Doing an Awesome Site Audit

Thank you. Everyone hear me? Yes, there we go, excellent. So apologies up front, I am losing my voice. I may stutter halfway through this and just end up pointing at slides, but we'll see how we go. So I'm not going to talk about technical SEO. Oh, okay, bye. No, so ostensibly I'm going to talk about site auditing and general auditing and the process whereby you look at technical things and make technical recommendations, but I figured that bit's quite easy and I'll come on to why and some of the nuances of that, but actually I think that there is a real problem in the way that technical SEO and technical optimisation is approached And I think that problem is much more to do with people and psychology and business culture. So I'm going to look at that side of technical, which is a side that isn't often thought about. You have a division in SEO, you've got the content people and the technical people, but actually there's this interesting middle ground where nothing quite seems to gel and work. So I'm going to dig a bit. First, a bit of sordid personal history. So this is me. Before that, I was that, and then some years before that, I was those things. If you read this back to front, I think the really interesting thing for me is I started my world and my life in SEO as a dirty web developer looking at code and servers and PHP and jQuery and things, and then fell into agency world and very quickly realized that things like client relationships and commercial models and deliverables and politics are really important and had to teach myself to understand how that world worked. And now at Linkdex, I look at the wider industry in the market and try and understand what people need and the tools and processes they need in place to do their jobs better. Why am I telling you this? I think the interesting thing for me is that throughout this entire journey, I've come to realise that technical SEO is hugely important and hugely undervalued, and the way that your website is built and managed and maintained structurally, functionally, politically, commercially has a direct impact on the money that you make out the backend and beyond. However— Oh, the formatting's gone wrong. It was going to be really funny though. It was going to be a slanted bit in the middle and I was going to gloss over it. Spoiled.

Ruined.

And everybody's website is a bit shit. And when I say a bit shit, you are hemorrhaging ROI. Every piece of content that you ever write, every link building campaign you ever do, every infographic that you ever publish, every piece of great working PR and branding you do is giving you 20% of the return that it should. You are hemorrhaging ROI. The faults in your websites, the 404s you have that users see and therefore don't purchase, the places where you don't rank because your competitors are better than you, they are actively hurting you. Why is that? It's because websites are complex machines. They are large and multifaceted and modular, and they have lots of moving pieces. And periodically, those bits get old. Periodically, they get replaced. They get bolted onto new bits. And things inevitably go wrong, in the same way that they would if you were managing a large production chain. So bits get broken. They get damaged. They get stuck. They go back to front. That's absolutely fine. That's the way this world works. As an industry, this is how we've reacted to that. And this is how we've managed. We've ignored it. We've just said, you know what?

I've got some poor workforce. Technical SEOs.

