way
That Friday evening was not exceptional.
A programme never holds on a tool: it holds or it gives way on three fronts, and that is where we work.
Organisational
Governance, committees, decision-making, processes, workforce, compliance & legal, payroll.
Digital
IS, IT architecture, data, AI, automation, new technologies.
Cultural
Values, management model, intrapreneurship, commitment, employee experience.
Most firms cover one of the three.
We work across all three with the same teams.
That is the only reason a programme reaches the end.
Four practices, one standard
We do not have four offers.
We have four places where a programme can give way, and a partner accountable for each one.
Strategy
Deciding before spending: the target, the sequence, the governance.
HRIS
The payroll that runs, the HR system that holds, time and attendance nobody argues about.
Data
HR figures an executive committee can rely on.
Technology
The architecture and the operations, so the decision stays sustainable.
Philippe Ferry
President, ACT-ON GROUP · 23 years leading the firm
I sign this page in my own name.
If a programme we open does not hold, I am the one to tell.
What is your Friday evening?
Describe it in three lines.
A partner calls you back within 48 hours, and will also tell you when we are not the right firm.
What you get.
Thirty minutes with a partner, not a salesperson.
Our reading of the three fronts on your situation, and the first breaking point we can see.
What we ask of you.
Be precise about the date.
A programme has no problem until it has a deadline.
The four situations we get called into: a payroll that has to run next month, an HR system to rebuild without stopping the business, HR data nobody believes any more, a programme already under way that is taking on water.
Thank you.
A partner calls you back within 48 hours, and will also tell you if we are not the right firm for that deadline.
Think.
Act.
Make it hold.
Our manifesto
A contradictory world…
In transformation,
but struggling to change!
Today's world is in a state of radical change. At all levels: environmental, societal and economic.
The transformations and upheavals we're experiencing are unprecedented.
This new paradigm highlights contrasting worldviews in modern societies, and presents a real dilemma.
Is it still possible to remain in denial, when almost everything reminds us of the urgent need for change?
Whether opportunity or necessity...
Transformation is the only way forward for companies
In this new world, new priorities seem to be emerging… Quest for meaning, ecology, degrowth, belonging to a community, long term.
And yet, there's still plenty of talk about… overconsumption, overproduction, race for growth, hyper-customization, immediacy and short-termism.
Companies are no exception to this fundamental trend. It's also reinforced by the new generations' changing attitude to work.
In response, companies need to conciliate and resolve conflicting concerns. And transforming themselves in response. Whether by opportunity or necessity.
3 transformation priorities…
3 performance drivers for companies
For some companies, transformation is a lever for seizing new opportunities. For others, it's a necessity, even a survival issue.
New technologies, new standards. New market shares, new offers, new competitors. New consumption or behaviors' patterns.
Whatever the reasons, companies will always have 3 key priorities to work on. To restore performance.
Organizational
Governance, committees, decision-making, processes, workforce, compliance & legal, payroll...
Digital
IS, IT architecture, data, AI, automation, new techs...
Cultural
Values, management model, intrapreneurship, commitment, employee experience
And these 3 priorities, considered separately or combined,
are real performance drivers for
for companies.
Philippe FERRY - President
ACT-ON GROUP
"Human & technology
are interconnected as never before.
From now on,
it's no longer possible to manage
one without the other.
Both are the key drivers
of business performance.
"Transformation must be a unifying and mobilizing project.
It aims to meet everyone's needs: employees, customers and partners. It also has to engage. Giving meaning to action. And to bring its own value.
To achieve this, it is essential to consider two key components in every transformation project: People and Technology.
Because both are everywhere in the organization. Because both are interconnected. And both have a direct impact on business.
Technology is nothing on its own. It requires human action and buy-in. It must embrace real-world uses and deliver genuine user benefits.
Human beings, for it's part, must be able to interact seamlessly with Technology, and rely on it, for greater comfort, safety and efficiency.
From now on, one can no longer go without the other. They are indissociable. Symbiotic.
And it is precisely through the "activation" of Human and Technology that a transformation project becomes a performance booster for the company.
To think. To act. To transform.
This is... Our conviction. Our approach. Our difference.
What we also call #HumanTech.
And that's the very essence of the promise we stand for!"
"Combining Human & Technology
for your business performance."
#HumanTech.
For all these reasons,
we at ACT-ON GROUP,
proudly stand as the leading #HumanTech player.
And we bring together all our expertise in
#STRATEGY, #HRIS, #DATA and #TECHNOLOGY to support our clients' success in every transformation project.
