Page: /tools/why-small-teams-build-custom-tools
Hormozi Type: Problem Revealer (9 problems → book a call)
Date: 2026-04-09
What Works
- Pull quote lands the “holy shit” moment — “AI didn’t replace developers — it gave each one the output of an entire team” is specific, surprising, and connects directly to why custom software is now accessible. Passes the reveal test.
- PAS structure is solid — Problem (manual/inconsistent work), Agitate (McKinsey $115K stat), Solve (nine problems, each fixable with one tool).
- Bio now matches the offer — “I build micro-SaaS tools and AI automations” ties directly to what the page sells. No disconnect.
- CTA is clear and low-friction — “Find Out Which Problem To Fix First” completes “I want to…” cleanly. 20-minute call, no commitment framing.
- 9 problems structure — Each one follows symptom → fix. Concrete, scannable, specific to the reader’s world.
- Single CTA goal — Book a call or submit inquiry. Both lead to the same outcome. Hick’s Law respected.
What Doesn’t Work
- Headline doesn’t create a curiosity gap — “Why Small Teams Are Building Custom Tools” states a fact. It doesn’t make them need to know the answer. Compare: “The 9 Problems Killing Your Sales Pipeline (That One Tool Can Fix)”
- “Practical Guide” label is generic — doesn’t call out the audience. Should label the reader: “For Teams Under 50” or “For Founders Running Lean”
- No social proof anywhere on page — Zero testimonials, zero “used by X teams,” zero logos. The Forrester and McKinsey stats are third-party authority but not proof that you deliver results. Biggest conversion gap.
- “No pitch” positioning undermines itself — “No pitch. Just figuring out if we can unlock value.” reads as a pitch disclaiming it’s a pitch. Either own the CTA confidently or remove the line.
- Bottom CTA section is muddled — Four consecutive paragraphs before the button (Zapier stat, “ships in weeks,” “playing field,” “no pitch”) all compete. Too much copy between the closing blockquote and the button.
- Meta description is weak for click-through — “What changed, what to build first, and how to know if it’s worth it” is vague. No number, no specificity, no curiosity gap.
What’s Missing
- Who has Ken built these for? Even one line — “I’ve built tools like these for X, Y, Z type companies” — would pass the Prove It test. Without it, the reader has no reason to believe you can deliver.
- What happens on the call? “We look at your operation, identify the highest-ROI fix, and give you a concrete recommendation” is good but buried. This should be near the CTA button, not two paragraphs above it.
- Time-to-value for the reader is unclear — The page says tools “ship in weeks” but doesn’t say what the reader gets from the 20-minute call. A concrete deliverable (“You’ll walk away with your #1 automation opportunity and a ballpark scope”) would reduce friction.
Highest-impact fix: Add one line of social proof near the CTA. Even “I’ve built 12 of these tools in the last 6 months” changes the conversion math.