Fixing a website that worked against the marketing team

The team was not short of ideas. They were short of a diagnosis telling them which of three overlapping problems was causing the other two.

Measured outcomes

1 January 2026 to 30 June 2026 · confirmed by the client marketing head   [SAMPLE DATA — replace before publishing]

MetricBeforeAfterSource and window
Largest contentful paint4.1 sec2.3 secPageSpeed Insights and CrUX field data, mobile · Measured at rebuild launch and at six months
Non-brand organic sessions, monthly2,8504,020GA4, Organic Search channel, non-brand segment · Jan–Jun 2026 against the preceding six months

What the client was dealing with

An established edible oil company had a site that was slow, poorly structured and not ranking. Each of those three was being blamed for the others, and no one had established the causal order.

Slow pages were suppressing crawl efficiency and engagement. Poor structure meant category pages competed with each other. Thin content was the symptom that got the most attention and mattered least at that point.

How the engagement ran

01  Discover

Opened with a working call involving the marketing head and the people who owned the site day to day, then pulled the analytics, search and technical baseline.

02  Diagnose

Established the causal order: performance first, information architecture second, content third. Reversing that order is why previous attempts had not moved anything.

03  Design

Within two working days our lead was on site with a written strategy and execution roadmap agreed with their team rather than presented to it.

04  Deliver

Rebuilt the site, resolved the technical debt, restructured categories and ran content work against the corrected architecture.

05  Develop

Set a standing operating rhythm: weekly meetings and written status reports, so leadership could see progress without chasing it.

06  Demonstrate

Reported against the agreed baseline monthly, which is what kept scope discipline when new requests arrived mid-build.

Client quote

[REPLACE] Two sentences from the client: what was broken before, and what changed. Name, job title, company or description if anonymous.

Engagement detail

FieldDetail
SectorFMCG · Consumer
MarketIndia, national
DurationSix months
ServicesWebsite rebuild, technical SEO, content, reporting cadence
SystemsGA4, Search Console, PageSpeed Insights
HandoverIn-house team operating the content workflow

A slow site is rarely just a slow site

If three problems are blamed for each other, the fix is a diagnosis, not a redesign.

Client anonymised at the client’s request. Figures drawn from the source systems named above, against a stated baseline and date range.

What do you think?
Insights

More Related

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Creating a GTM workflow where there had been none

Building the site, and the client’s own social capability

Connecting the website and CRM into one intake system

An e-commerce build across three markets

Turning a dormant social presence into a client source

Making the agency unnecessary