It's a bit hard to do politically. It's a bit difficult to get things changed on the website. So we'll just accept that 20% of the people who visit our website have a shit experience, that they see error pages that they shouldn't, that the page is slow, that things don't display right. And you know what? That's fine, because the other 80% are doing OK. And there's other opportunities. And we just ignore it. So what's the alternative? We drop everything. Every time there's a 404, we generate a big flashing red alarm bell in the CEO's office. And everyone drops everything. dig and try and work out what it is and stop all operations until we've fixed it. Equally impractical. So the site audit as a concept occupies this nice middle ground where we can say, OK, let's approach this like grown-ups. So you've won a new piece of business, or you start a new job in-house, or you've appointed an agency, and the first step is to say, let's understand what's happening. Let's understand where we are and put a stake in the ground and say, OK, here are the big issues and let's work through them. It's a process for periodical identification and strategic prioritisation of issues. The problem is most SEO audits suck. Not necessarily the content, not necessarily the recommendations. Technical SEO is generally very straightforward. Things are broken or they're not broken. There are defined ways to fix things. Page titles behave in certain ways. Fast pages are better than slow pages. There aren't really many unknowns here. The content in them is generally fine. If people implemented the recommendations, they would make more money. However, the audits inevitably end up in the audit graveyard. The thing that people don't consider is that if you have been appointed as an agency to a client, or if you started a new role in-house, you're not the first person to sit in that seat. There was an agency before you and an agency before them, or there was a guy who previously had your job, or there's a guy in marketing. Other people have done audits. Other people have observed the faults that you have. Other people have quantified and spotted and understood the opportunity. You're not coming in with a blank slate and saying, I've discovered these magical opportunities. It's all been done before. And these audits have been accepted, they've been read, and they've gone straight straight into a filing cabinet where they've not been acted on. The technical audit's become a bit of a joke. It's not designed to affect change. It's designed to show your capabilities. As somebody who's pitching or somebody who's just been appointed, the technical audit is your opportunity to say, I can do a big impressive technical audit, and therefore you should listen to me because I know what I'm talking about. It's never been designed to affect change or to be acted on. It's a bit disconnected. The problem is nobody actually wants an audit. Nobody says, I want an audit, because they want to read an audit. They say, I want an audit, because They want to make more money. They want an audit because they want the things that are spotted in it to be fixed, to be resolved, to generate more revenue. The problem is we're relying on people who don't know what they want and don't know how to articulate that. You're relying on senior stakeholders to understand what they should be asking for and then for you to interpret that and give it back to them. They don't know the language. They don't understand. They've heard the phrase technical audit in the context of SEO, and they think that's what they want and what they need. What they actually want is more success, more revenue, more things being fixed, changed the way they're playing. I think collectively then our responsibility as consultants who are producing these kind of audits and going through these processes is actually to deliver success. That's what they're asking for, whether it's personal success for the C-level people who are KPI'd on performance, whether it is commercial success by fixing things and generating more sales. Actually, what we're trying to do is make things better, and it's really that simple. It's not to deliver an audit, it's the output behind that. This is potentially slightly contentious, and this surprised me. So I gave a talk on a similar topic at Brighton SEO last year, which created this huge Twitter firestorm with Barry Adams at the heart of it. If you're not familiar with Barry Adams, he's a very respected SEO, very technically competent, very well-respected freelancing, multi-talented SEO, and very well known. And he is adamant That your responsibility as an SEO ends the moment you hand over the audit? That you identify the issues, you write them down, you say how they should be fixed, and you push it over the desk and you walk away and take your paycheck? It's an interesting idea, and I think that there's something liberating in the idea of our responsibility to be completely neutral in it and say, look, we've, we've shown you what the problems are, you go sort it, it's your problem. I think it's unrealistic. I think there's a much nicer middle ground where we need to be responsible for effecting change. Because if we don't, then what are we being paid for? What are we doing? If we're doing work that doesn't affect change, then what's the point of doing? If our net contribution to a larger outcome is nil, then what's our value? Our responsibility has to be to affect change. So put all this work into producing this big audit, and everyone goes, "Yep, you know a bit about technical," and it goes in the drawer. Broken. How do we fix it? The problem in the process: fixing big things is hard. Fixing complex things is complicated. The technical bit is easy. Go look at Moz's 2015 technical audit, go Google for how canonical tags work, read some blog posts about hreflang, canonicals. You can take 2 or 3 days and you can master the basics. Technical SEO is phenomenally straightforward. This bit is really hard. You can put as many recommendations on the desk as you want and nothing will happen. This is the bit where we struggle. To effect change, you need to anticipate objections. This is the heart of it. You need to stop people not wanting to do things. You need to understand why they will resist, why they will object, why they will argue, why they'll say no, why they'll suddenly say nothing at all, and circumvent all of those. Otherwise, as soon as you start getting these objections, you enter the spiral of doom, and the spiral of doom leads to the audit graveyard. These slides were much sexier this morning. The thing you need to consider is that you have multiple different audiences. You're not delivering the technical audit to the SEO manager. Or to the CEO, or to the finance guy. You're delivering it to all of them, not necessarily at the same time in the same place, but these audits circulate. And you are offering all of these individual people the opportunity to complain, to object, to disagree in their own worlds, in their own contexts. And unless you solve for that and stop them having things they can trip up on or not understand or not like, any single one of them has the opportunity to burn your audit. I've lost all my pictures.

Oh no.

