for agencies
Design, dev, marketing, and creative agencies. Lead with the work. Make it easy to brief. Without paying a developer to maintain the site that's supposed to win the work.
why this works
Agencies are hired on case studies, not on a services list. The Projects section is the page's center of gravity — chronological, per-client, with brief / approach / outcome and quantified results. Logos belong in a row after the case studies, not before.
Clients buying agency services want to know who they will work with. The Team section accepts headshots, names, roles, and optional one-line bios — rendered as a hairline-divided grid that reads as a real team, not a stock-photo arrangement.
Agency pricing is conversation-driven, not card-priced. The Services section lists offerings by capability — "Brand identity", "Web design", "Product strategy" — with scope and engagement model, but no "$5,000 / month" tier cards. A "Request a brief" CTA replaces the price.
The contact form is structured as a project brief: company, scope, budget band, timeline, and a free-text box. You get a real RFP, not "hi can you send me more info." Submissions land in your inbox formatted to forward straight to the team channel.
designs that fit
Each works for agencies — we picked these on purpose. Browse the full set after.
ethereal, glassy
Ethereal and glassy. The right family for design and creative agencies whose work is itself aesthetic.
View family →handcrafted, editorial
Handcrafted and editorial. Reads as a studio that ships well-made things — the right room for boutique branding and identity agencies.
View family →magazine-grade
Magazine-grade. Lands the right way for content-led, strategy-led, and media-adjacent agencies.
View family →in depth · 01
By the time a prospective client reaches an agency's website, they are usually assembling a shortlist of three to five studios for an RFP or an intro round. The site's job is not to dazzle — it is to survive elimination. Elimination logic is ruthless and predictable: can I tell what this studio is actually good at, can I see evidence on a problem like mine, and can I tell who I would be working with. Sites that answer in two scrolls make the list; sites that open with a manifesto about storytelling do not.
That is why the load-bearing section is case studies, structured as decisions rather than showreels: the brief, the approach, the outcome with a number attached. Three to six deep beats thirty shallow. The team grid matters more than agencies expect too — clients buy the people, and a page of real faces with roles out-converts an anonymous "our talented team" paragraph. Finally, the contact form should demand a brief (company, scope, budget band, timeline), because a form that asks for nothing returns leads that offer nothing.
The GenLP agency template is built around exactly this elimination sequence: case-study center of gravity, hairline-grid team section, capability-based services without tier-card pricing, and a brief-shaped intake form that produces forwardable RFPs.
in depth · 02
Every agency knows the joke because every agency lives it: the studio that ships beautiful sites for clients has a homepage last touched three rebrands ago. It is not hypocrisy — it is economics. The studio site is the only project with no deadline, no invoice, and a review committee of everyone; any billable brief legitimately outranks it. So the redesign becomes a hallway topic, a Figma file named `site-v3-FINAL-actually`, and a standing agenda item that everyone has stopped hearing.
The escape is not more discipline — it is dropping the marginal cost of currency to near zero. When adding last quarter's case study is a fifteen-minute edit in a live editor rather than a designer-plus-developer mini-project, the site tracks the work in near real time. Saved versions take the fear out of it: publish the update, and if the new sequencing reads weaker in the Monday review, roll back. Nobody books studio hours; nobody waits for the bench.
Generation solves the cold-start version of the same problem. Pasting the studio's name and one link produces a complete, honest draft in 10–20 minutes — which converts the unwinnable internal debate about the redesign into a concrete artifact the partners can react to. Agencies are far better at critiquing a thing than at starting one; now the thing exists.
in depth · 03
The honest version of this answer has two halves. If your studio's positioning is the brand system itself — you sell bespoke visual identity, and your own site is the flagship demonstration — then no generator should build it, ours included. That site must be hand-made for the same reason a tailor wears their own suits. The 14 GenLP families are crafted registers, not costumes: Aura's glasswork, Atelier's editorial warmth, Editorial's magazine typography are considered systems, but they are our design language, not yours.
