# Sales Funnel Plan - 2RE03

> Working plan for turning the site from a portfolio that *has* a contact form into something that produces qualified enquiries. **Offer answered 2026-10-01:** the user supplied the facts the offer sheet was waiting on (name, promise, inclusions, duration, price band, what the client supplies, revision rounds, ownership, the paid diagnostic, the project floor, what happens after the form, and one outcome line per case study), so the funnel copy is no longer blocked and can be drafted against those answers. The follow-up decisions came back the same day: the secondary low-commitment path is a **scheduling link** alongside the form, the reply voice is **team voice** ("we") with the live "couple of days" promise kept, and there are **no industries or project types to turn down**. One item remains open: whether deposits or milestones are stated at all (item 9). Offer-sheet item 5 was settled on 2026-10-01 as **none yet**: no client has agreed to a name, quote, logo, photograph or identifiable number beyond the client names the case studies already publish, so nothing new client-attributable is added. Nothing here is built yet, and no fact about the company may be invented to fill a gap (see `projectbrief.md` -> Ways of Working 3).

## Why

`memory-bank/todo.md` carries "redesign the site as a sales funnel rather than as a
design piece". Today the site is the second thing: the work is presented well, and a
prospect still cannot tell what they would be buying, what it costs, how long it
takes, or what happens after they click "Start a project".

## Diagnosis: where the current site leaks

Read off the pages as they stand on 2026-09-22:

1. **No offer.** `services.html` lists capabilities (Web Design, then "The rest of it"), not engagements. Nothing says what a project *is*: scope, duration, price, or what the client has to supply. The prospect has to invent the engagement, and most won't.
2. **No price or scope signal anywhere on the site.** Not one number, band or "from". An offer without a price reads as "if you have to ask", which is the classic drop-off for small-business enquiries.
3. **No qualification.** Nothing tells a wrong-fit visitor to leave or a right-fit one that they are in the right place: no budget floor, no project minimum, no "what we don't do" on the services side, and nothing about where the work is strongest.
4. **Proof is not outcome-shaped.** The 10 case studies follow problem -> what we did, with no results, no after-state and no client words. The claims on `about.html` ("Real-world mileage", "Own the execution") are unbacked by anything concrete nearby.
5. **One conversion path.** Every CTA on all 16 pages is the same contact form. There is no low-commitment step, so a visitor who is not ready to fill in a form simply leaves.
6. **No risk reversal.** Ownership and handoff, what happens on day one, how revisions work and the response-time promise exist only as fragments on `contact.html`.
7. **Ordering fights the sale.** The homepage leads with work, then with breadth ("Web Design Is Only the Beginning"). Breadth before proof invites the "jack of all trades" doubt instead of answering it, and the trigger questions that create recognition ("A website that's embarrassing you?") sit at the very bottom, after the work list.
8. **Breadth is unpositioned.** "Everything else" is either a strength (one team, no vendor juggling) or a weakness (diluted focus). Today it is a list of five cards.
9. **The CTA asks before it gives.** "Have something that needs making?" is the right instinct, but it arrives only after the visitor has worked out for themselves what a project would look like.
10. **Nothing is measured.** No analytics, no event on CTA clicks, no thank-you step, so none of the above can be tested or improved after launch.

## Proposed funnel

Land -> Recognise -> Believe -> Understand the offer -> Risk reversal -> Convert -> Measure.

| Stage | Job | Where it lives | Status today |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land | Say who we help and what we make, in one line, with the primary CTA | Home hero | Copy is close, promise is vague |
| Recognise | Reflect the visitor's trigger back at them | Home, a band **moved up** from the bottom | Copy exists, wrong position |
| Believe | Outcome-shaped proof | Case studies plus a proof strip on Home | Weakest stage: no results, no quotes |
| Offer | What can be bought, in what shape, for how much | `services.html` restructured, maybe its own page | **Missing entirely** |
| Risk reversal | What happens next, what you own, what it costs to find out | `contact.html` plus an offer band | Fragments only |
| Convert | One primary path plus one low-commitment path, both measurable | `contact.html`, thank-you page | Single path, unmeasured |
| Measure | Know which pages produce enquiries | Analytics plus a conversion event | Nothing |

## Recommendation: one primary offer, priced, plus a paid first step

Cline's view, for the user to accept or overrule. Of the four shapes on the table, the highest-yield one for this studio is **one primary offer carrying a published price band, with a small fixed-price first step in front of it**, and every other capability left as supporting bench depth.