Oh, I had a picture full of a room of gormless people. So this audience has different needs and different superpowers, and I'll just talk you through them staring at a screen with white text on a white background. And most importantly then, and most influential in the group, is the C-level, whose role is to be in control. The CEO's objective at all times is to say, I know where we're going, I know what we're doing and why. And their superpower is to set a direction. They have the capability in a room when there's contention, when there's multiple stakeholders, to say, this is what we're going to do and why. Your objective with the senior stakeholders on the C-level is to get them bought into a vision. It's not to give them a brief to fix a technical problem. It's not to worry about cost analysis. It's to give them a vision of something they can cling to, a single statement of hope and a dream for a better future. It's how you get them on board. Interesting partners in crime, the tech department and the legal guys. Not usually allied, but against you, their job is to maintain the status quo. The tech guys have processes, they have frameworks, they have a big long list and they don't want to change it. The legal guys don't like changing new things, they don't like having to deal with things that they're not familiar with. Both of these guys will anticipate each other's objections and work against you to prohibit anything new or different. Their superpower is to veto anything they damn well want and nobody can argue with them because they know better because they're sector experts. You need to get them on side by making things feel comfortable and not too different and scary. Do not go to them with big picture visions, go to them with specifics that are very well documented. I'll bring all this back together in a moment. Thank you. The marketing guys whose job is to minimize risk. Now, I think as an industry we've created an interesting problem. As our industry has matured gradually and SEO has grown up, we find ourselves that in a lot of organizations and a lot of in-house places there exists a role of digital marketing manager, which maybe some of you know today. The role primarily revolves around managing budget, managing agencies, and saying, "Here's how we're going to distribute our paid search budget, our organic budget, etc., etc., and manage those relationships and hit targets for sales and marketing objectives." Because of the nature of the role and the fact that you're kind of moving money around the table, success is based on not failing. Your objective is to not get things wrong. Your budget is managed by. Getting as many leads out as you can and as many sales out as you can with the minimum viable spend without topping up. When you're looking at technical audits and pitching ideas, you're saying, here's a big opportunity to do more stuff and to get more money and to win big. It's the wrong way to approach these guys. You need to be saying, here's a safe bet to generate more value and to get more leads.