The other half: for most agencies, the site's persuasive weight sits in the case studies, the outcomes, and the team — content, not chrome. A studio whose flagship work is client results is well served by a quiet, credible frame that ships this week and stays current, over a bespoke monument that ships next year and fossilizes. The families were built to disappear behind strong work, which is precisely what an agency portfolio needs its container to do.
The practical pattern we see: studios use the generated site as the always-current public surface — cases, team, brief intake — and pour bespoke craft into campaign microsites and client work, where craft is billable. The site that wins the shortlist does not need to be the site that wins awards.
an honest comparison
Unique among our personas, agencies can build something better than what we generate — at pixel level, unquestionably. The comparison is really about what the studio's hours should buy.
| Criterion | Generated from your footprint | Page-builder DIY |
|---|---|---|
| Time to launch | A complete draft in 10–20 minutes from the studio's name and one link; live within days once the partners stop arguing about the hero verb. | The in-house redesign is measured in quarters, because it holds the permanent last place in the sprint queue behind every paying client. |
| Copy and case-study writing | Drafted from the studio's public footprint into brief–approach–outcome structure; your team edits numbers and tone rather than facing the blank deck. | Written by committee — strategists polishing each other's paragraphs at the studio's blended rate, on the one account that never pays. |
| Brand expression | A crafted frame from 14 families that stays deliberately quiet behind the work. It will never be your proprietary brand system, and does not pretend to be. | In-house wins decisively. If the site must embody a bespoke identity — custom type, motion language, art direction — no generator competes with your own team. |
| Experimental interactions | Out of scope by design: no scroll-jacked showpieces, no WebGL hero. The families favor credibility over spectacle. | In-house wins again — award-bait interactions are exactly what agency engineers build brilliantly, when the studio can spare them. |
| Staying current | New case study: a fifteen-minute editor session, saved versions as the safety net. The site tracks the portfolio in real time. | Updates queue behind billable work, so the in-house site chronically trails the studio's best recent work — the worst possible failure for a portfolio. |
| True cost | $0 to draft and preview; $25/mo for the custom-domain plan a studio would run. Rounding error against any client budget. | Free in cash, expensive in truth: weeks of senior design and engineering time, valued at the studio's own rate card, plus the opportunity cost of the client work displaced. |
questions
Yes. The Projects section accepts a per-project page with brief, approach, deliverables, and quantified outcome. Use it for the three to six case studies that win you the work; leave the long tail as a logos row.
Wave 4 ships single-author editing — one account owns the site. Wave 5 adds team accounts with role-based permissions (editor, reviewer, viewer). Until then, most agencies use a shared login or designate one team member as the maintainer.
Yes. The contact form is structured as a project brief with fields for company, scope, budget band, timeline, and free-text. The default placeholder text guides prospects to write a usable brief rather than a one-line "interested in working together" message.
Not directly — Wave 4 supports one custom domain per site. Most agencies use the marketing site as a public-facing surface and route client logins through their separate project-management tools (Notion, Linear, Figma, ClickUp). Client portal hosting is on the Wave 6 roadmap.
Today each account publishes one site, so GenLP fits the agency's own presence rather than client delivery at volume. White-label options and API access are on the public roadmap, which is where a client-delivery workflow would land. Some studios do generate a draft as a discovery artifact — pasting a client's name and link to see what their footprint says about them — but that is a research trick, not a production pipeline.
Yes — AI translation ships with the paid plans (up to 3 locales monthly on Starter, up to 10 on Pro). The case studies, team bios, and service descriptions translate from one canonical source, so the German version stops being the intern's abandoned side quest.
Cash cost is small: free to generate and preview, $15/mo to publish on a subdomain, $25/mo for the custom domain your agency will actually use. The real comparison is the internal cost you already know too well — a senior designer and a developer pulled off billable work for the studio-site project that has been "two sprints from done" since last year.
ten seconds of your time. ten minutes of ours.
Free to try. No credit card.