One short, specific report every week telling you what to change on your website, why it matters, and what to do first.
About
Almost every business we speak to has the same story: the website was built, it went live, everyone was pleased, and then nobody looked at it again. This is a service for the years after the launch.
The premise
That single gap is the reason the company exists, so it is worth being precise about why it happens.
When a site is built, everyone involved has a reason to look at it. The designer has a deliverable, the developer has a specification, and the owner has a launch date. Then the project closes, and the audience disappears.
Nothing dramatic happens next. The site does not break. It simply stops keeping up — with the market, with the questions customers are asking, with what competitors have published, and with how people now find things online.
The usual remedy is another project, which means a rebuild every few years with long gaps in between. That is an expensive way to end up with a site that is current for a month every three years.
The alternative is much smaller and much more frequent: someone keeps looking, writes down what they found, and tells you the one or two things worth doing. That is the whole company. We do not do redesigns, we do not build sites, and we do not sell audits — because an audit is just another project with an end date.
How we work
These are not values on a wall. Each one changes a decision we make in a report, usually by removing something we could have said.
It is software, writing and a commercial argument running at the same time. Changing one part while ignoring the others rarely holds, which is why we look at all six areas every week rather than chasing whichever one is fashionable.
A complete list of everything wrong with a website is demoralising and almost always gets filed away. A short, ordered list of what to do next gets done, and done is what compounds.
Recommendations come from looking at your actual live pages and from measurements we can stand behind. Where a number is not available to us, we say so rather than filling the gap with a guess.
We do not promise rankings, traffic or revenue, and we decline websites we cannot genuinely help. Being clear about the limits is what makes the rest of the advice worth reading.
The name
The four words in the tagline are the sequence of the work, not decoration. Each one depends on the one before.
Understand what the website is trying to achieve commercially, in your words.
Read it as a visitor, a search engine and a cautious buyer — and count what can be counted.
Name the changes worth making, in the order that returns most for the effort.
Each week builds on the last, so the gains stop being small and start being visible.
Who it is for
Roughly half the value of a clear fit is a clear misfit. If you are in the list on the right, we will decline the application and tell you why.
What we will not do
Every one of these would be easy to write on a website and hard to defend six months later. We would rather lose the enquiry.
We will not promise a ranking. Search results are decided by third parties who change their mind without notice. Anyone guaranteeing a position is either describing something they control or measuring something that does not matter.
We will not promise traffic or revenue. The same reason, and because the outcome also depends on your pricing, your market and your capacity to handle what arrives.
We will not promise a timeframe. Improvement compounds, and compounding is not linear. We can tell you what we see each week; we cannot tell you when a competitor will lose a position.
We will not take a subscription we cannot justify. If a site is too new, too broken, or too static for weekly review to be worth $100 a month, we say so. Declining is not a sales technique here — it is the reason the accepted ones mean something.
We will not blame you for our mistake. If a recommendation turns out to be wrong, the next report says so, and says what we are doing differently. A review process that never admits error is not measuring anything.
We will not pretend a rebuild is not the answer. Sometimes it is. If your site needs rebuilding rather than improving, we will tell you that and decline the work, because weekly recommendations on a foundation that needs replacing would be a waste of your money.
Choosing
Four honest comparisons, including the cases where we would tell you to spend your money elsewhere.
An agency retainer usually buys you a team that waits for a brief. This buys you a weekly judgement on work that is already live, at a fraction of a retainer, with no minimum term beyond the billing period you choose.
An audit is a snapshot. It is genuinely useful for a fortnight, then it ages as your site, your competitors and the search results move. A subscription is the same discipline applied continuously, with each week informed by the last.
If you have the time and the appetite, do it yourself and keep the money. This exists for owners who know their site should be improving and know they will not get to it — the value is that someone else keeps looking, on a schedule, and writes it down.
Tools tell you a number moved. They cannot tell you whether it mattered, or what to do about it. We use data as the start of a judgement rather than as the deliverable.
Apply and we will look at your site properly before deciding. If it is a good fit you will hear back within a few working days.
