A friend is really excited that she's got an interview (1st rnd) lined up with Credo, but I don't get it at all. How do they manage to present such a good brand image to graduates when they're so way below any other big name MC firm?The same friend went on a course they run, and aparently they kept on boasting how they recruit only the best Oxbridge graduates - yet they offer no sponsored MBAs, they're not international (only 1 office), they're tiny (30 people) and, judging from earlier posts, they don't even have a good industry reputation. AND they're not even generalist - surely the whole point of working at a MC firm - since they only specialise in b2b services, of all things. But my friend is still totally stoked about an interview with them!I've seen them loads round my campus and on the grad website, but surely it's just BS? They're way way way below even 2nd tier firms, so how they can expect grads to take them seriously? I know that sounds well arrogant, but they don't seem to provide anything that people want to work at MC firms for (generalist experience, MBAs, global reach). Is there something I'm missing here?

A lot of "niche strategy" firms are just as BS as the big firms they claim to better. They're just set up as cushy retirement deals for partners who couldn't play nicely with others.

I guess some people like bigger firms, with the international name, massive training programmes etc, and some prefer smaller companies. I applied to both and much preferred smaller ones – in fact, i met some total idiots at the bigger ones. In a boutique, you get more client exposure (rather than being locked in a room crunching data all day and night), make better friends and actually care about the firm. plus, i’m not really looking to work for 2 years and then disappear to do an MBA – so that wasn’t really an issue for me. And I’m based in a UK office but I have been away tonnes already.As for the specific firm you mention – I didn’t get to see them directly, but I know a few people who have in the past (I think they held some kind of case study day in their office), and they seemed impressed by them. From what I remember, they had a pretty competitive package. But then they probably aren’t right for people who are after a larger, more generalist firm Although how much everyone is going to be hiring at the moment is a different matter!!

Okay, so I have never come across Credo myself. However, let me get this right. Firstly, you don't like the idea of this firm because they manage to present 'a good brand image to graduates' despite being 'way below any other big name MC firm'. I say well done to Credo - they're a small company with 30 people who are presenting a good image, getting to know and meeting many bright young graduates, and are getting their name out there with potential employees. How else do you expect an ambitious company to position itself for growth? Second, your assertion that Credo not being generalist 'surely the whole point of working at a MC firm' is a misnomer on your part. You can be very successful as management consultants by specialising in either niche sectors, or doing what Credo are and refusing to work in certain areas where you either do not have the right experience to do your brand justice or simply do not have the inclination to work in that area (this is one of the benefits of being small - you can work in areas that interest you). Third, you place a very high level of trust in the arbitrary ‘tier’ system that some consultants insist on referring to, and think that because they don’t have a position in this tier (or, by default, sit near the ‘bottom’) what they say about their company must be BS. I’m sorry, but do you really think that working for companies such as McKinsey, who have the ear of board level people in xx% of global companies, but thousands of staff, or Deloitte with their tens of thousands, is going to be such a better experience? Private equity firms are considered by many to be the gold standard of interesting work, and yet many employ tens or hundreds of staff at the very most. Smaller companies have a very different modus operandi to ‘tiered’ consultancies. If you believe that this means they don’t do good training, don’t do international work, don’t offer good prospects for learning, and don’t have (in many cases) contacts and clients that are just as high calibre as larger companies, then I think you are sadly mistaken. (of course, some will, some won’t… but then again Accenture hardly set the world alight at the highest levels outside of their ‘niche’). This is especially true as a graduate – if you think that you’re going to be meeting the chairmen of FTSE100 companies in your early years, then wake up. A small consultancy will undoubtedly offer more (and higher level) client contact than at a tiered consultancy. You will also learn about selling, how a business operates, and have much more responsibility (and development of skills other than expenses form filling and powerpoint production) at an earlier stage of your career. In my eyes, THAT is what any consultant wants when starting out – not endless travel and the opportunity to jump back into academia at the first opportunity. (I jumped from a ‘top 4’ to a boutique - c20 people - after 2 years and haven’t looked back)

Dear Grad,There's a lot more to the consulting world than (what you perceive to be) the top two tiers.Working in consulting, much as is true in many aspects of life, is about what you, as a person, value. Different people place different values on things, whereas you seem to have overgeneralised that what you think that you want in a management consulting career is what everyone should want in a management consulting career. This is a case of what the internationally renowned management consulting guru Robert M. Pirsig refers to as "value ridigity."Here endeth the chautauqua for today.EC

Dan, EvilExcellent posts - I wish more MCs would take this mature and informed attitude.