They—

whilst they will buy into and like and appreciate the idea of winning big and capitalizing on new opportunities and bigger markets, Actually, the way that they're KPI'd and the way that they're reported internally is all based on minimizing risk. Finance guys, obviously always a pain in the ass, bless them. Their job is to minimize cost. Actually, finance guys can be a really big ally because if you can make a compelling business case for investing a little bit to generate a lot more, they're always up for speculating to accumulate. They can be an unlikely ally against people who are otherwise risk-averse. And then finally, really interestingly, at the dinner table you've got third parties and other SEOs. So these will be other agencies, PR guys, other people in the mix who have vested interest in what you're doing or affected by it. And their job is to defend themselves, because anything that you're saying that they're not implies that they didn't know it or don't know it, and they need to look big and important because they're KPI'd similarly to you. And their superpower is that they can also challenge the status quo. If you're going to propose something that will benefit them, They can be another voice in line with yours against the other dissenters in the room. So you've got to know and understand who all these people are. Again, they might not be in the same room at the same time, but they are all going to have opinions, and they have the opportunity to object to the things that you're saying. And as soon as one of them objects, then the whole house of cards starts tumbling down, and your audit ends up in the graveyard. Really then, guaranteed success of getting your stuff acted on requires unanimous, undissented agreement from every single one of these stakeholders that what you're saying is good and right and viable and valuable and can be executed. Really interesting. Watch out, and you'll all have come across this. You'll put something on the table, here's a great campaign idea, and somebody will flag up and say, oh, we'll just need to run it past Tim in legal, or we'll just need to get an opinion from George in marketing. It sounds like progress. It sounds like you're moving towards the next step to get stuff out into the wild. Actually, this is a really key indicator that you're entering the spiral of doom. It's an opportunity for people to draw things out and have opinions and push it wider. Avoid this like the plague. Shut it down and get agreement in the room. Again, these were going to be really pretty and have lots of pictures of people conversing, some nice stock photos of people around a board table. Examples of where this goes wrong: tech and legal will immediately say, what's the business case for this idea? And if you don't have a robust business case prepared, they will shoot you. Interestingly, tech and legal again allied, and what's the priority of each item? If you're presenting a whole bunch of things or multifaceted, multi-component componented idea. If you don't have a nice simple list that says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, they will shoot you down. The C-level, interestingly, motivated by competitive mediocrity. Their first response to any big ambitious idea will be, what are our competitors doing? To which the answer will always be nothing. They will wait until the next time moves. There's no motivation for them to take a big brave leap and pop a couple of steps forwards if nobody else is. Their whole world is managed by waiting for the next time to act and then leap You'll need to have an awareness of what competitors are doing and scare them a little bit. Say, we've seen evidence that we think they might be thinking of something similar. Get them to take that first leap. People anticipate other people's objections. This is a real bitch. People who aren't in the room— it's good neighbor syndrome. It's awful. People will— George from Primrose will say, oh, I don't know what Terry D'Fneagle will think about this. And there's no rationale to it. Terry D'Fneagle will be absolutely fine with it. However, people will anticipate People anticipate other people's objections when they're feeling uncomfortable, and they'll project other people's worries. You need to account for people who aren't in the conversation and get them on board as well. This is really hard and it's really big, but you need to control all of these people and their experiences if you want to guarantee getting through. And people who just don't care, third parties and other agencies who aren't KPI'd on the stuff that you are. You want to fix the site and generate a whole load of extra revenue. Well, they're KPI'd on reputation. You've got to find a tenuous way to connect what you're doing back to them. Otherwise, it will have to be blocked because they've got things they want to get done that costs time and money, and you've got to get them involved in your proposition. Skip that. So how do you do this? This is really big. I want to stress that there is a huge amount of work that goes into this and getting it right and doing it comprehensively. It's not realistic to expect to do this every time. Sometimes you will find that. You have an amicable audience that you don't need to deal with persuasion with, or you have a commercially savvy tech guy who you don't need to win over with business cases. However, if you want to guarantee that you get the whole audience on side and that you get stuff through the business and out into the real world, then these are the components that you need. You always need quick wins because what you're going to propose is going to take some time, and you are immediately under pressure to hit targets and to deliver things and to get stuff out in the wild, even though you know full well that anything you propose will land in the audit graveyard. You need a long-form editorial audit that looks and feels like a big-ass audit. You need a spreadsheet of itemized, prioritized issues. You need a cheat sheet for each individual issue. And you need a presentation-style PowerPoint storyboard. 5 distinct components. The audit isn't just an audit. There are multiple factors and slightly different presentation styles and mechanics that answer to each of those people's fears and objections. So— Before you start this, you absolutely need to have exhaustive keyword market research as well as actual consumer insight and research. So you can say, here are the ways people search and they behave, here's what they're seeing, here's where the opportunities are, here's some anecdotal evidence from consumer panels that suggests that people say and think and do this. And you need performance and commercial data, so you need to be able to confidently say these issues are costing us this much money, the market is worth this much money. And when you can't get actual data like conversion values from analytics, etc. Estimate with some reasonable guesswork. Pick best averages. Use your skills and expertise to guesstimate in a way that other people won't be able to guesstimate better. It doesn't matter if it's not perfect. If it's better than the other guys can do, then it's fine. You will need to challenge conventional thinking on how long an audit takes and what it looks like. They will be expecting something they can slip into an audit graveyard drawer. What you'll be delivering is something much more multifaceted and immersive and distributed throughout the organization. If it's taken less than a week to produce the audit, you have rushed it. So what does this look like? Long-form editorial. You need something that looks and feels like a conventional audit in order to get senior-level buy-in. As I was saying earlier, the audit, as well as being an audit and identifying problems, is a key mechanic to get You need to look like you know what you're doing. Unless you can write a big 10,000-word document that looks and feels impressive, they won't trust you enough to act on the things inside it. It needs to compellingly model the commercial opportunity versus the commercial impact and very clearly distinguish between the two. Now this is interesting, and it's a nuance a lot of people trip up on, is it's very easy to say, here is something that's broken and how much it's costing us. It's very easy to slip from that into, here is something that's not quite good enough and how much more money we can make from it. Psychologically, those are very, very different. As soon as you start mixing them up, you will freak the finance people out and the CEO because they don't know whether they're being defensive or offensive, and that's a very important thing for them and the way they see the world. You need to be very, very clearly differentiating those. The audit is written in business language. It talks about revenue and customer experience, not about bounce rates and not about SEO metrics. You balance instilling fear and greed. Same kind of concept, it's just watch out when you're talking about opportunity versus impact and start to play on their emotions a bit. Scare them a little bit, but get them excited about the opportunity. Demonstrate your capability. And actually, oh, lastly, the least important thing in the audit is identifying and outlining the actual technical issues and the opportunities. It looks something like this. So this is one I did a while ago. There's a whole bunch of psychological games going on in