A redesign that keeps what the old site earned.

Only if the migration gets planned after the build instead of before it. We crawl the current site first and record what it ranks for and which pages actually earn traffic, map every URL to its replacement, and have the redirects live the moment the new site is. Afterwards we compare the new traffic against the old, so nobody has to take “it went fine” on trust. Rankings always wobble for a few weeks after a migration. What we are preventing is the permanent loss you get from URLs that quietly stopped existing.

We are not publishing a figure while our rates are under review, and we would rather say that than post a number we are about to change. What we can tell you is exactly what moves it. Three things: how much content there is and how many distinct templates it lives in, how much of that content has to be rewritten rather than moved, and whether the data model changes. Twelve pages and decent copy sits at the bottom. Two hundred pages, three content types and a decade of accumulated exceptions sits well above it. We quote against the inventory, which is why the inventory happens first. Below a certain point you are not buying a redesign at all, you are buying a template with your logo on it, and there are cheaper places to get one.

Because a new site starts at zero and a redesign starts owing something. There are URLs people have linked to, pages that already rank, content that has to be inventoried and mostly rewritten, and a team with ten years of opinions about how the thing works. A greenfield build has none of that, and all of it is work. It is also why the redesign is worth doing at all instead of starting over on a new domain.

Most run eight to seventeen weeks. The fastest we have delivered was four weeks. The largest took nine months, replacing a site that had been running since 2009 for an organization with over a hundred member bodies and content for all of them. You will see published timelines of three to six weeks. No agency that names a real number agrees with that, and the ones that publish theirs say three to seven months.

Not if you are already on WordPress, Webflow or Shopify. Those are the three we build in, and staying put is genuinely on the table. Where staying is the better answer you will hear it from us. If you are on something else then a redesign does mean moving, and we say so before you commit instead of halfway through.

Every one of them gets a destination before launch. Pages that survive keep their URL wherever we can manage it. Pages that move get a permanent redirect. Pages being retired go to the closest thing that replaces them. Sending retired pages to the home page is the most common way a redesign loses traffic, because search engines read it as the page having been deleted.

Some of it, and working out which part is the job. We inventory what you have against what it earns: traffic, links, conversions. Most redesigns keep a minority of the pages and rewrite the rest. A redesign that moves every page across untouched is a re-skin, and it will not fix whatever made you want a redesign in the first place.

You can, and on a small site with simple content that is often the right call. We will tell you if it is. What a template will not do is decide your URL structure, work out which of your two hundred pages are worth keeping, move the content without breaking what it ranks for, or pick up the phone when something goes wrong at launch. The design is the cheap part of a redesign. The migration is the part that is expensive to get wrong.

When it stops doing its job. The usual advice is every two or three years, which mostly serves the people selling redesigns. The real triggers are concrete. The site no longer describes what you sell. Your team cannot change it without calling a developer. It fails on the devices your customers actually use. Or you can see in the numbers that people arrive and leave. If none of those are true, a redesign is an expensive way to feel current. And the point of doing this one properly is that you should not be back here on a schedule: you get a platform your team can keep changing, so the years after launch are iteration rather than another rebuild.

That is the deliverable. You get the repository, the documentation, and content structured so an editor can change what should be changeable without being able to break the layout. We train the people who will actually do the publishing, not whoever sat in the kickoff. A redesign that leaves you calling us for routine edits has failed at something more important than how it looks.

We build to WCAG 2.2 AA as a matter of course — semantic markup, keyboard-operable components, visible focus states and real contrast — because retrofitting those into a finished site costs several times what building them in does. Where you need the work evidenced rather than assumed, for a procurement review or a demand letter, that is a full ADA compliance and accessibility audit, and it is its own engagement.

Then we would rather say so now than scope this down until it stops working. A redesign earns its cost through the parts that get cut first — the inventory, the migration, the content — and without them you have a re-skin. If the site mostly works and the real problem is that nobody has looked after it, a maintenance plan is the honest answer and it costs a fraction of a rebuild.