They wanted a stronger website and they wanted their own team running social afterwards. Those two goals shape the engagement very differently from a standard retainer.
Measured outcomes
1 January 2026 to 30 June 2026 · confirmed by the client marketing lead [SAMPLE DATA — replace before publishing]
| Metric | Before | After | Source and window |
| Lead magnet downloads, monthly | 0 | 85 | Website form submissions · Jan–Jun 2026 |
| Enquiries attributed to gated assets, monthly | 0 | 12 | CRM source field · Jan–Jun 2026 |
What the client was dealing with
A legal services provider engaged us for web development and was explicit that it wanted to run social engagement in-house rather than outsource it permanently. That rules out the usual model, where the agency holds the capability and the client holds the invoice.
The site had no mechanism for capturing intent. Visitors who were researching had no reason to identify themselves, so the pipeline depended entirely on people who were already ready to call.
How the engagement ran
01 Discover
Established what the team could realistically own, what approvals content had to pass, and where the existing pipeline came from.
02 Diagnose
Two constraints: no intent capture on the site, and no in-house content rhythm. Fixing the first without the second would have produced a short-lived spike.
03 Design
Planned the gated assets around the questions their prospects actually ask, and designed a weekly working rhythm their team could sustain.
04 Deliver
Built the site, produced the initial playbooks and case studies as lead magnets, and connected them to an enquiry path.
05 Develop
Ran weekly huddles to plan social strategy with their team rather than for them, transferring the process as we went.
06 Demonstrate
Tracked downloads and attributed enquiries separately, so the team could see which assets produced pipeline rather than just traffic.
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
| Field | Detail |
| Sector | Legal Services |
| Market | United States and India |
| Duration | Six months |
| Services | Web development, lead magnet production, social enablement |
| Systems | Website forms, client CRM |
| Handover | Client team running social and content independently |
Gate something worth downloading
Lead magnets fail when they are brochures. They work when they answer a real operational question.
Client anonymised at the client’s request. Figures drawn from the source systems named above, against a stated baseline and date range.