What the rebuild changes, section by section
same design, different order| Section | Live today | Rebuilt |
|---|---|---|
| First screen | An outlined title over a stock photo, then 400 words on a world in transformation. | A scene: one Friday evening, a payroll that will not run, eleven thousand people at risk, and one decision everybody assumed somebody else had taken. A buyer who has lived it cannot stop reading. |
| Sections 1 and 2 | Roughly 800 words establishing that companies must transform. | Cut. The argument is carried by the story instead, then priced: 650 salaried consultants, no day-rate bench, no vendor commission, and the briefs they refuse. |
| The President | Two columns of reflection at roughly 75% of the page, ending on a hashtag. | His sentence is the turn of the page, and it lands second, once the scene has earned it. Then he signs the page in the first person and takes the consequences himself. |
| Three priorities | Organisational, digital, cultural, presented as a list of capabilities. | Kept, in the same bordered cards, reframed as where programmes actually give way, and tied back to that Friday evening. |
| Four practices | STRATEGY, HRIS, DATA, TECHNOLOGY as four links in the close, a menu. | Restored, but as the four places a programme can give way, each with an accountable partner. This is the bridge from the company page to the partner phase. |
| The close | “We stand as the leading #HumanTech player”, then four practice links. | A question, “What is your Friday evening?”, and a working form: name, company, work email, deadline, three lines. It says what you get, what they ask, and that a partner will also tell you when they are not the right firm. |
You do not have a LinkedIn page. You have nine, holding 42,211 followers, and not one of them reshares another.
Same five questions, same frame as the website, so the two assessments can be compared line by line on the next screen. Every number below was read from the pages themselves on 20 September 2026 and frozen as your baseline.
Deliberately below the website
The pages are well produced and badly aimed. The production quality is why the rest is worth fixing.
Start here
Two-thirds of your LinkedIn audience is not on the page you think of as yours.
ACT-ON GROUP has 13,336 followers. The other eight pages hold 28,875, 68% of your reach, and they were built one at a time, by different teams, with no rule connecting them. Nobody inside the firm is accountable for the estate as a whole, which is why nobody noticed it had grown to nine.
The nine pages, counted
read from the pages themselves · baseline frozen 20 Sep 2026| Page | Type | Followers | Share | Promise it makes | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-ON GROUP linkedin.com/company/act-on | Group | 13,336 | 32% | Leading player in #HumanTech | verified · the only page carrying the firm name alone |
| ACT-ON DATA linkedin.com/company/act-on-data | Practice | 10,416 | 25% | #HumanTech. Think. Act. Predict. | second-largest audience in the group |
| ACT-ON HRIS linkedin.com/company/act-on-hr-hris | Practice | 6,844 | 16% | #HumanTech. Think. Act. Digitalize. | the practice that carries the house, third-largest page |
| ACT-ON TECHNOLOGY linkedin.com/company/act-on-technology | Practice | 4,358 | 10% | #HumanTech. Think. Act. Code. | carries the only uncopyable claim: neo-ESN, made in France |
| ACT-ON BELGIUM linkedin.com/company/act-on-belgium | Country | 2,469 | 6% | Key expert in Human Resources, Data & Technology | bigger than STRATEGY · no #HumanTech, different promise |
| ACT-ON SWITZERLAND linkedin.com/company/act-on-switzerland | Country | 2,065 | 5% | #HumanTech. Think. Act. Transform. | Swiss branch · 17 accounts on the client list |
| ACT-ON STRATEGY linkedin.com/company/act-on-strategy | Practice | 1,760 | 4% | #HumanTech. Think. Act. Change. | 1,760 followers · its director also runs HRIS |
| ACT-ON GERMANY linkedin.com/company/act-on-germany | Country | 501 | 1% | Key expert in Human Resources, Data & Technology | thinnest page · 4 accounts on the client list |
| ACT-ON GROUP INSIDE linkedin.com/showcase/act-on-inside | Showcase | 462 | 1% | Soyez vous-même. Soyez différent. | employer brand · showcase page, in French, behind-the-scenes |
| Total audience nine pages, none resharing another | Uncoordinated | 42,211 | 100% | seven different promises | verified 20 Sep 2026 |
Three country pages nobody counts
5,035
Belgium 2,469 · Switzerland 2,065 · Germany 501. Belgium alone outranks STRATEGY, and your client list shows 17 Belgian accounts against 196 French. The audience is ahead of the business there.
Followers of a practice sharing its director
1,760
ACT-ON STRATEGY publishes a promise, “Think. Act. Change.”, to 1,760 people, and its director is Julien Galtier, who also runs HRIS. One person, two practices, two promises. Either STRATEGY gets its own director or it stops being sold as a separate practice.
The page that is aimed correctly
462
ACT-ON GROUP INSIDE knows exactly who it talks to, in French, to your own people: “Soyez vous-même. Soyez différent.” Your smallest page has your clearest voice. It proves the firm can do this when one team owns one audience.
What is great, protect it
You publish well, in French, about the actual work, and most competitors do not.
- Weekly, subject-matter content including produced video (“De la GTA au Workforce Management” from time-and-attendance to workforce management). That is a real editorial habit, and habits are the hardest part to buy.
- A verified GROUP page since August 2026, complete and correctly categorised.
