87 lines
9.1 KiB
Markdown
87 lines
9.1 KiB
Markdown
# Sales Funnel Plan - 2RE03
|
|
|
|
> Working plan for turning the site from a portfolio that *has* a contact form into
|
|
> something that produces qualified enquiries. **Draft, blocked on the offer:** the
|
|
> user chose to define the offer first (2026-09-22), so the structure below is
|
|
> agreed in principle and none of the copy can be written until the offer sheet at
|
|
> the bottom is answered. 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 2 to 4 named engagements (what's included, duration, price band, what we need from you, what you own), with 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 an outcome line to each, which needs facts only the user has.
|
|
- **New (probably)** - `thank-you.html` so a submission is measurable, and possibly a dedicated pricing page if the offer sheet yields 3 or more engagements.
|
|
- **`css/style.css`** - new components for the proof strip and the offer cards; nothing existing gets reshaped.
|
|
- **Measurement** - one analytics snippet plus click events, subject to item 8 of the offer sheet.
|
|
|
|
## Offer sheet (needed before any copy is written)
|
|
|
|
1. **The primary offer** in one sentence: we build *what*, for *whom*. Feeds the hero and the offer band.
|
|
2. **The engagements**: 2 to 4 named, each with what's included, typical duration, price (fixed, "from", or band), what the client supplies, and how many revision rounds. Feeds `services.html`. If there is only one real offer, say so: one strong offer beats three thin ones.
|
|
3. **The floor**: the smallest project worth taking, and any industries or project types to turn down. Feeds qualification.
|
|
4. **Outcomes**: for each of the 10 case studies, one result line (traffic, enquiries, launch date, time saved, sales). One sentence each is enough, and this is the single biggest upgrade available to the site.
|
|
5. **Proof we may publish**: client quotes, client names, logos, or nothing yet.
|
|
6. **After the form**: who replies, how fast, what the first call covers, and what a prospect leaves with even if they never hire us.
|
|
7. **The secondary path**: keep "email a question", or add a scheduling link?
|
|
8. **Measurement**: is a privacy-friendly analytics script acceptable, or does the site stay scripting-free?
|
|
9. **Commercial terms we may state**: file ownership on handoff, deposits and milestones, and whether those may be published.
|
|
|
|
## Next action
|
|
|
|
The offer sheet is the blocker. Once items 1 to 4 are answered, the funnel copy gets drafted against them for review, then built 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-Chrome measurement of any gallery touched, screenshots at 1280px and 390px, and a live probe after the user deploys.
|
|
|
|
|