Working together
The engagements that work have three things on your side: someone who can decide, access to the systems involved, and a willingness to hear that the problem is not the one you expected. None of them is about budget.
A decision-maker matters more than a large team.
The most common reason an engagement produces documents rather than results is that recommendations reach someone who agrees with them and cannot authorise them. One person who can prioritise and approve is worth more than a committee.
Access is the second. Analytics, Search Console, the content management system, the repository, and whichever systems the work touches. Waiting three weeks for a login is three weeks of a fixed-length engagement spent waiting, and it happens often enough that we now ask about it before starting.
The third is harder to ask for. Diagnosis sometimes concludes that the constraint is not where you thought: that the site converts badly rather than being under-visited, or that the process needs simplifying before automation. Engagements where that finding is unwelcome tend to end with the original plan being delivered anyway.
What you should expect from us: a written diagnosis you keep, plain language rather than jargon, an early answer when something is not working, and a direct answer when the honest one is that you do not need us.
The engagements that work have three things on your side: someone who can decide, access to the systems involved, and a willingness to hear that the problem is not the one you expected. None of them is about budget.
Everything above is how we say we work. Thirty minutes on a real problem is the fastest way to find out whether it is also how we behave — and it costs you nothing to check.
