Hover — you’re scrolling the real site
What changed
Real sites, real findings, real numbers where I have permission to publish them.
Where a client has given permission, I’ve published the before-and-after. Where they haven’t, I’ve published the findings without naming them. Where I don’t have reliable numbers, I’ve said so rather than estimating.
Case studies
Hover — you’re scrolling the real site
What 150+ audits keep finding
Different industries, same five problems. If your site has even two of these, they’re costing you enquiries today.
- The copy doesn’t talk to the customer. It’s written in the business’s language, not the words customers actually search and say.
- The site brags instead of helps. Plenty about the company — nothing that shows the visitor you understand their problem and can solve it.
- The SEO was never set up properly. Pages that could rank, invisible for the searches that matter.
- Weak calls to action, heavy jargon. Every button says “Contact Us” and the copy reads like an industry manual.
- No proof where it counts. Reviews and testimonials exist — just never next to the decision they’re supposed to support.
150+
Websites audited
23
Industries
1,000+
Findings surfaced
11/100
Lowest score so far — a roofing company
Written case studies
The first case studies are being written up now, with clients’ permission — scores, findings, what changed and what happened after. Until they’re here, the fastest proof is your own site: run the free audit and watch it work in front of you.
A note on numbers
I don’t publish a percentage unless I can see the analytics before and after, over a window long enough to mean something. Where a client implemented only part of the recommendations, I’ve said that too. Marketing case studies are usually the most dishonest documents an agency produces and I’d rather have three real ones than twelve invented ones.