Booking September · two project slots open
Get your free audit
The single most common way a redesign goes wrong has nothing to do with how it looks. Old pages get deleted, the URLs change, and nobody maps redirects. Google keeps sending people to addresses that no longer exist, and every ranking those pages held drains away over the following months.
This is not hypothetical and it is not rare. It happened on this very site. Three client pages were deleted during a rebuild, and they were still holding rankings, including one at position 10.5 and another with the best click-through rate on the whole domain. The fix was to rebuild them at their original URLs rather than let the equity go.
The second failure is more subtle. A site gets redesigned to look better, the structure is carried over unchanged, and six months later nothing has improved. The old site did not underperform because it was ugly. It underperformed because everything sat on one page and Google had nothing specific to rank.
A redesign that changes the appearance and keeps the architecture is an expensive way to stand still.
The visible part is the easy part.
What currently ranks, what earns traffic, and what is quietly worth keeping. You cannot protect what you have not measured.
Every old URL mapped to its new home before launch, as 301s. This is the step that gets skipped and it is the one that costs the most.
Rebuilt around what people actually search for, with a page per service and per area, rather than the old structure in new clothes.
Pages that already earn traffic get preserved and improved rather than thrown out because they were on the old site.
Most sites needing a redesign were never really designed for phones, which is typically a third to a half of the traffic.
Built alongside the live site and switched over, rather than taking you offline while it is assembled.
Both of these replaced outdated template sites that did not work on mobile. Figures from the clients' own Search Console.
None of these came from the site looking better. They came from restructuring around how people search. Mungar, James Deep and High Reach case studies.
Not if redirects are mapped properly. Every old URL gets a 301 to its new home before launch. Sites usually dip for a couple of weeks while Google reprocesses, then recover and improve.
Send me the URL. Sometimes the answer is a rebuild, sometimes repair, and sometimes the site is fine and the problem is that nothing links to it and there are no pages to rank. All three answers are free.
Yes, and usually should. Pages already earning traffic get carried across and improved. Throwing out ranking content because it was on the old site is a common and expensive mistake.
Two to three weeks for most, same as a new build. The audit and redirect mapping add a little at the start, and they are worth it.
No. It gets built alongside the live site and switched over when it is ready.
Then we keep the look and fix the structure. Appearance and architecture are separate problems and you are not obliged to change both.
Send me your URL and I will send back a plain-English audit of what is working, what is not, and what it would take to fix. No charge, no pitch deck.