- An estate worth 42,211 followers, built without a plan, which means it grew on the strength of the work rather than a campaign. Most firms would pay a lot for this and cannot buy it.
- The INSIDE showcase is genuinely good. One audience, one voice, in the language of the audience. It is the proof that the problem is coordination, not capability.
- 588 associated members, a distribution network already on the platform.
Is the USP clear?No
Nine pages, seven different promises, and the algorithm has drawn its own conclusion.
The HRIS page is better written but refuses nothing: “whatever your company's specific needs … we will meet all your expectations”.
Read the nine in a row and there is no single thing ACT-ON is the answer to. A buyer who finds two of your pages cannot tell they belong to the same firm, and a buyer in Brussels lands on a page that never mentions HRIS, your deepest practice.
What needs improving
- One reshare rule across all nine pages, this week. 6,844 → 42,211 for the same post, at zero cost.
- Decide who owns the estate. Nine pages grew because no single person was accountable for the whole; a tenth will appear the moment someone launches a new practice.
- Give the three country pages the local proof. Belgium has 2,469 followers and 17 named accounts on your own client list. Right now it repeats the group boilerplate in English.
- Rewrite the GROUP About to open on when to call you, carry the real numbers, and refuse three things.
- Copy what INSIDE already does right, one audience, one voice, its own language, onto the pages that sell.
What needs dropping
- #HumanTech as the lead promise. You invented the category, so the algorithm cannot classify it and a buyer cannot search it, on four pages at once.
- The four-verb game. Digitalize, Predict, Code, Transform reads as one brand exercise, not four propositions. It differentiates nothing to a buyer with a payroll problem.
- “Leading player” and “recognised expert”. Both self-awarded, both free to claim, both worth nothing next to “290 active clients”.
- “We will meet all your expectations.” The single most damaging sentence across the estate.
- A practice sharing its director. STRATEGY has 1,760 followers and the same director as HRIS. One person cannot carry two positions, split it or stop presenting it as a practice.
What is missing
- Any conversion path. No lead magnet, no diagnostic, no landing page. 42,211 followers and nowhere to send them.
- A reshare rule. Nine pages, none amplifying another. That is free reach you have already paid for, nine times over.
- A named human on any page. Not one leader is presented as the person behind a practice or a country.
- A reason the estate exists. Nine pages should mean nine distinct audiences. Today it means nine copies of the same paragraph.
- Comment activity on other people's posts. Zero. It is the highest-leverage surface on LinkedIn and it is unused.
The finding we would open a board meeting with
LinkedIn's own AI lists your competitors as Gallagher, McKinsey and Deloitte.
All three are 10,001+ employees. A 650-person specialist in HR systems has been auto-classified against the global strategy houses, and the sources cited are your own homepage and Tracxn. Your strategic priorities are summarised back to you as “organisational, digital and cultural transformation”, which is your homepage read aloud.
This is machine-readable proof that the words on your pages do not tell a reader, human or algorithmic, what you actually do. Nine pages repeating the same abstraction is nine times the signal pointing the wrong way. Whether Gallagher or McKinsey are your real competitors is exactly the point: you have not told anyone who is.
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.
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.
| Claim | What the website says | What LinkedIn says | What a buyer concludes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who you are | A 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 page | Nothing. “We will meet all your expectations.” | The strongest thing you have is absent from the surface buyers check first. |
| Proof | 225 named clients, 83 case studies, real numbers | No client names, no numbers in any About | Your proof never reaches the audience of 42,211. |
| Who does the work | A team page, no practice owner named | Nine pages, 588 members, not one person named on any of them | No human to hire. Buyers hire people, not pages. |
| Your specialism | HRIS is clearly the deepest, 131 references | HRIS is third of nine, 6,844 followers, behind DATA | Your best business has your weakest voice. |
| Your market | ETI, SBF 120, CAC 40 and public sector, everyone | Auto-classified against McKinsey and Deloitte | Nobody, 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.
Sixteen leaders. 1 of them publish nothing of their own, and the audiences that exist have mostly stopped answering.
A buyer who hears your name searches for a person, not a company. Below, for each of them: the post your own site publishes, an authority score, what they actually publish, and what a buyer concludes after thirty seconds on that profile. The score reads behaviour, not fields. Whether they post, how often, and what share of their own audience answers when they do. That is deliberate: ten of these sixteen show a logged-out buyer no headline at all, so a score built on headlines could not rate them, and a headline on a silent profile persuades nobody anyway. Everything here is read the way a prospect reads it, logged out, and every post was opened to confirm who wrote it. We also went looking for country leadership, and found it.
Publish nothing of their own
1/13
Of the leaders we could read. They reshare the company page instead, which reaches the audience they already have.
Post monthly or more
4/13
A working cadence, held without anyone asking. This is the habit the programme has to spread, and you already have it in-house.
Under 1% of followers respond
7/12
Measured on their own posts, per follower. The audience exists; it has mostly stopped answering.