Why that one:

- **The site already says it.** `services.html` labels Web Design "Main event" and everything else "The rest of it", and the galleries are deepest in web work. One primary offer matches the hierarchy that already exists instead of inventing a new one.
- **One offer is provable; four are not.** A packaged-engagements structure needs four sets of outcome lines, four price bands and four proof stories. With 10 case studies, most of them small, four thin offers would dilute the strongest one rather than widen the appeal.
- **A price band is the qualification filter.** It is also the fastest fix for the "if you have to ask" leak, and it filters out the enquiries that cost the most time for the least money.
- **A paid first step converts without committing.** Most studios cannot publish a project price honestly because scope genuinely varies. A fixed-price diagnostic or scoping sprint, credited against the project if it goes ahead, gives the site one number it can publish, gives the prospect a low-risk way to say yes, and turns a free conversation into a paid one.
- **The other two shapes are not wrong, just later.** Consultative (no prices) only works once the pipeline is referral-driven, which is the stage after this one. "Two to four packages" is the right *later* move, once each service has its own results to show. The recommendation is deliberately a spine plus a front door, not a menu.

What it costs the user: they have to be willing to publish one number, or one "from" band, and to define a repeatable first step. If publishing a project price is off the table entirely, then the paid first step becomes the published price by default and the primary offer stays "let's scope it", which is still a funnel rather than a brochure.

## Page-by-page draft (to confirm once the offer exists)

- **`index.html`** - reorder: trigger questions move up under the hero, breadth moves down; add a proof strip (results or client words); add an offer teaser band linking to `services.html`; keep the closing CTA.
- **`services.html`** - rebuild around the single named offer, **The 2RE03 Website Launch** (what's included, duration, price band, what we need from you, what you own), with the paid diagnostic, **The Project Clarity Session**, as the entry step; the current capability grid demoted to "also on the bench" and the Workflow band kept.
- **`about.html`** - back the claims with the same proof the homepage uses; keep "What we won't do", which already does qualification work.
- **`contact.html`** - state what the prospect gets back and when, what the first call covers, and add the secondary low-commitment path; consider two or three qualifying fields (budget band, timeline).
- **`case-studies/*.html`** - add the outcome line supplied on 2026-10-01 to each.
- **New (probably)** - `thank-you.html` so a submission is measurable. No dedicated pricing page: the offer sheet yielded one offer plus one diagnostic, not a menu.
- **`css/style.css`** - new components for the proof strip and the offer cards; nothing existing gets reshaped.
- **Measurement** - one analytics snippet plus click events; confirmed 2026-10-01 as privacy-friendly (Umami).

## Offer sheet (answered 2026-10-01)

The nine questions below were answered by the user on 2026-10-01. They are now the source of truth for the Offer stage. `memory-bank/offer-draft.md` has been reconciled against these answers (2026-10-01) and holds the fuller slot table and the draft page copy.

| # | Offer-sheet item | Status | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Primary offer in one sentence | ✅ Answered | **The 2RE03 Website Launch**: "We build distinctive websites that make your business easier to understand, trust, and act on." |
| 2 | The engagements | ✅ Answered | one offer plus one paid entry step (below) |
| 3 | The floor | ✅ Answered | $3,500 floor; **no industries or project types to turn down** (user, 2026-10-01) |
| 4 | Outcomes | ✅ Answered | one transformation line per case study (below) |
| 5 | Proof we may publish | ✅ Answered | **none yet** (user, 2026-10-01): no client has agreed to a name, quote, logo, photograph or identifiable number beyond the client names the case studies already publish; the permission rule stands (ask first), so nothing new client-attributable is added |
| 6 | After the form | ✅ Answered | who replies and the first-call agenda (below) |
| 7 | The secondary path | ✅ Answered, revised 2026-10-01 | **none**, replacing the earlier "scheduling link" answer: a written enquiry is enough, so the form is the only path and no email address is published anywhere on the site. `services.html`'s `Book a Clarity Session` already points at `contact.html`, whose `Book a Project Clarity Session` option is the booking |
| 8 | Measurement | ✅ Answered | privacy-friendly analytics (Umami), **self-hosted**, which the user is setting up and will add later |
| 9 | Commercial terms we may state | ✅ Answered | ownership wording below, plus **both deposits and milestones** stated (2026-10-01): a deposit starts the project, payments fall due as agreed milestones are met, and the balance is due on delivery. The percentage and the split are still to be supplied |

