Could you describe the sales process before and after your implementation of the strategy?

Before I joined, there wasn't really a sales process in place. People at the studio level and sales level were all competing for the same business without a clear, staged approval process. Everyone was pursuing every opportunity that came into the market. I implemented a system to shape opportunities, work cohesively, and set up a sales stage, gate, and approval process. This significantly reduced the cost of sales. Unfortunately, this system is not currently in use, and they've reverted to the old process.

Let's say, for example, I'm an art studio that you've acquired in LATAM. Electronic Arts is releasing a new game, and I'm bidding on it. Another Keyword Studios art studio from Eastern Europe is also bidding on it. Am I correct in understanding that you're suggesting Keyword Studios should bid on it, and then internally allocate it where it fits best?

In the current state, you would probably have three or four different studios, sometimes even six, bidding for the same work, sometimes in the same geography. I would propose a different structure, with a clear entry point and solution to increase your win rate for that piece of business, like for Electronic Arts, for example.

In the investment materials, they mention how many customers use three or more services. So instead of the game development studio introducing a QA studio from Keywords, they subcontract it to the QA studio?

Yes. At present, the mindset within Keyword Studios is quite traditional, focusing on separate P&Ls. The strategy of bolt-on acquisitions encourages internal competition, which we believe is beneficial. However, my strategy would lean more towards integration and creating comprehensive solutions. With a bolt-on acquisition strategy, you sometimes acquire studios to secure a client, which could involve three or more studios. But this is more of a coincidence than a strategy.