Firm authority score
5.1/10
Averaged over the 13 profiles whose activity LinkedIn rendered to us.
Fix these first
Emmanuel DEMUNCK (the sales conversation, 2/10), Julien GALTIER (HRIS and STRATEGY, 4/10), Eric FOSSE (TECHNOLOGY, 5/10). They own what the firm sells, and they are the lowest scores among the people who do. The score is behaviour, so every one of these is fixable by deciding to publish.
3 profiles not rated: LinkedIn would not render their activity to a logged-out reader. Eunice FERNANDES, Erell SADOWSKI, Alain ROSSI
Audience against response, your three largest
The three biggest audiences in the firm, and the share of each that responds to its owner’s own posts. Franck MICHEL, with 13,000 followers, is answered by 0.05% of them. The best response rate in the firm belongs to Philippe FERRY, on 1,592 followers: 15.1%. Reach and response run in opposite directions here, which is why buying followers is not the work. This is measured per follower, not per impression. Your own LinkedIn analytics divides by the people who actually saw the post, so the figure you see there will be larger than the figure here. The two are not in conflict; ours is the conservative one, and it is the only one a stranger can compute.
A reshare is not a post. We opened every item on every profile and took the author from the post itself, because LinkedIn writes “shared this” over a person’s own posts on a logged-out view and reading that label as a reshare told us the exact opposite of the truth. Only posts whose author we confirmed count as theirs.
Reach is deliberately the lightest and Response the heaviest of the three that can be compared, because reach is the one thing a person cannot change by deciding to, and response is the only one that says whether anyone is listening.
5 of 6 read
2 posts of their own in the last 12 months, 6 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 15.1% of their followers respond. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back.
We cannot say. LinkedIn serves an anonymous reader only his name and his city, so what the President's profile says to a buyer who is not logged in is exactly that: a name and a city.
2 posts of their own in the last 12 months, 7 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 1.9% of their followers respond. 1 further item could not be attributed to an author, and is left out.
His conviction about people is real, and it is in the About section, which a buyer reaches only after opening the profile and scrolling. Nothing we can read says payroll, GTA or HRIS. His headline is not served to a logged-out reader, so we do not claim what it says.
1 post of their own in the last 12 months, 7 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.23% of their followers respond. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back.
Thirty-five years of running teams in France and abroad, written in his About and reduced to two words on your own site. The firm's most senior biography is reached only by someone who already cared enough to click.
9 posts of their own in the last 3 months, 1 reshare of other people’s. Median own post: 0.25% of their followers respond. Publishes a Services block naming 4 services. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back. 1 further item could not be attributed to an author, and is left out.
A name and a city to anyone not logged in, and nothing else we can read. He runs your second-largest audience, and your own DATA page calls him “Directeur ACT-ON DATA” while his profile tells a logged-out visitor nothing.
5 of 6 read
9 posts of their own in the last 11 months, 8 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.70% of their followers respond. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back.
A name and a city to anyone not logged in. The person who owns your one uncopyable claim, néo ESN and made in France, gives a logged-out reader nothing that connects him to ACT-ON.
No posts of their own in the last year, 15 reshares of other people’s. Publishes a Services block naming 8 services.
His About is the company slogan, the sentence your competitors publish near-verbatim. The sales director repeats the least ownable line the firm has, in the one field we can read.
9 posts of their own in the last 4 months, 7 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.05% of their followers respond. Publishes a Services block naming 7 services. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back.
The largest personal audience in Neuilly, thirteen thousand people, reading an About made of consulting keywords that never once mentions marketing, which is the function he runs.
Eunice FERNANDES
LinkedIn would not render this profile’s activity to a logged-out reader on any attempt, so we cannot say what this person publishes. One signed-in pass settles it.
Activity not readable logged out.
Nothing at all. Your own leadership page sends the reader to an address that no longer exists, which reads as a firm that does not maintain its own site.
Profile gonethe link on your site leads nowhere
LinkedIn would not render this profile’s activity to a logged-out reader on any attempt, so we cannot say what this person publishes. One signed-in pass settles it.
Activity not readable logged out.
To a buyer who is not logged in: a first name and a city. In a firm whose deepest practice sells to HR directors, the HR director gives a logged-out reader nothing, and her profile does not even carry her surname.
Photos and job titles taken from your own site, and quoted in the language you are reading: the nine leadership titles are ACT-ON's own English wording from actongroup.com/en/group/, not our translation. The territory page has no English edition, so those seven role labels are our translation and the cities are left as they are. Headlines read from each profile, verbatim · every follower count and every territory portrait re-read profile by profile on 21 September 2026. Where LinkedIn publishes a rounded figure only, the row says “about” rather than inventing a precise one, and a director whose profile yields no portrait keeps a monogram rather than a borrowed picture. Every response rate is divided by the exact follower count, never the rounded one, because 7,854 and 8,000 give visibly different rates.
