Capabilities

We market depth only where the bench truly exists.

Honest about what we do well today, transparent about where coverage is partial, and intentional about the gaps we're filling. No optimistic positioning — just the lanes our specialists actually own.

Service-lane map

Where our ecosystem leads — and where we don't.

Lane Status What that means
RevOps & GTM design Covered One of our clearest strengths. Multiple senior partners reinforce this lane.
CRM administration & process design Covered An anchor lane. HubSpot-heavy and RevOps-heavy work — but TEA is not a CRM-only shop.
Paid media · CRO · SEO Covered Differentiator for GTM-focused accounts that need performance and operations together.
Strategic delivery & client-facing oversight Covered Our continuity layer after founder handoff. Central to the model.
Industry-specialist advisory Covered Useful lenses across law, medical, automotive, construction, and accounting where it improves trust and speed.
Content creation & campaign execution Covered Strong supporting capability — not our lead offer.
HubSpot / Salesforce architecture & integration Partial Strong enough to sell with the right staffing mix; depth across all contexts still validating.
Automation & integrations Partial Covered through senior operators. Active fill priority for technical-bench depth.
Data operations & reporting Partial Mature enough for selective use. Standardized reporting lane still being codified.
Leadership advisory & transformation planning Partial Founder-strong; bench depth beyond founders is growing. High-value lane we're protecting.
AI enablement & workflow leverage Partial Founders and selected partners already use AI heavily. TEA-wide standards close to v1.
Recruiting-adjacent support Partial Secondary lane until the process is fully built — not yet a lead offer.
Developer-heavy execution Gap Acknowledged gap. Active recruitment and alliance priority.
Who fits

The work where TEA is the right answer.

Strong fit

  • Growth has outpaced existing systems, processes, or team design.
  • A fragmented tech stack or weak system adoption.
  • Need for both strategy and implementation — not one or the other.
  • Hiring gaps make outside specialist depth more attractive than building a department.
  • Leadership wants visibility, accountability, and execution without multiplying vendors.

Likely not us

  • Unrealistic deadlines detached from real scope.
  • Budget mismatch relative to desired outcomes.
  • Low trust in expert recommendations — or wanting vendor obedience over partner judgment.
  • Resistance to multiple specialists inside one coordinated model.
  • Purely tactical, low-budget order-taking work in isolation.

Have a problem worth solving well?

Tell us what's getting in the way. We'll tell you whether TEA — or someone else — is the right answer.