this, including, for example, the order. Really obvious, really important. Start by outlining the business case and the high-level vision of where you are and what's happening. Then move into the business case for doing stuff. So here's how much money we're losing. Here's how much we could win. Here's the balance between the two. Here's the scale of the opportunity in the market. Move through with pictures into here's the user experience, and here's examples of what it feels like to the end person. Humanize it, and then go into, here's 101 little issues segmented nicely by domain, by area, by site, by topic. And clearly differentiate between, here's an opinion we have from something we've seen and inferred and thought might be interesting, versus here's an explicit technical issue, and number them all. Split really, really clearly. We think we've seen some stuff that's interesting versus here is a thing you need to fix. Segment, color code, theme. It's really big. And there's lots of it. And that's really important because if you miss anything, somebody will shoot you down. The other SEO in the room, the other external agencies, the tech guys will say, what about that subdomain? Or, what about that issue? If you miss anything, it opens up other people's ability to poke holes in your integrity. Spend serious time doing this bit. This is the bulk of the work. Everything else is just refactoring of this. The cheat sheet is really the core of this, and this is what really makes it work. If you've identified 100 issues, you will need 100 cheat sheets. But you can systemize and process these, and a lot of them are very similar, and there's a lot of copy and paste. Very specifically, this is one A4 sheet on 2 sides, or 2 A4 sheets, one piece of paper, size 10 font. They take 20 minutes to do. Standardization is key here. Initially, these will be your buy-in to the business and tech side. As you've done a few of these and got through through the door, they will just become accepted, and people will stop reading and scrutinizing them. 2 side things. So, your information for the tech world. So, what's the user story? What's the brief for the fix? If the brief is big and complicated, put it in a different document. What are the benefits from fixing? Specifically with metrics, this will improve load time, this will reduce bounce rate, in terms of the site and the technical world, not the business metrics. The implications of not fixing. So, is this going to get worse? Is this going to continue to hurt us? Project the impact. And what are the possible risks? So is this going to take our site down? Is it going to create security issues? What are the possible things that could go wrong, either immediately or later? And then, are there any ongoing maintenance or process requirements? If we're changing the way something works, does somebody need to own that? Do we, do we need to check it again in 6 months? What future technical debt are we creating with this fix? You don't want to be creating stuff that will hurt you later. And then the business world, so the other side. Summarize the issue in nice human words in the context So the business, here is the thing that people are experiencing that's not very nice. Again, use metrics, but use business metrics. This is hammering sales, revenue, opportunities, reach, reputation. Give it a priority score. So if you've got 100 issues, number them from 1 to 100. Don't put everything from 1 to 3 and grade it. Give them an explicit list. This is really clever. You can cheat a bit. So the C-level people will always want to understand the impact of every single one of these fixes. So you're I saying, don't know what the impact of fixing A404 is. And you can say, yes, it will improve user experience, but to quantify that on a chart, how do you pick that out? Leave a space that says, when was this completed and what did it achieve? You will never revisit that because you'll never have time because you'll have other stuff to get on with. But the fact that you've acknowledged that you might want to think about it will answer to a lot of their concerns. Other areas of organizational impact. So do you need to involve the PR guys? Is this going to touch on other domains and other people and other brands? And then what are the competitors doing in the same space? Are they hammering you? Are they weak? Are they strong? And how does that influence it? This single sheet allows the technical people to bridge with the senior business people who otherwise live in different worlds. And without this joint dual messaging to both of them, they will find opportunities to object on each other's behalves. The senior people say, "Well, the tech guys did something like this and it was really complex." And the tech guys will say, "We don't understand." understand the business case. Neither of those people are good at communicating with each other, but you can bridge across that. This is a lot of work. Excuse me. Itemized issues. So this is really easy. Take all of the numbered issues from your original audit, turn it into a list. Number it. What is it? Example of where you found it. Brief summary of the fix from the document. And then do a clever thing and score them. Now, the problem with scoring is you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. If you do not score all these items, In terms of their impact and priority, the tech team will say, well, we don't know where to start, we don't know if this is a big job, don't know if it's a little one, I'm gonna fill it all out and ignore it. If you do score them, they will say, you scored this wrong, this is much harder, this is much easier. You will absolutely get shot for this. However, you can cheat. So score 3 different components. Score the estimated time, the estimated impact, and the estimated difficulty. And underscore— sorry, overscore the difficulty. If you think it's gonna be a 3 out of 10 on the difficulty scale, It's a 6. And then when the tech guys review it, they go, ah, this is much easier, and they make them the superheroes, and it looks like it's a really easy task for them to do. And fudge some kind of aggregate number at the back end that gives you an overall priority score that's meaningless, but it'll make the CEO happy that you've quantified all of them. And again, hand this around with— something I should have mentioned is all of these need to be delivered together. You can't do these in bits and pieces. You need to make sure that if somebody is seeing one of these, that they've also got got the others on hand and they all reference each other. Because the tech guy will see this and he'll say, well, that's not a brief to fix it. It's like 3 words. Because it's not meant to be. But unless he understands that there's a document related to it that has the cheat sheet and all of that, you'll invite objections from people not understanding that there's much more depth. Excuse me. Storyboarding. Tell the story with pictures. So if you've discovered 100 issues, it's not realistic to expect to get the CEO in a room to go through 100 slides and explain every single one. Group them by topic and themes. So if you found a whole bunch of 404s and a whole bunch of 302s and a whole bunch of broken URLs, just group them into this concept of errors and give it a name. So we have large numbers of erroring product pages. And then in this format, very specifically, what is this thing? So describe the human experience. People are searching for products, click a link, they get a 404 page. Ah, picture, human experience, contextualize it. This isn't good. Our people are seeing this. Get the CEO panicked. Get his one big vision. We're going to fix this. We're going to get a better user experience. And then quantify. So what? So poor user experience, high bounce rates, missed sales opportunities. We need to change the way out-of-stock product works. This is the CEO's opportunity to get on board with your vision. It doesn't tie nicely back identically to individual issues, but this gets the high-level buy-in. And then finally, quick wins. Quick wins are a bit difficult. Use the cheat sheet format. Focus exclusively on simple things that aren't contentious, that don't give people the opportunity to argue and say, the problem is you haven't completed the audit by the time you need the quick wins, so you've got to cut some corners. It's the only time I'll say this, but pick on symptoms rather than underlying faults. So the challenge quite often is if you found 100 404s, you don't want to be generating 100 briefs to fix them. You want to understand what the one thing causing them is. In this case, cheap. The post— the cheat sheet— sorry, the quick wins serve to get buy-in for you to buy time to do the rest of the audit. Don't expect to get anything done off the back of the quick wins. It's a psychological ploy. You have to do some of this. If you do all of it, you can guarantee that you avoid the graveyard. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of effort. Again, you might get lucky. You might find you have a handful of people in the room. You have more budget or time on hand than you anticipated. But not doing any one of these piece invites objection, invites dissension, gives people opportunities to complain and not understand. The combination of all of these together guarantees that you get stuff in onto the table, people bought in, budgets assigned, and stuff done.