On 12 of these rows the rate counts reactions only: LinkedIn prints a comment count on a logged-out post only when there is one, so we add nothing we did not see.
The answer to your question about coherence
Ten of your sixteen leaders show a stranger nothing but a name and a city.
The headline is the line LinkedIn shows everywhere a person appears: search results, comments, invitations, “people also viewed”. We read all sixteen the way a prospect does, without signing in, and for ten of them LinkedIn served a name and a city and nothing else. We are not telling you those fields are blank; we are telling you what a stranger gets, and a buyer is a stranger. Every profile we could read belongs to a territory director. Not one of the nine in Neuilly was readable.
What we can read points the same way. Julien Galtier's conviction about people, Marc Garrido's thirty-five years, Franck Michel's consulting keywords: all real, and all in the About section, which a buyer reaches only after deciding to open the profile and scroll. The firm's best material sits one field below the one that is read.
Two rows are worse. Your CFO's LinkedIn button points at an address that no longer resolves, so the site has been sending visitors to a dead page. And the directors of DATA and TECHNOLOGY, running 10,416 and 4,358 followers respectively, give a logged-out reader nothing at all, not even an affiliation to ACT-ON. Meanwhile six of the seven territory directors wrote a headline anyone can read. Nobody is deciding what these people say they do, and where nobody decided, the regions decided for themselves.
Yes, there is country and regional leadership. None of it is on your leadership page.
what we went looking forThree countries and four French territories each have a named director, with a phone number and an email, published on your Implantations page, not on Équipe de direction. A buyer in Brussels or Munich cannot find a person from your leadership page, only from a contact block. And their headlines are better than the group's.
2 posts of their own in the last 3 months, 12 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.62% of their followers respond.
Someone building ACT-ON in Belgium, in HR technology. A reader knows the field, the market and the mission. The best-read profile in the firm, and he is not on your leadership page.
7 posts of their own in the last 8 months, 8 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.54% of their followers respond. Publishes a Services block naming 5 services.
The country director for Switzerland. Accurate and checkable. His real asset, a master's in work and organisational psychology, is in the About and invisible to anyone who does not scroll.
LinkedIn would not render this profile’s activity to a logged-out reader on any attempt, so we cannot say what this person publishes. One signed-in pass settles it.
Activity not readable logged out.
A specialist: talent, learning, skills, data, technology. The only leader whose profile lists capabilities a buyer can match to a need.
5 posts of their own in the last 3 months, 8 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 0.06% of their followers respond. 1 further item could not be attributed to an author, and is left out.
A regional director. Correct, and the largest audience in the firm learns nothing from it. Seven thousand people follow a job title.
8 posts of their own in the last 12 months, 6 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 3.0% of their followers respond. That is everything LinkedIn serves a logged-out reader; there may be more further back.
A regional director who ties herself to the brand, @ACT-ON. The affiliation is clear; the reason to call is not.
4 posts of their own in the last 12 months, 8 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 4.2% of their followers respond.
Twelve years in HRIS, written in his About and reached only by scrolling. His headline is not served to a logged-out reader, so we quote none.
8 posts of their own in the last 5 months, 5 reshares of other people’s. Median own post: 1.5% of their followers respond. 1 further item could not be attributed to an author, and is left out.
An agency director in Nantes, with ACT-ON in the line. He publishes on HRIS change management, and his headline does not mention it.
And a third list: the board
Associés principaux · also on the same pageYour site publishes three overlapping lists of leaders: the nine-person Équipe de direction, seven territory directors under Implantations, and a three-person board. Julien Galtier appears on two of them with different titles: “Directeur STRATEGY & HRIS - Talent & GTA” in one place, “Directeur Général Délégué” in the other, and a conviction statement on LinkedIn. Three answers to “what does Julien do”, before a buyer has even called.
Associés principaux · the board, verbatim from the site
What is great, protect it
Real operators with real biographies, and the periphery is already doing it right.
- Photographs, names and titles for all nine, professionally shot and consistent. Most firms this size publish a stock image and a mailbox. The raw material is there.
- Geert Van Gucht (Belgium) and Alain Rossi (Germany) have the best headlines in the firm, “Developing ACT-ON Belgium, inspiring HR Technology consultancy” and “#HumanTech - Talent Management, Learning, Skills, Data & Technology”. They name a field and a mission. Nobody asked them to; they just did it.
- Marc Garrido states 35 years of team leadership in France and internationally. That is a scarce, checkable biography the website reduces to two words.
- Julien Galtier: 24 years in HR systems, 18 in this firm, five promotions. Still the shortest path from biography to authority.
- Frédéric Berton's 7,854 followers prove a single person here can out-reach a company page, without a content budget.
Is the USP clear?No
Six readable headlines, and not one names a problem a buyer has.
The ten we could not read are the finding, not a gap in our work. A prospect who is not signed in sees exactly what we saw: a name and a city. That includes the President and the directors of TECHNOLOGY, DATA and HR.
