Fieldtrip

Your homepage opens with "A Branding, Web, & Advertising Agency", then "Helping you help others.", then "Led by boundless curiosity, Fieldtrip is a cause-driven agency that amplifies nonprofits and the impact they make." Big Duck's homepage opens with "Smart communications for nonprofits" and "Celebrating three decades of nonprofit partnerships!". Mission Minded opens its nonprofit block with "Fundraising is harder. The competition is louder. Your mission is still urgent." From the outside it reads like this: the first sentence on their pages is a fact about the reader's situation, and the first sentence on yours is a fact about the agency. "Boundless curiosity" is also the one claim on the page a development director has no way to check before signing.

Your about page says "Nonprofits create incredible impact for people and communities, but finding the resources that drive that impact can seem challenging. Fieldtrip is here to change that." Your work index lists 60 projects, and 24 of them sit under the headings B2C, Food & Beverage, B2B and Health, including three Ashley HomeStore franchises, a realtor, two breweries and a deli. Big Duck's services page says "Big Duck helps nonprofits, government agencies, and foundations who work hard to create a just and healthy future", and its archive lists 38 projects, all mission organisations. Constructive says "Brand strategy and web design for nonprofits that helps build a more just, equitable, and sustainable world." A read, not a judgement: to a nonprofit board scrolling your archive it looks like two client books sharing one homepage, and nothing on the page tells them which one they are buying.

Your Lincoln Foundation case study names and explains the "Strategic Fundraising Framework (SFF)", and the journal runs a three-episode series built on it. The phrase appears zero times on your homepage, zero times on your about page and zero times on your approach page. Mission Minded puts "THE BRANDEQUATION™" on its homepage with one sentence under it: "the framework that turns internal wisdom and external insight into a reputation you can build on". From the outside that reads as the sharpest difference between the two sites. The distinct thing you own by name is the thing a buyer has to go looking for.

Counted on 12 September 2026. Your work index offers one filter, "filter by:", with three options, and all three are services: Branding, Marketing, Web. There is no page on wearefieldtrip.com addressed to a kind of nonprofit. Constructive publishes 7 focus-area pages, one each for climate and the environment, education and youth development, healthcare and mental health, philanthropy and foundations, public interest law and social justice, research and the sciences, and think tanks and policy advocacy. Mission Minded publishes 3 expertise pages (nonprofits, foundations, schools) plus 4 pages named for the buyer's goal rather than a service: raise more funds, grow your audience, get clear on priorities, stand out from the crowd. That is 14 landing pages a searching nonprofit can arrive on, against 0.

Your three services are named once each on the homepage, one sentence apiece, with no link behind them: Branding, Web, Advertising. Your site navigation is six items, Approach, About, Work, Journal, Careers, Contact, and none of them is a service. Big Duck has 4 service pages and lists about 20 named deliverables across them, 8 under Brands alone, down to "Brand architecture strategy" and "Rollout plan and launch materials". Constructive has 4 service pages. Mission Minded has 5. Worth noting alongside it: your homepage calls the third service "Advertising" and your approach page calls it "Marketing", as does the work filter.

Your journal index filters by two types, Blog and Video, and shows 6 items, the newest dated 26 June 2026. Big Duck's insights index filters by five types: Blog, Books & EBooks, Podcasts, Tools, Videos. Big Duck also runs an events page, which today lists 8 upcoming events dated 16 September to 8 October, five of them hosted by Big Duck itself, including a September open house and a year-end fundraising webinar. There is no events or webinar section on wearefieldtrip.com. A read: that calendar is how a comms director meets an agency four or five times before anyone sells them anything.

There are zero client quotes and zero result figures on your homepage and your about page. The strongest proof on the site is on one case-study page: Paula Campbell, Director of Development at the Lincoln Foundation, saying "Before Fieldtrip we were burdened by old ways of fundraising and we continue to put a band-aid on the problem. Now people are finding out what we do and they believe in us", next to a $100,000 Impact100 grant won after years of applying. Mission Minded's homepage carries "Users up 74%. Spanish-language visitors doubled. Mobile bounce rates way down" and a $300M campaign. Big Duck's homepage carries a named client quote from the Chief Communications and Engagement Officer of the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Side by side on a shortlist, two of the three show a client's words and a number before the buyer clicks anything, and you show them after.

Big Duck's homepage says "Celebrating three decades of nonprofit partnerships!" and repeats thirty years in the headline. Your homepage and about page contain no founding year, no count of nonprofits served, and no figure of any kind. The only numbers on either page are a street address and a phone number. Meanwhile your archive holds 36 full case studies with challenge, approach and results written out, and your team page lists 8 people by name and title. The read is not that the record is thin. It is that a buyer comparing three tabs is handed a number by one agency and has to infer it for another.

The two actions on your homepage are "see all work" and "Sign up for updates"; the route to a conversation is the Contact item in the navigation. Mission Minded's homepage carries "Book a Discovery Call". Big Duck repeats a block across its insights and events pages reading "Curious about working together? Let us know what you're looking for, and we'll be in touch", with a Connect button, and a second version on the events page reading "Curious if we might be a good fit?". A read: the gap here is not design, it is that an executive director who is half-convinced is told exactly what happens next on two of the three sites and has to decide for themselves on yours.