A relaunch should improve trust and enquiries — not only swap colours. We prioritise structure, credibility, and the path from the old presence to the new one: inventory, redirects, core journeys, and acceptance. SEO capital stays in view, and the project ends with a stable cutover — not a permanent construction site.
A B2B services firm relaunches an 80-page site with scattered landings. We inventory traffic and conversion URLs, consolidate 30 dead pages, plan 301s for the top 20, and relaunch home, services, cases, contact first. Blog archive stays for now but is not migrated 1:1 “pretty”. Cutover in a maintenance window; acceptance includes redirect spot-checks and mobile. Figures and names are anonymised; the flow matches typical engagements.
Migration mistakes cost more than a “boring” design. We prioritise URL equity and cutover discipline — without ranking guarantees, with plannable acceptance. That is intentional and part of the positioning.
This page’s job: Owns relaunch and migration only: inventory, redirects, cutover. Not greenfield and not pure lead-gen framing.
Minimum any serious relaunch offer should cover:
Export indexed URLs (GSC/crawl) and prioritise.
Per URL: keep, consolidate, or end with redirect.
Old → new in writing; 301 for valuable paths, no mass 404s.
Home, offer, trust, contact before cosmetics and fringe pages.
DNS/hosting, window, smoke tests, rollback thinking.
Check top URLs, forms, canonicals, mobile after go-live.
New design on old confusion: rankings break from dirty migration, content stays ballast, and sales sees no difference. A relaunch without target enquiries and URL planning often burns years of organic equity.
Outdated design, unclear services, poor mobile UX, technical debt, or a site that generates no enquiries.
Relaunches are often sold as a new look. Risk sits in migration, URL equity, and unclear priority. We treat redirects and core paths as scope — and say what we will not “save on the side”.
URL inventory and redirect logic are part of the project — not “we will do it after launch”.
What drives enquiries and trust relaunches first. Ballast is cut or deliberately consolidated.
We reduce migration risk with planning — we do not guarantee SERP positions. That would be unserious.
Go-live, checks, and acceptance with criteria — not a permanent construction site.
Typical relaunch boundaries:
Inventory and prioritisation of core URLs in agreed scope
Redirect strategy as a project step, not an afterthought
Declining “bring everything” when it dilutes enquiry paths
Guarantees that rankings will rise or stay stable
Full migration of every historic page without priority
Unlimited design rounds after cutover without scope
If you want a relaunch with migration clarity: briefing. If you only want a new theme without URL ownership, we are the wrong partner.
Planable scope — not an open hours jar and not fake 48-hour promises.
A modernised site that improves trust and enquiries — with a migration path, not a blind cut.
Inventory, prioritisation, redirect strategy, and acceptance before/after cutover.
Staged options: core paths first, ballast later — instead of big-bang without a plan.
You decide content and priority; we lead inventory, structure, build, and migration in scope.
Redirects, core URLs, and content are considered so SEO capital is not wasted.
What decision-makers need moves forward. Dead weight is cut or consolidated.
Better performance and maintainability — without a feature graveyard.
New IA and design where enquiries and trust are created.
Migration as part of the project — not an afterthought after launch.
Go-live, checks, and handoff with criteria — not “done someday”.
Sequence by risk and resources — decided in the briefing.
URLs, content, tech, goals — what stays, what goes.
Structure and design for the next stage of the company.
Implementation, content, redirects, and tests before cutover.
Go-live, monitoring, acceptance — then in-scope polish.
Risk drops with solid URL and redirect planning. Migration is part of the project — not an afterthought. There are no ranking guarantees.
Often yes. Scope and sequence are set in the briefing based on risk and resources.
Prioritise, consolidate, or redirect with intent. Ballast that creates no enquiries does not need to be carried forward.
Briefing in the customer area with current site status and goals. Or review Pricing, then briefing.
No. Valuable converting URLs stay/redirect; ballast is consolidated. 1:1 is often costlier and worse for clarity.
Often yes — e.g. core paths first. Scope and sequence depend on risk and resources and are set in the briefing.
A professional website that carries your offer and enquiries — without months of agency ping-pong. Visible scope and price, clear milestones, acceptance with criteria. Ideal when nobody in-house can own delivery and you still need control over the brief.
Open topic →Traffic without enquiries is expensive. We design paths, messaging, and CTAs so the right visitors take the next step — and the wrong ones self-select out. This is conversion architecture for companies that want pipeline: clear dream outcome, higher perceived likelihood, less friction to enquire.
Open topic →In B2B, credibility, a clear offer, and a next step for buying committees matter. We build online presence that creates trust before the first call and qualifies enquiries — with scope control and acceptance that fit professional buying processes. Not B2C theatre — decision architecture.
Open topic →Share site status and goals — we propose a relaunch scope with migration focus.