Emmanuel Demunck is the most revealing row. The one field we can read on the sales director, his About, opens with “Allier l'Humain & la Technologie” (their words: bringing People and Technology together), the exact sentence that appears near-verbatim on competitors' sites. The person paid to differentiate is publishing the least differentiating line the firm owns.
What needs improving
- One rule, not nine rewrites: a headline names the problem you fix, for whom. “Je fais tenir les projets de paie” beats “Directeur HRIS” with the same reader, and the job title still shows one line below.
- Fix the broken link first: it costs five minutes. Your leadership page links your CFO to a LinkedIn address that no longer exists. Whatever you decide about headlines, a dead link on the page that introduces your leaders is the cheapest thing on this list.
- Give us one signed-in pass over the nine in Neuilly. Ten of sixteen profiles are unreadable to a logged-out visitor, so the priority order for your own team cannot be settled from outside. Thirty minutes with a session closes it.
- Start with Eric Fosse and Nicolas Eimery. Two practices, two of your largest audiences, and neither profile gives a stranger any link to ACT-ON. That much is visible without signing in.
- Put the seven territory directors on the leadership page. All seven have a live profile and a real audience, Berton 7,854, Nait 3,793, Van Gucht 2,658, Berger 2,612, and a buyer in Lille or Munich currently has no person to find.
- Settle Julien's title once. Two practices, a board seat and a conviction cannot all be the answer; pick the one a buyer needs.
- Copy Van Gucht and Rossi inward. Your best headlines are already written, by your own people, outside Paris.
What needs dropping
- Job titles as headlines. Four of the six readable ones, and LinkedIn already prints the title one line below.
- The company slogan as personal copy. It is the least ownable sentence the firm has, and it opens the sales director's About.
- Three separate leadership lists. Équipe de direction, Implantations and Associés principaux publish overlapping people with inconsistent titles. One list, one title each.
- The expectation that the company pages carry the practices. They cannot, a page cannot answer a comment as a person.
What is missing
- Anything a logged-out buyer can read on ten of the sixteen. Including DATA and TECHNOLOGY, two of your four practices.
- Any territory director on the leadership page. Seven named people, zero presence where a buyer looks for leadership.
- A findable profile for your HR director. Her profile carries a first name and an initial, so a buyer searching “Erell Sadowski ACT-ON” does not reach her. In a firm whose deepest practice sells to HR directors, she is the most persuasive reference you have and the hardest to find.
- Any employee advocacy. 588 members, no reshare rule, no reusable content.
- Comment activity. Across nine leaders, effectively zero engagement on other people's posts, the highest-leverage surface on LinkedIn.
Everything you sell, and everyone you have sold it to, read off your own site.
No questionnaire. We read it, you correct it. This is the evidence base every partner's positioning will draw on, so it is worth two minutes of your eyes.
Offers published
7
Four overlap. Three “transformation” offers share one buyer.
Client accounts
225
Named on your own site, across 11 industries and 4 markets.
Bought by an HR director
144/225
64%. Plus 31 more where the HRD buys alongside the CIO.
The finding that should decide your positioning
Your own client list says you are an HR firm that also does three other things.
144 of 225 accounts were bought by an HR director. 62 involve a CIO, 8 a CFO. Of 83 published case studies, 50 are HRIS work. Your website presents four equal practices; your revenue history presents one practice that carries the house.
This is not an argument for dropping the other three. It is an argument for which one speaks first, and it is why we start with your HRIS partner rather than drawing lots.
Offers as your site states them
34 pages| Offer | Evidence | Our reading |
|---|---|---|
| ACT-ON HRIS payroll, admin, GTA, talent | 11 pages · 50 cases | Clear, deep, ownable |
| ACT-ON DATA “data reconnected to the business” | 7 pages · 14 cases | Clear & distinct |
| ACT-ON TECHNOLOGY “no ESN, made in France” | 5 pages · 8 cases | Strongest stance you own |
| ACT-ON STRATEGY | 6 pages · 4 cases | Overlaps the three below |
| Organisational transformation | 2 pages | Same buyer as Strategy |
| Digital transformation | 3 pages | Same buyer as Strategy |
| Cultural transformation | 1 page · 0 cases | No case, no owner |
Markets
| France | 196 | Office |
| Belgium | 17 | Brussels |
| Switzerland | 8 | Lausanne |
| Germany | 4 | Munich · thin |
Industries, counted from your own client list
11 industries · your four offers, account count and share| Industry | Accounts | HRIS | DATA | TECH | STRATEGY | Mix | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Services | 41 | 35 · 88% | 1 · 2% | 4 · 10% | 0 · 0% | 4 | |
| Manufacturing | 37 | 28 · 82% | 1 · 3% | 4 · 12% | 1 · 3% | 6 | |
| Public sector | 34 | 26 · 76% | 1 · 3% | 7 · 21% | 0 · 0% | 5 | |
| Banking & insurance | 24 | 18 · 75% | 3 · 13% | 3 · 12% | 0 · 0% | 2 | |
| Retail & distribution | 22 | 21 · 100% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 3 | |
| Healthcare & social care | 16 | 14 · 88% | 0 · 0% | 2 · 12% | 0 · 0% | 3 | |
| Energy & utilities | 14 | 12 · 86% | 0 · 0% | 2 · 14% | 0 · 0% | 1 | |
| Luxury | 13 | 13 · 100% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 0 | |
| Transport & logistics | 12 | 10 · 83% | 0 · 0% | 2 · 17% | 0 · 0% | 0 | |
| Media & information | 5 | 4 · 80% | 0 · 0% | 1 · 20% | 0 · 0% | 0 | |
| Construction | 4 | 4 · 100% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 0 · 0% | 0 |
Attribution: a published case study decides the offer where one exists, 37 accounts; the buying function on your own client record decides the rest. Correct any row and every later screen follows.
