A visual refresh, a content rebuild and a platform move are separate jobs. Doing all three can be right, but it should be a deliberate choice.
Use this when the message and structure still work but the visual system is dated or inconsistent. We keep the working foundations and change the part that customers see.
Use this when buyers cannot understand the offer, important pages are missing or the content has grown into a structure nobody can navigate. We rewrite and reorganise before redesigning.
Use this when the current setup blocks editing, performance, security maintenance or required functionality. A move adds route mapping, redirects, content migration, analytics continuity and a cutover to the project.
We review the site, analytics and publishing workflow, then name the primary constraint. Each optional job is priced separately. Existing routes and useful content are inventoried before the new structure is approved, so a visual decision does not quietly remove a working traffic route.
Content and decisions usually set the schedule. The proposal states what must be supplied, who approves it and the delivery plan for the agreed scope so everyone knows what is needed to keep the work moving.
From-price or scoped after discovery
Up to 20 pages
From £2,000From $2,600
A compact marketing site or one focused lead-generation system, on a defined page and component scope of up to twenty pages.
Starting price
Lead generation
From £4,000From $5,200
A complete marketing and lead-generation website: the messaging, the structure and the enquiry routes a qualified buyer needs to make a decision.
Starting price
One bounded piece
£1,500$2,000
One bounded improvement: landing pages, a template rebuild, an analytics implementation, or a build-readiness review credited against a larger project.
Fixed price
A visual redesign on an existing structure is usually the smallest of the three projects. A structural rebuild with a platform move is the largest, and the difference is a diagnosis rather than a preference.
It can, and most of the risk is avoidable. Losses come from removed pages, changed URLs without redirects, thinner content and weaker internal linking. Each of those is a decision that can be made deliberately if the current site is inventoried first.
Often, and it is worth asking before committing to a move. If the team can publish, the site is fast enough and the stack is maintained, a platform move is an expensive way to solve a content problem.
No. Staged redesigns work well where the site is large: rebuild the templates that carry the traffic first, keep the rest consistent, and move the remainder as capacity allows. It also makes results attributable.
Content and decisions usually set the schedule, not the build. Where messaging, structure and material are ready, a redesign moves quickly. Where they are not, the honest plan makes that the first phase rather than pretending it will happen in parallel.
Appearance, missing answers and a team that cannot publish point to different projects.
