Ann Arbor Website Design and Development

No, and we will tell you which parts to skip. An early-stage company usually needs a credible, fast, specific site and nothing else — the integrations, the portals and the content programme come later. We would rather scope the small version well than sell you the big one.

Almost none, if it is organised. Technical buyers do not bounce because a page was thorough; they bounce because they could not find the one number they came for. The work is structure and hierarchy rather than compression.

It changes who the page is written for. Selling into programs means purchasing and supplier development will read you before anyone speaks, and they are checking scope, capability and evidence. Our automotive suppliers pages set out exactly what they look for.

Yes, and the usual issue is translation — the science is sound and the page is written for peers rather than for buyers. Getting that across without dumbing it down is most of the job.

With method rather than logos. What you tested, how, against what baseline, and what the limits are. A specific, honest account of the work reads as more credible to a technical buyer than three anonymous testimonials.

Yes, and for technical products the documentation frequently does more selling than the marketing does. Findable, current, versioned and indexable — for buyers, for your own team and for the assistants that now summarise what you do.

Scoped in phases with a budget against each, approved one at a time. We are not the cheapest option and do not compete on that basis.

A focused site is eight to twelve weeks. Content is the variable that moves it most, particularly on technical products where the person who knows the material is also the busiest person in the company.

We write with your subject-matter expert rather than instead of them. Half an hour with the person who actually knows the process produces something no amount of desk research will match.

Often, and it works when the split is explicit. We tend to own the site, the structure and the technical search; they own product and campaigns. What fails is an unclear boundary where both sides assume the other owns reporting.

Built in as we go rather than audited afterwards — contrast, focus states, keyboard paths, alt text, heading order. Retrofitting it is largely rebuilding, and for anyone selling to institutions it is frequently a procurement requirement.

Yes, and most clients take it. Updates applied and checked, nightly off-server backups, monitoring, and a monthly report written by the person who did the work.

You do — repository, documentation and credentials handed over. We would rather keep clients because the work is good than because leaving is difficult.

Four business hours for a first reply, from somebody senior enough to assess it.

We are in Plymouth, about forty minutes east. Honest answer: close enough to be useful in person, not so close that we would claim to be an Ann Arbor firm.

Tell us what is not working in a sentence or two. First reply within four business hours from the person who read it, then thirty minutes on a call with no deck.

Start from the problem the buyer already recognises, then show the mechanism. Pages that open with the technology lose readers who have not yet accepted there is a problem; pages that never reach the mechanism lose the technical evaluator. You need both, in that order.

Only ones you can defend, with the method stated. A benchmark without its conditions attached is read as marketing and discounted by exactly the audience it was meant to impress. A modest result with a reproducible method beats an impressive one without.

Almost certainly not the kind you are picturing. A post a month nobody searches for is an expense. What works for technical companies is a defined set of pages that answer real questions properly — documentation, method, application guidance — built once and maintained.

Not for a credible presence and a clear account of what you are building. It is too early for integrations, portals and a content programme. We would rather scope the small version honestly than sell you infrastructure you will outgrow before you use it.

Regularly, and the pattern is familiar enough that we can usually shortcut the early decisions. The founding team is technical, the licensing position is settled or nearly settled, and there is a real result that needs explaining to people who did not read the paper. The risk in these projects is building for the company you intend to be in three years rather than the one raising money now.

Usually adjacent rather than inside it, on a subdomain or a path that shares the header and the type but not the publishing workflow. Documentation changes on the engineering team's cadence and marketing pages change on nobody's, and forcing them through the same content system means one of the two is permanently out of date. Sharing the design and cross-linking hard gets you the coherence without the friction.

By counting the things that actually indicate commercial intent rather than the things that are easy to count. For a technical company that usually means documentation reads, demo requests, specification downloads and the proportion of enquiries that arrive already knowing what you do. Sessions and bounce rate tell you almost nothing about a business whose buying cycle runs nine months, and reporting them monthly creates a false sense of movement.