Three questions. We have shown you our reading, now tell us where we are wrong.
Everything so far came off your website and your LinkedIn pages. These three answers are the things no public source can tell us, and they outrank anything we inferred.
1 · Which services are actually profitable?
not the biggest, profitableRank the ones that make money. Our reading from the public record is in grey.
HRIS · payroll & admin our guess: #1 HRIS · GTA / planning DataTechnology / Digital Factory Strategy / consultingTalent2 · Which are easy to win?
short cycle, few competitors, a buyer who can decideProfitable and easy to win are rarely the same list. Where they overlap is where LinkedIn pays fastest.
HRIS · payroll audit weeks, not quarters HRIS · GTA Data quick-winsTMA / run Full HRIS programmeStrategy engagements3 · Which markets and geographies matter next year?
Countries first, then industries. Your client list says France 196 · Belgium 17 · Switzerland 8 · Germany 4.
FranceBelgiumSwitzerland (romande) GermanyLuxembourgNetherlandsUK & IrelandTop three industries for the coming quarter, we work three at a time, per partner.
ManufacturingHealthcare & social careRetail & distributionBanking & insurancePublic sectorEnergyLuxuryTransport & logisticsServicesConstructionMediaAnd one we will ask, but not today
Who are your real top three competitors, overall, and per service line?
LinkedIn's algorithm currently answers Gallagher, McKinsey and Deloitte. We doubt that is right, and guessing would make our assessment weaker, not stronger.
So we ask you for three overall and three per offer, and we ask it when we position each partner, because a differentiation argument is only useful against a competitor the buyer is actually considering.
Where your answers go
Example already visible: your site sells to ETI, SBF 120, CAC 40 and the public sector. Four different buyers is the same as no buyer.
One position, in words a buyer would use. A draft, not a decision.
Written from your own site, your own client list and your three answers. One person signs it off, not four practices, and it stays editable for as long as it takes. Partner onboarding does not wait for it.
ACT-ON GROUP · firm positioning v0.1
our draft · awaiting one approverThe position
We make HR, data and IT transformations hold, and we do it with our own consultants, not a day-rate bench.
One claim per practice, one named owner each, no two practices say the same thing
| HRIS | An HRIS programme fails for human reasons | J. Galtier |
| Technology | The ESN day-rate model is broken | E. Fosse |
| Data | AI without the business produces nothing | N. Eimery |
| Strategy | held, Galtier already carries HRIS; one person cannot own two claims | double-loaded |
What changed, and why
Who signs this off
Can approve, amend, or park it. Parking it does not stop Phase 2.
They see it and comment. They do not hold it.
Your LinkedIn company page, rebuilt. What is live today, and what replaces it.
Two real pages, not a description of a change: their page as published, and the rebuild beside it. Both pages, side by side puts them next to each other with every change annotated, and the rebuilt text is there to copy straight into LinkedIn.
Your LinkedIn page, cloned and rebuilt · the real page, not a table
the surface a buyer lands onLive today is your page as published: the cover and the logo were downloaded from LinkedIn on 21 September 2026 and every word is quoted from it. Rebuilt is the same page carrying the manifesto’s position. Both pages, side by side puts them next to each other with all eight changes annotated, and Copy the rebuilt text gives you the tagline and the About ready to paste.
ACT-ON GROUP
HR, data and IT transformations that hold · 650 salaried consultants, no day-rate bench
About
Technology on its own is nothing.
We have never seen a programme fail because of software.
They fail on rules nobody validated, on governance nobody held, and on teams nobody explained the reason to.
WHEN TO CALL US
A payroll that has to run next month.
An HR system to rebuild without stopping the business.
HR data nobody believes any more.
A programme already under way that is taking on water.
If that is your situation, the question is no longer which tool.
It is whether the thing will hold.
HOW WE WORK
We work on the three fronts where a programme actually gives way: organisational, digital and cultural.
Most firms cover one of the three.
We work across all three with the same teams, from the first workshop to go-live.
