A website is judged by Google, by people, and now by machines.

Scope drives the number, so we quote after the audit rather than publishing a figure that fits nobody. A focused marketing site on a headless CMS with ten to fifteen templates sits at the low end of a fixed-scope engagement. A multi-language, multi-region site with a design system, editorial workflow, and thousands of migrated URLs sits at the high end. Either way you get a fixed scope and a fixed price before any code is written.

The brief chooses. Astro when content is the product and every millisecond of load counts. React when the site carries configurators, calculators, or heavy interaction. WordPress when your team already lives in it and editorial velocity matters more than novelty. Headless, usually Sanity, when the same content has to feed a site, an app, and a partner channel at once. We write the recommendation down with the trade-offs, and we will tell you when the boring choice is the right one.

Not if the migration is done properly. We crawl the existing site, map every indexed URL to its destination with 301s, preserve titles, metadata, and structured data, and keep the redirect map under monitoring for ninety days. Search Console impressions are compared week over week against a pre-launch baseline, so a dip is caught in days rather than discovered in a quarterly report.

AEO is answer engine optimisation: structuring content so featured snippets, voice assistants, and AI answer panels can lift an accurate answer. GEO is generative engine optimisation: making your pages citable by ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Copilot. Both depend on the same engineering as good SEO — clean semantic HTML, complete structured data, stable canonical URLs, and machine-readable summaries — which is why we build for them rather than bolt them on afterwards.

Field data, not screenshots of a lab score. We set LCP, INP, and CLS budgets at architecture stage, enforce them in CI so a regression fails the build, and report the 75th percentile mobile numbers from real users after launch. Accessibility is verified against WCAG 2.2 AA with assistive technology, not only automated checks, and structured data is validated on every template.

Yes, and the same team does both. Research and content inventory, information architecture, wireframes, then a design system in Figma, built by the engineers who sat in the design reviews. Design that cannot hold its performance budget is not finished, so both disciplines work from one backlog rather than throwing files over a wall.

That is the point of the CMS work. We model content as reusable blocks with guardrails, so marketers compose new pages from approved components without breaking layout, performance, or accessibility. Editors get preview, scheduled publishing, and role-based approvals, and we train the team on the model rather than handing over a manual.

A focused marketing site typically runs eight to twelve weeks from kickoff to launch. Larger programmes with a design system, multi-locale content, and a substantial migration run four to six months. The audit is the first two weeks either way, and we do not start production build until the URL map, content model, and design system are signed off.

Field vitals, rankings, and AI citation checks are monitored, and the iteration backlog is driven by what that data says. Retainer clients get template work, campaign pages, CRO experiments, security patching, and monthly reporting on traffic and conversion from the same pod that built the site, so context does not reset every quarter.