A website that brings you enquiries,
not a website that looks nice.

We look at your current site and tell you what is wrong, page by page. We listen to who your customers are and how they find you today. We write the copy, because that is what stalls nine projects out of ten. We design the templates, we build, we redirect your old addresses one by one. Then we stay.

What you get: A site online in three to five weeks, that your team can edit without calling us, that appears in under a second on a phone, and where no old address is lost.

What you do not have to do: Write the copy, choose the technology, deal with a host, decide between Webflow, Shopify and WordPress. We deliver all three, so we have no interest in pushing one on you.

Most redesigns fail for the same reason: the technology is chosen before anyone has decided who will look after the site once it is live. We take the problem the other way round.

We start from your organisation and your objectives, then we recommend the tool. Webflow when your team wants to publish without depending on a supplier. Shopify when you sell. WordPress when the plugin ecosystem is essential. We deliver all three, which lets us recommend without a commercial agenda.

In every case, you leave with a fast site, properly marked up for search, and documentation so you can stay independent.

In practice, this means we refuse to start with a mockup. A mockup approved before anyone has settled who will publish, how often and with what content budget produces a successful site that nobody keeps alive. It is the most common failure scenario, and it is rarely repaired other than by starting again.

The choice between tools is calculated rather than argued. We have set it out in our comparisons, in particular Webflow or WordPress and Framer or Webflow, with the tipping points we apply on projects.

A site that converts is not a prettier site, it is a site that answers faster. The difference comes down to four things, and none of them is a matter of taste.

A promise readable in five seconds

The visitor arriving must understand what you do, for whom, and what sets you apart, without scrolling. It is the hardest constraint to meet, because it forces you to choose. A headline that tries to cover your whole business says nothing to anyone.

Our test is simple and is done with an outsider: we show the top of the page for five seconds, hide it, and ask what the company does. If the answer is vague, it is the headline that needs rewriting, not the image.

A journey that leaves one possible action

Most pages offer too many exits: a quote, a catalogue to download, a call, a newsletter, a link to social media. Every extra exit dilutes the others.

We define one main action per page and repeat it, rather than offering five once. Secondary actions stay reachable, but they are never given the same visual weight as the main one.

Proof rather than adjectives

“Bespoke”, “we listen”, “innovative solutions”: these phrases convince nobody any more because all your competitors use them. What convinces is verifiable:

• a dated, sourced figure rather than a superlative;
• a concrete case with the context, the constraint and the result;
• the names of the tools you genuinely master;
• what you do not do, which reassures as much as what you do.

We prefer a page with three solid proofs to a page with ten unverifiable claims. It is also what Google rewards now that it judges the real experience behind a piece of content.

Performance that does not decay

A site that is fast at launch and slows down over two years ends up slower than an average site that is properly maintained. Performance is not an end-of-project setting, it is a design constraint: the weight of the images, the number of third-party scripts and the way the fonts load are decided before the first line of code.

On this point, the detail rests on the element the browser takes longest to display, almost always the main headline or the image at the top of the page. Anything that delays it, animation included, is paid for directly in the measurement Google watches. We cover this in detail on the SEO and performance page.

Two sites with the same number of pages can have budgets that vary threefold. Here is what explains the gap, in order of importance.

The number of templates, not the number of pages

A template is a page model. Forty product pages sharing one template cost less than eight pages that are all different, because the design work is done once and reused.

It is the first question we ask when costing, and it is also the first way to save: grouping heterogeneous pages under a common template reduces the budget without taking anything away from the site.

The content, almost always the real critical path

On most of the projects we deliver, it is not the build that delays the launch, it is the content. The copy is not ready, the photographs do not exist, nobody has time to approve anything.

So we treat content as a project line in its own right, with an owner and a deadline, and not as an end-of-project formality. Two options exist: you write from an outline we supply, or we write from interviews. The second costs more and saves weeks.

Integration with the rest of your tools

A form that sends an email costs almost nothing. A form that creates a record in your CRM, triggers a follow-up and appears in a tracking board is a project in itself.

It is not a decorative extra: it is often what decides whether the site pays for itself. We cost it separately so the decision is explicit, and we set out how it works on the CRM integration page.

What does not change the price, contrary to received wisdom

• The choice of tool, once the need is framed: the licence gap is marginal next to the cost of design.
• The number of colours, typefaces or animations: that is design time, not technical complexity.
• The number of languages, as long as the structure allowed for it from the start. Added afterwards, that is another story.

What costs is what is decided late. A decision settled during framing is free; the same decision settled after the mockup is paid for in a partial rebuild.

One website quote compared with another means nothing until you know what each includes. Here is how we break it down, so the comparison is possible.

What is always included

• The framing, meaning the structural decisions settled before the mockup.
• The design of the templates, which is the real work.
• The build, the launch and the redirects from the old site.
• Handover to your team and the documentation that goes with it.

What is costed separately, and why

Writing the content, because it depends on who takes it on and because it is almost always the critical path of the project. Photographs and illustrations, because a shoot on site has nothing to do with a stock library. Connections to your business tools, because a CRM integration is a project in itself and not a form option.