Wow.

And what are we doing for time? We're out of time. I've got a whole bunch of stuff about actual SEO auditing that I'll skip through. So there is some technical stuff, but You can look at that on your own time. There's some really nice tips without any images in for some reason. Have a look. One last thing, one very last thing, is don't just solve the issues, solve the processes. Why would a site ever have a 404? Why would it ever be acceptable for a user to find a page not found, get a page not found? Understand not just why things are happening technically and the technical faults and omissions that are causing things, understand the missing processes and people and frameworks and behaviour and education, and fix for them as if they were technical issues. If people need educating, if items and processes need ownership, list them exactly as if they were technical issues that needed solving. Colour-code them differently and give them a different classification, but it's your responsibility to submit to fix the underlying problem, not just the issues you're finding. I think that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes. Thank you. This is kind of related, but it probably takes us into a whole other conversation, which we're not going to tackle right now. Assuming then we've done the audit, but the recommendation is basically you need to be signed in, mobile-friendly, or for whatever reason. You mentioned there about the marketing model to minimize risk. I'm going to ask then, Say the client does actually have a good SEO venue right now, what about all the risks in that? And if we just chuck this ad stuff together, are you going to completely lose all that SEO?

So that's your mission then as the CEO. If you go in at the, the finance guys, the marketing guys, the SEO guys, they'll panic because they're KPI'd on not cocking up. Whereas if you can get the CEO's buy-in on his big vision for what we could achieve, and the longer we leave that, the more we're missing out. out on. And model opportunity cost. If a new site would convert 5% better, every day that you've not built that 5%, you're losing however many sales and revenue. And turn it into a greed game and get there. That kind of scale of change is always hard, but definitely ignore the mid-level players and go straight to the top.

But would it lose all the SEO if you just build a new site?

Depends how you migrate it. So if you do— if you get all your redirects in place and you don't change the domain and you do a whole load of housekeeping, You retain most of it. There's lots of moving parts, but yeah, it's generally not crippling unless you get it very, very wrong. Yeah, I'll be happy to pick that up afterwards. Cool, thanks.

Anyone else? No?

I think everybody's hungry. Thank you, Jono. Thank you.