### The offer, as answered

**Primary offer name:** The 2RE03 Website Launch.

**One-sentence promise:** "We build distinctive websites that make your business easier to understand, trust, and act on."

**What's included:**
- Project strategy and content structure
- Custom visual design
- Responsive website development
- Copy editing / copywriting assistance
- SEO, accessibility and performance basics
- Launch, hosting and handoff

**Typical duration:** most projects launch in 4 to 6 weeks.

**Price band:** website projects start at $3,500; most complete projects are $4,500 to $7,500.

**What the client supplies:** their existing copy (if they have it), photos, logos and other brand assets, access to the existing website/domain/hosting, subject-matter information 2RE03 cannot reasonably research, and feedback and decisions when requested. If they do not have all of it, that is fine: 2RE03 can help create or source what is missing.

**Revision rounds:** 2. (The 2026-10-01 answer supersedes the 3 recorded 2026-09-22; `offer-draft.md` now carries 2.)

**Ownership terms:** when the project is paid in full, the client owns the finished website, the design assets, the copy created specifically for them, and their content. 2RE03 retains ownership of its pre-existing tools, reusable code, processes, and third-party components.

**The paid first step (diagnostic):** the **Project Clarity Session**, $250 for 60 to 90 minutes. The client leaves with a clear definition of the site's job, a recommended site structure, priority pages/features, the content and assets they need, a rough project scope, a realistic timeline, and a ballpark budget. The $250 is credited in full toward a 2RE03 project if they hire 2RE03 within 30 days.

**Project floor:** $3,500.

**After the form:** the **team** replies ("we"), not a named individual, to match the voice in `productContext.md`. The first call is a 30-minute Project Fit Call covering what the client is trying to accomplish; who needs to use, buy or understand it; what is wrong with the current situation; what already exists; the deadline; the budget; and whether 2RE03 is the right fit. The reply-time promise stays as the live copy states it ("aim to reply within a couple of days"). A **scheduling link** sits alongside the form for visitors who are not ready to fill it in.

**Outcome lines (one per case study):**

| Case | Outcome line |
|---|---|
| Mask Aid Project | Turned a Chinese-developed device into a clear English-language campaign people could understand, support, and buy into. |
| 1 Woman's Art and Magic | Turned decades of artwork into two books and a website designed to showcase and sell them. |
| Sam's Rules | Turned a book, its illustrations, tools, and companion material into one coherent published system. |
| Mehavior | Made an app that didn't exist yet tangible enough to present to investors. |
| Jensen's Red Barn | Turned a family antique business and its history into a welcoming online destination. |
| Upscale Food Cart | Repositioned a working food cart visually for higher-end markets. |
| Silver Lining | Created an identity designed to attract the right clients without falling into the obvious cliché. |
| Victoria Fuller | Reorganized a complicated personal story into a website where visitors could actually find the point. |
| Urban Moto | Built a repeatable editorial and advertising pipeline for a motorcycle magazine. |
| Teach Each Other AI | Turned a recurring meetup into a site where visitors could instantly find when, where, and what happened. |

These are transformation lines rather than metrics, which is honest (no invented numbers) and still outcome-shaped; a real number can replace a line later where one exists. They supersede the ten bespoke per-case prompts in `offer-draft.md` (Block E).

