Blog
In one case, a site that missed its own brief. In the autumn of 2013 Braid, my consultancy at the time, wrote the strategy for a business new to digital projects, briefed agencies and recommended one after a close choice between 2. The client then managed the build alone. By January the launched site lacked mobile responsiveness, SEO, social integration and analytics, had poor usability and weak imagery, and a heavily customised CMS left the client needing the agency for template changes, which the brief had ruled out.
To manage a website project for a business with no in-house digital expertise. In the autumn of 2013 the brief was to develop a strategy, identify and brief agencies, and help launch the project with the chosen agency. We hoped to be kept on to oversee the build and launch. The strategy and structure were developed with the client, agencies were briefed, a thorough selection followed, and our recommendation, a very tight decision between 2 agencies, was accepted. The agency outlined its process, the client was happy to oversee it, and that was that. We suggested the client let us know when the site was ready for testing before launch; after a couple of emails there was no further contact until January.
Much more than the client had noticed. The client asked us to review the new site, already launched, because it was unhappy with parts of the build. Auditing the site against the brief showed essential elements missing: mobile responsiveness, SEO, social integration and analytics. Usability was poor, with problems in navigation, embedded video and radio, site speed and page consistency. The images were out of focus, harshly lit and a poor range. In short, the job was not what had been paid for.
Through the agency, with the audit as leverage. The client asked us to sort it out. We discussed the audit with the agency and got an undertaking to deliver the missing elements and improve the user experience, which it eventually did. We moved the hosting, as originally recommended, implemented tracking, and made sure the CMS provided the tools the brief had specified.
Less in fees, more in everything else. The client probably paid us less to fix the problems than it would have paid to keep us on from the start, but it lost weeks, had to change core elements, and ended with a result that was not perfect: sub-standard imagery, and a CMS customised so heavily that the agency will be needed for future template changes, exactly what the brief said must not happen. Our lesson was that when a client really does need help, do not be polite about it: tell them. We could have charged heavily to sort out a problem of the client's own making, and did not.
Related evidence: Managing a major website project for a national law firm. Earlier in this journey: Why technology projects fail before implementation starts.
Sometimes in fees, rarely overall. In this case the client paid less to fix the problems than it would have paid for oversight, but lost weeks, changed core elements and was left with poor imagery and a dependency on the agency.
The build against the brief: mobile responsiveness, SEO, analytics and social integration, usability, image quality, and whether the CMS lets the client change templates without the agency.
Most clients begin with a conversation. No pitch, no hard sell.
Just a straightforward discussion about where you are and whether I can help.
Book a free 30-minute call