The foundry behind the supplier

A foundry that has been running since 1986 has a specific communication problem, and it is not a lack of substance. It is that everything it is proud of happened before the website existed. Four decades of parts that held, deliveries that landed and customers who stayed are the entire argument, and none of it photographs.

The second problem was harder. Yılkar's buyer is not in Konya. The people who need to believe in this foundry are procurement and engineering teams in Europe, reading in English, comparing suppliers they have never visited. A Turkish industrial site written for a Turkish audience — the default for a company of this age — would have been talking to the wrong room.

Write the site in the buyer's language, about the buyer's risk.

What a European buyer is actually deciding is not whether a foundry can pour metal. It is whether an unfamiliar supplier two thousand miles away will do what it said it would do. So reliability became the subject rather than a claim in the margin — the company's own position, that its reputation is the most important thing it makes and that it will take a loss to keep a promise, is the strongest sentence available and it belongs at the top, not in a values list at the bottom.

Around it, the things that prove seriousness in an industrial buyer's eyes rather than a consumer's: how the operation is managed, how it has invested in its own systems, how it has changed since 1986. Continuity plus modernisation, not continuity alone. An old foundry that has not changed is a risk; an old foundry that keeps re-equipping is a track record.

Yılkar and OSS Sourcing are the same industrial reality approached from two directions: the foundry in Konya and the sourcing company in Coventry that places its capacity into European supply chains.

Two sites for one group is usually where consistency goes to die — two agencies, two tones, two sets of claims that a buyer can catch out by opening both tabs. Working on both let us do the opposite. Each site is written for the audience standing in front of it, and neither says anything the other would have to walk back. The Coventry site leads with capability, grades and lead times because a UK buyer is qualifying a supplier. The Konya site leads with the manufacturer's own history and standards because that is the question underneath.

That is a coherence argument we can only make because we hold both briefs.

Website content structure. The site is organised around what a buyer checks, in the order they check it — who this company is, how long it has done this, how it runs, and how to reach a human.

Copy in English, written to be read once. Industrial copy fails in two directions: translated Turkish that reads as translated, or marketing English that says nothing. The register here is plain declarative — short sentences, the company speaking as itself, no adjective doing work a fact should do.

Social content. Ongoing design and copy for the company's accounts, drawn from the same language as the site, so a LinkedIn post from the foundry and the foundry's website read as one voice.

The site is live. Enquiry and conversion data belong to the client, as it does everywhere else on this site.

The point we would defend is about age. A company founded in 1986 usually presents its history as decoration. Treated properly, four decades of not letting anyone down is not heritage — it is the product, and it is the only thing a first-time buyer actually wants to know.