**Decisions (settled 2026-10-01):**
- Ask clients for permission before publishing their name, company, testimonial, photograph, logo, or identifiable project details (rule set; **no clearances yet** as of 2026-10-01, so the proof stage ships as named case studies plus the transformation outcome lines only).
- Use privacy-friendly analytics (Umami). The user is setting it up and will add it later, so measurement is deferred, not dropped.
- ~~Add a **scheduling link** as the secondary, low-commitment path alongside the form.~~ **Revised 2026-10-01: there is no scheduling link and no published email address.** A written enquiry is enough; the form is the single path, and the topic dropdown (which offers `Book a Project Clarity Session`) is what makes it a booking.
- Speak in **team voice** ("we"), including on `contact.html`, rather than naming an individual.
- Turn away **no particular industry or project type**: there is no exclusion list.
- Keep every page consistent with the others (user, 2026-10-01: "make all the pages consistent"), so the offer-shaped `services.html`, `index.html` and `contact.html` do not contradict the pages that stay portfolio-shaped. The promise stays website-shaped while the other capabilities stay visible as consistent bench depth.

## Next action

The offer sheet is answered, so the blocker is gone. In order:

1. ✅ **Reconcile the draft (done 2026-10-01).** `memory-bank/offer-draft.md` now carries every answer: revision rounds 2, the **Project Clarity Session** ($250, 60 to 90 minutes, credited in full within 30 days), the ownership wording, the price band and $3,500 floor, and the ten outcome lines in place of the `[[TODO]]` prompts.
2. ✅ **Proof clearances settled as `none yet` (2026-10-01).** No client has agreed to a name, quote, logo, photograph or identifiable number, and the case studies already publish the client names, so the proof stage ships as **named case studies plus the transformation outcome lines only**, adding nothing new client-attributable. (This was offer-sheet item 5.) **Item 9 was answered on 2026-10-01: deposits and milestones are both stated**, so nothing about the offer is open before copy ships. The deposit percentage and the milestone split are still to be supplied, and no figure goes on a page until they are.
3. **Draft the funnel copy** against these answers for review, in the site's voice (team "we", no em dashes), before any page is touched.
4. **Build in small verified steps** using the same harness as the caption and copy passes: tag balance and reference checks across all 16 pages, no em dashes, headless-browser measurement of any gallery touched, screenshots at 1280px and 390px, and a live probe after the user deploys. `thank-you.html` and the Umami snippet come last so a submission becomes measurable; there is no scheduling link to add (see the revised decision above).

**Build progress (2026-10-01):** step 1 is done. `services.html` is rebuilt around the offer (Blocks A and B: **The 2RE03 Website Launch** and **The Project Clarity Session**) and awaits the user's red pen. It was verified with a tag-balance check, a reference check across all 16 pages, an em-dash scan and full-page screenshots at 1280px and 390px. Note for the harness: this machine has no Chrome and its Firefox is a snap, so screenshots use headless Firefox with the profile written **inside the repo** (the snap cannot use `/tmp` or a profile outside a writable tree); the earlier "headless-Chrome" wording in the passes above is superseded. `index.html` is next, and `contact.html` waits for the deposits/milestones answer. **Later on 2026-10-01:** the `services.html` red pen came back and both edits are applied (the web-craft paragraph cut from the offer block, the meta and `og:description` rewrite kept), and `contact.html` gained the **first piece of Block D**: the free-text subject field is now a required topic dropdown (`name="subject"`, labelled "What do you want to talk about?"), so the chosen topic becomes the Web3Forms notification subject line. `index.html` is still next. **Also on 2026-10-01, five more answers landed:** **deposits and milestones are both stated** (item 9, the last open offer question); the **scheduling link was dropped** because a written enquiry is enough, so the form is the only path and no email address is published, which also removed the "or email us directly" fallback from `js/main.js`; **Umami will be self-hosted** (the user is setting it up); the **topic dropdown is approved as built**; and nothing on the site may promise an email address ("just make it contact us directly and use the form"). `contact.html`'s Block D is unblocked and waits only on the deposit percentage and milestone split for its payments line. Proof permissions, case-study names, images and outcome numbers are deferred by the user to a later session. A reusable screenshot harness now lives at `.shots/shoot.sh` with `.shots/trim.py` (untracked scratch, documented in `techContext.md`).