Public sector and non-profit
Multilateral
Organisations owned by several governments.
UN agencies, development banks and national aid arms publish more than most corporations and are read by fewer people. Nobody buys from them. A ministry prepares a project, an NGO seeks accreditation, a supplier tries to register, and each of them now asks an engine how to work with you before they ask you. Consultancies are answering that question.
Where the answer is being lost
The instructions for working with you are written by other people.
A local supplier in a programme country asks "How do UN agencies procure communication services" and gets an outdated registration guide repackaged by a firm selling bid-writing courses. A joint secretary in a finance ministry asks how a concessional lender picks projects and gets a consultancy's reconstruction of your own appraisal criteria. Your communications team published both answers. Both sit in PDFs with no date, no author and no headings, so neither is what gets read. The pipeline of partners and suppliers stays narrower than your mandate requires.
How we win this
The programme for multilateral
Answer how to work with you
Registration, calls for proposals, accreditation, due diligence, concessional terms. Every institution here has already written these rules down. They are written for an auditor, though, and they sit inside the instrument rather than inside the question the counterpart is asking. The work is translation: answer-pages that take the rule a ministry official or an implementing organisation actually needs and state it in the terms they would use themselves.
Open the archive you have
The volume is not the problem. Country programme documents, evaluations, sector research and operations manuals already exist, mostly as scanned or unstructured PDFs carrying no author, no date and no headings. Before anyone writes a new word, technical and schema make that existing material machine-readable and give each statement a source and a year.
Numbers with definitions attached
Results indicators, disbursement figures, sector baselines and evaluation findings are the parts of your work most likely to be quoted and most likely to be quoted wrongly. data-assets gives each figure a stable page, a definition, a period and a method note. When an engine reproduces the number, your qualification travels with it.
What content cannot move
Boards approve. Member states allocate. Rosters open on their own schedule and close on it. None of that bends to a well-written page, and we will not suggest it does. What moves is who arrives, in what state, and how much of your first meeting is spent explaining what your institution is for.
The mix that carries it
Content
Answer and comparison pages
Cost, process, eligibility and comparison pages built for direct extraction, not for a reader who scrolls.
Foundation
Entity and schema engineering
Structured data and entity definition so engines know exactly what you are, where you operate, and what you are credible in.
Foundation
Technical fixes
Crawlability, render, speed and the machine-readability faults that keep an engine from reading you at all.
Content
GEO blogs and authority content
The definitive written answer to the questions your buyers put to an engine, structured so it can be lifted and attributed.
Authority
Original data and benchmarks
Proprietary numbers, surveys and benchmarks — the most-cited asset class there is, because nobody else has them.
Authority
Digital public outreach
Earned mentions, trade coverage and third-party citations — the corroboration a model checks before it names you.
The constraint we work inside
Everything published clears a chain: legal, the country office, sometimes a member state. Nothing can imply a political position, favour one bidder, name a beneficiary or promise a result. We write inside those limits, which means plainer language and slower cycles than a commercial programme. That is the correct trade here.
Specialisations
3 total
The pitch is different for each one, because the buyer, the trigger and the rules on what may be published are different for each one. Open the one that is yours.
Your procurement manual gets revised. The descriptions of it circulating online do not, and none of them carries a date, so the retired rule and the current one look equally official to the supplier reading them.
The question deciding this today
“How do UN agencies procure communication services”
- Who they sell to
- Governments and communities served by specialised UN bodies
- Who signs
- Communications officer or programme lead
- What starts it
- Programme cycle, country strategy, campaign, reporting milestone
- Cost of staying invisible
- Programmes that never reach the people designed for them
Type "How do UN agencies procure communication services" into an engine and what comes back is a composite: part vendor portal, part bid-consultancy explainer, part forum thread from a country office that has since closed. Nothing in that mixture is dated, so an engine has no basis for preferring the rule in force to the one you withdrew. The same composite answers how a country programme is agreed and what a national implementing partner must hold. Organisations then spend unpaid days assembling a submission against instructions you no longer follow, and the ones that keep clearing the bar are the ones that could afford somebody to check first.
What we would run
- 01Answer and comparison pages
One page per operational procedure: how to register as a supplier, how a call for proposals is evaluated, what documents a national implementing partner must hold. Each states the date it was written and the manual revision it reflects, and each earlier version stays at its own address rather than being deleted.
Preparing a submission costs a small organisation a week nobody pays for. Work from a requirement list one revision old and the pack fails at the document check, so the panel never reads the bid and your evaluators lose the afternoon to a file they have to reject.
- 02Technical fixes
Country programme documents, evaluations and situation updates lifted out of scanned PDFs into rendered pages with headings, publication dates and named authoring offices, with the original files kept and linked.
Your evidence base is already written. It is simply unreadable to the systems that now answer questions about your mandate, your results and your country presence.
- 03Entity and schema engineering
Entity definitions that separate the agency from the wider UN system, from the ministry it works alongside and from the fund that finances it, with country offices, mandates and programmes as distinct, linked records.
Engines merge UN bodies constantly. An acronym that resolves to the wrong agency sends the enquiry, the supplier and the partner to somebody else's inbox.
- 04Directories and profile consistency
One route in, stated identically wherever the agency appears, and the dead entries retired: closed project pages, offices that have moved or merged, legacy portal records nobody owns. A supplier or a partner should reach the same registration address whether they come through the UN system directory, the vendor portal or a country office page.
People impersonating UN procurement are a standing problem, and suppliers have learned to verify an approach before they act on it. If verifying means reconciling four records that disagree, some will act on the fraudulent one and the rest will drop the opportunity.
What we would not recommend
- Reviews and testimonials. You are already assessed in public, by governing bodies, by donor performance reviews and by your own independent evaluation office. Making those documents readable is worth doing. A rating we collected would sit below every one of them.
- Reddit. An official account cannot argue as a peer in those threads, and an unofficial one breaches spokesperson rules. Neither version helps you.
- Instagram. Useful for a public campaign, useless for procurement and partnership questions. It carries no citation weight with the institutional readers this work targets.
What a lead looks like
A national organisation in a programme country writes to the country office having read the accreditation page and worked through its document list. Audited accounts, safeguarding policy and registration are already in hand. The first exchange is about whether their district coverage matches the next programme cycle, not about what the agency does.
What we measure
- Inclusion on procurement and accreditation questions
- Country programme documents readable as text
- One registration route, identical in every directory
- Fewer orientation calls per open tender
- Cited by name, not paraphrased
What changes
A project preparation unit in a finance ministry writes to the country office with a concept note already mapped to your appraisal stages. A national organisation submits an accreditation pack that is complete on the first attempt. A supplier registers holding the right certifications. A journalist quotes your indicator with your definition attached. Less of your week goes on explaining what the institution does, and more on conversations where the counterpart has already decided you are the right one to call.
Start here
See who gets named in multilateral today
We put your buyers' real questions to the live models and come back with the businesses they name, the sources behind those answers, and the gap between that list and yours.