We take them out of the package deliberately. Including them in a global figure would allow a rounder price, at the cost of a decision you would never see being made.

Follow-up, which is not a rent

A site without upkeep decays, and bringing it back up to standard costs more than the upkeep it replaces. Monthly follow-up exists for that reason, it is not compulsory, and it is only worth it if nobody on your side plays that role.

If you have a question about which line covers what, it is settled in thirty minutes of conversation, before the quote rather than after.

A website is not a deliverable, it is an asset that loses value if nobody looks after it. What follows the launch counts as much as what precedes it, and is prepared beforehand.

The first ninety days

The first three months are when the site teaches you the most. Visitors never behave quite as the mockup assumed: they read a section you thought was secondary, ignore the button you put forward, leave the page at the same point.

So we explicitly plan an adjustment phase after delivery, short and bounded. It is not there to add features but to correct what the data shows: a reworded headline, an action moved higher, a step removed from a form. These are the cheapest changes in the project and the most profitable, because they rest on what is real rather than on assumptions.

What we measure, and what we deliberately ignore

Most dashboards display figures that serve no purpose. The number of visits does not say whether the site works, and the bounce rate is almost always misread.

• The number of qualified enquiries received, which is the only figure that pays salaries.
• The path actually taken before an enquiry, which shows which pages are working.
• The pages where visitors leave without doing anything, which show where the promise breaks.
• The real display time on mobile, because a slow page loses visitors before it is even read.

We deliberately ignore the rest at the start. A dashboard of thirty indicators is never consulted; four figures followed every month change decisions.

Upkeep, or silent decay

A site that is not maintained does not break down, it decays. Plugins age, security patches pile up, images added along the way make pages heavier, and performance drops a point a month without anyone noticing.

The decay is silent, which is what makes it expensive: you discover it at the moment it has become a full overhaul. We cover this in detail on the SEO and performance page, and monthly follow-up exists for precisely that reason, not to sell a recurring line.

When to rebuild rather than fix

There comes a point where fixing costs more than rebuilding, and it is useful to recognise it rather than suffer it.

The signal is not the age of the site or the graphic fashion. It is three concrete symptoms: every change breaks another, nobody on the team dares touch it any more, and the content structure no longer matches what you sell today. When all three are present, rebuilding is cheaper than upkeep.

As long as they are not, rebuilding a site that works is a comfort expense. We say so when that is the case, including when it loses us the project.

A redesign is not a new build with an existing site attached. It is a different project, with an asset to protect and constraints a blank page does not have.

What a redesign has extra, and what it costs

The redirection plan, first of all. It is where you lose fastest what took years to build: every address that disappears without a redirect is an abandoned asset. We map old page to new page before the launch, and we check it afterwards, because an untested plan is always discovered too late.

Then carrying over the content. It is almost always underestimated, because people assume it is a matter of copying. In practice, a ten-year-old site contains pages that no longer match what you sell, duplicates competing for the same search, and pages nobody reads. Sorting beats transferring.

And finally the usage data, which is the real advantage of a redesign over a new build. An existing site has visitors, and therefore traces: where they arrive, which path they take, at which screen they stop. Redesigning without reading them amounts to fixing a problem you have assumed.

What a redesign has less of

Uncertainty. On a new build you assume what visitors are looking for; on a redesign you know. The structural decisions are therefore settled faster, and the framing is shorter.

When to redesign, and when to refrain

Three signals, and you need all three. An update to the foundation breaks the site because the theme or the plugins no longer keep up. Nobody on the team dares touch the content any more. And the structure no longer matches what you sell today.

When all three are present, a redesign costs less than a year of successive fixes. As long as they are not, rebuilding a site that works is a comfort expense, and we say so rather than quote for it.

Redesigning in one go or in batches

When the existing site receives real traffic, launching everything at once has a structural flaw: if the indicators fall, you cannot tell which of the fifty changes caused it. We then prefer to move in batches, starting with the pages that carry the stakes, and measuring in between.

It looks slower and is in fact faster. Above all it avoids the most painful situation in a redesign: having to defend a new site you cannot prove is doing better than the old one.

This page covers building and redesigning a website. Two neighbouring situations need separate treatment, with their own deliverables and their own traps.

Migrating to Webflow

Changing platform without losing your search visibility is not the same job as rebuilding a site. The main deliverable there is not the design, it is the redirection plan drawn up address by address, plus sorting the existing content and watching the two weeks that follow the switch. That page also covers the six traps that recur from one migration to the next.

Website maintenance

What happens afterwards, over time. Updates, backups that are actually tested, monitoring, security and continuous improvements. It is the line that decides whether your site will still be an asset in three years or a building site, and it applies to a site we built as much as to one we did not.

The market is not the same everywhere, and a national page cannot say so. So we have written one page per city for a selection of French cities, each with its real local economy and what that changes for a website.

In Orléans, where we have an office, three of our projects are local and named. Elsewhere, each page states that we work remotely.

See our cities

A company that travels does not have the same problem as an established shop. Three things matter then: the area you declare rather than the one you end up with, the business listing with its service area, and why one page per town served is a bad idea.

Tell us about your area