Four practices, one standard, each with a partner accountable for it.
STRATEGY: deciding before spending.
HRIS: the payroll that runs.
DATA: figures people stop arguing about.
TECHNOLOGY: what gets built, and who maintains it after.
WHAT WE REFUSE, AND WHAT IT COSTS US
No day-rate bench.
The 650 consultants who open your programme are salaried, and they are ours.
No vendor commission.
We do not sell the tool we install, so our recommendation costs you nothing but our time.
We do not answer every brief.
If you want man-days at the best price, other firms do that better than we do, and we say so before the proposal rather than after.
WHAT YOU CAN CHECK
23 years, led by the same partners, across three economic cycles.
290 active clients: mid-caps, SBF 120, CAC 40, public sector and non-profits.
225 references published under their own names.
83 written case studies.
650 salaried consultants, 8 offices.
THE FIRST STEP
Thirty minutes with a partner, not a salesperson: our reading of your situation and the first breaking point we can see.
A partner will also tell you when Act-On is not the right firm for it.
actongroup.com/manifesto
… see more
- Website
- actongroup.com
- Industry
- Business Consulting and Services
- Company size
- 501-1,000
- Headquarters
- Neuilly-sur-Seine, Île-de-France
Featured
ACT-ON GROUP
Leading player in #HumanTech
About
ACT-ON GROUP is the leading player in #HumanTech.
A recognized expert in Human Resources, Data & Technology.
As a consulting & services company, we mobilize our various and complementary areas of expertise, as well as our knowledge of our partner ecosystem, to support our customers in the success of all their transformation projects: organizational, digital or cultural... Our ability to act on both People & Technology enables us to activate the key performance drivers within your organization!
And in so doing, create useful value for your company... http://www.actongroup.com Mail. contact@actongroup.com Tel. 0033 1 47 78 02 89
… see more
- Website
- actongroup.com
- Industry
- Business Consulting and Services
- Company size
- 501-1,000
- Headquarters
- Neuilly-sur-Seine, Île-de-France
Featured
Nothing featured.
The rebuilt text, ready to paste
2,596 characters against LinkedIn’s 2,600 limitWhy the About is long
A company About is not a tagline, it is the page a buyer reads when they are already interested and deciding whether to call. Short is a cost here, not a virtue: the current one is 46 words and answers no question a buyer actually has.
The banner and Featured, downloadable
1128 × 191, built in your AvenirNext and your gradient, using the mark you actually publish. Nothing that matters sits in the outer 8%, because LinkedIn crops it on mobile.
Do this before anything else · the reshare rule
costs nothing| Julien posts today · HRIS | 6,844 |
| + GROUP | 20,180 |
| + DATA | 30,596 |
| + TECHNOLOGY · STRATEGY | 36,714 |
| + Belgium · Switzerland · Germany · INSIDE | 42,211 |
Score on the LinkedIn company page
4 → 8 · two points held back until the partner pages are live and the reshare rule has run a quarter
Phase 1 is done. Here is what is left, and it is fine.
Settled today
Company backlog · worked as partners onboard
Nothing in that backlog blocks a partner. Each item gets decided when a partner’s positioning makes the firm feel the cost of leaving it, which is faster than any committee, and it is why we move to Julien now.
The company is read. The next step is one human.
Phase 1 produced the firm's position, the evidence base and the baseline. Phase 2 turns that into one partner's offer, profile, audience and publishing habit, and it is ready to run now. We start with one seat, because one partner with numbers is the only argument that sells the second. Below is your whole leadership team as your own site publishes it, each with the score and the behaviour we measured. Our recommendation is marked; the choice is yours, and any of these nine can take the first seat.
Philippe FERRY
President
Julien GALTIER
Strategy & HRIS Director - Talent & TAM
Marc GARRIDO
Development & Innovation Director
Nicolas EIMERY
DATA & AI Director
Eric FOSSE
TECHNOLOGY Director
Emmanuel DEMUNCK
Sales Director
Franck MICHEL
Marketing & Communication Director
Eunice FERNANDES
Administrative & Financial Director
Erell SADOWSKI
Human Resources Director
The nine your site lists under Équipe de direction, in the order it lists them. Scores and publishing figures are the ones proved on the leadership step, read logged out. Two rows carry no score: LinkedIn would not render their activity to a logged-out reader, and your CFO's profile is gone.
Why Julien Galtier first
our recommendationHis biography is the scarcest asset in the firm and the profile works hardest to hide it, it says “plus de 15 ans” (“over 15 years”) when the real number is 24. That gap is the fastest win available anywhere in this engagement.
He is not the highest score, and that is the argument. Nicolas Eimery and Franck Michel already publish weekly, so the programme would be tuning a habit that exists. Julien carries the practice the firm sells most, has the biography to back it, and publishes almost nothing, which is where the visible movement is. If you would rather start with a partner who is already moving, Eimery is the one to take.