Some years ago, I was having one of my early conversations with the founder of an established agri-inputs company. Before the meeting, I had spent some time going through the company’s website so that I could understand the business better.
The website had been live for several years, but it did not represent the company well. The structure was weak, the presentation felt dated, and the content barely explained the scale or depth of the business. Some problems were more serious than poor design. A few service pages contained descriptions that referred to human food, even though the company dealt in biofertilisers and other agricultural inputs.
Those errors had remained on the website without anyone from the management team noticing or correcting them.
When I raised these issues, the founder’s response was immediate. The company needed a new website.
The discussion soon moved towards possible vendors, websites that looked impressive, layouts the team liked and the kind of visual direction the new site should take. Everyone had an opinion about design. People began referring to competitor websites and discussing which ones could serve as inspiration.
I listened for a while before asking a fairly simple question. Before the company started discussing how beautiful the new website should look, should it first decide what the website needed to tell people about the business?
The room went quiet.
The question did not lead to an instant answer. It led to a slower recognition that the company had begun planning the execution before clarifying the message. The team knew the old website was poor, but it had not yet agreed on what the new one should help a customer understand.
That changed the direction of the project.
Why a new website feels like the obvious answer
When a business has lived with a weak website for several years, a redesign appears to be the most direct solution. The site may look old, contain inaccurate information, struggle to explain newer products or fail to support the sales team. Competitors may have sharper websites, clearer navigation and more polished visuals.
These are legitimate reasons to consider a redesign. In the case of the agri-inputs company, the existing website clearly needed to be replaced. The problem was the order in which the company had started making decisions.
The management team moved quickly towards design references because visual problems are easy to see and discuss. People can compare colours, layouts, images and animations. They can point to a website and say that they like the way it looks.
The business story demands a different kind of conversation. It requires the leadership to decide which audience matters most, which part of the company should lead the narrative, what the business should be known for and what evidence supports that position. Those decisions are harder to make because they force the company to choose.
The old website was revealing a deeper problem
The inaccurate copy on the agri-inputs website was more than a careless error. It showed that the business had handed over responsibility for interpreting the company to an external vendor.
The local website provider appears to have worked with limited inputs and a limited understanding of the business. It created the site using whatever information it could gather and whatever capabilities it had. The company, in turn, did not review the work closely enough to identify content that was completely unrelated to its products.
This was not simply a case of an agency doing poor work. The management had not taken enough ownership of what the website said about the company.
That distinction matters because a redesign alone would not have fixed it. The company could have hired a better agency, chosen a more modern template and produced a far more attractive website. If nobody had clarified the story or taken responsibility for its accuracy, the new site could still have misrepresented the business. It might have looked more professional while carrying the same uncertainty.
Design conversations are easier than positioning conversations
Business teams often begin website projects by collecting visual references. This gives the project a sense of movement. The team can discuss menus, banners, videos, colour palettes, photography and the number of pages the website might need. The conversation feels productive because each decision produces something visible.
Positioning and narrative work develop more slowly. They require the leadership to examine the business as customers see it, which may differ from the way the company understands itself internally. A founder may see decades of experience, several product categories, manufacturing capabilities, technical knowledge and long-standing customer relationships. A website visitor still needs a clear starting point.
The company has to decide which part of that complex reality deserves the greatest prominence.
These discussions can expose differences within the management team. One person may want to highlight the company’s history, while another wants to focus on innovation. The sales team may want the website to feature every product. The founder may want it to represent the company’s future ambitions, even if those plans are still evolving.
A designer cannot settle these disagreements through a better homepage layout. The business must first establish a hierarchy among its messages.
What should a business clarify before redesigning its website?
Before an agency begins creating wireframes or rewriting pages, the leadership team should develop a working answer to a few fundamental questions.
The first concerns the audience. Many established businesses serve different customer groups, industries or markets. That does not mean every visitor needs to receive equal attention on the homepage. The website needs a clear audience hierarchy, even when it provides separate paths for several types of customers.
The second question concerns what the company wants to be known for. This goes beyond drafting a slogan or finding a clever headline. The company needs to identify the capability, category, outcome or belief that should shape the way customers understand it.
A business that offers several products may still need one clear organising idea. Without it, the homepage becomes a collection of claims. Experience, quality, innovation, customer service, technical expertise and customised solutions all compete for attention. Each claim may be true, but their combined presence rarely creates a distinctive position.
The leadership also needs to decide which part of the business should lead the story. The largest current revenue source may deserve that role, although the company may be preparing to enter a new market or build a different line of business. These tensions should be resolved consciously. A copywriter should not discover them midway through drafting the website.
The company must also identify the proof behind its main claims. Years in business, manufacturing facilities, technical expertise, certifications, distribution networks, customer relationships and case studies can all strengthen the narrative. Their value depends on the argument they support. A long list of credentials cannot compensate for the absence of a central idea.
Finally, the business needs clarity about what it wants the website to accomplish. Some websites need to generate enquiries. Others support distributors, strengthen credibility during sales conversations, attract partners or help customers understand a technically complex offering. The website structure and calls to action should follow that purpose.
An agency should not have to invent the company’s priorities
A good website agency brings valuable capabilities to the project. It can improve information architecture, design, user experience, mobile performance, navigation, functionality and the overall presentation of the content. Some agencies can also facilitate useful strategic discussions. The company still needs to own the key business decisions.
An external team cannot independently decide which market the company should prioritise, which offering deserves the strongest emphasis or what position the business wants to occupy. It can challenge assumptions and help articulate the answers, but the leadership has to participate in making those choices.
When the company provides weak direction, the agency has to fill the gaps. It often relies on common industry language, competitor websites and the material already available. The resulting website may look acceptable while sounding similar to every other business in the category.
This also creates repeated review cycles. The agency submits a draft, several stakeholders suggest changes, the founder steps in, and the message shifts again. What appears to be a copy or design problem is often an unresolved leadership decision returning through the website project.
How the agri-inputs project changed direction
Once the management team understood the gap, the discussion moved away from visual references and towards the company’s narrative.
I took responsibility for developing the strategy, messaging and overall business story. The agency was selected later, after the company had begun clarifying what the website needed to communicate.
The agency and I then worked closely together. I provided strategic direction, developed the narrative and messaging, and gave inputs on how the company’s story should appear across the site. The agency translated that direction into the website structure, design and user experience.
This division of responsibility helped the project proceed with greater clarity. The agency did not have to guess what the company wanted to say, and the management team had a stronger basis for evaluating the work. The discussion could focus on whether the design expressed the agreed story rather than reopening the identity of the business with every page review.
The website still needed strong visual execution. The difference was that design now had something clear to express.
When is a business ready to redesign its website?
A company does not need perfect certainty before starting a website project. Businesses continue to evolve, and no website will remain final forever.
The leadership does, however, need enough clarity to provide a coherent brief. It should be able to agree on the primary audience, the main business story, the hierarchy among products or services, the evidence supporting its claims and the role the website is expected to perform.
It should also identify who owns the narrative internally. That person may be the founder, a senior marketing leader or an external strategic adviser working closely with the management team. Someone needs the authority and context to protect the consistency of the message as the project moves from strategy to copy, design and development. Without that ownership, even a well-planned website can begin fragmenting during the review process.
A better-looking website can carry the same confusion
The founder of the agri-inputs company was right about one thing. The business needed a new website.
Had the company moved directly from recognising the problem to selecting a vendor, it might have received a cleaner and more attractive version of the same unclear story. The old errors would have disappeared, but the underlying lack of direction could easily have remained.
The project improved because the management team paused the design discussion and examined what the website needed to communicate. That pause gave the agency a clearer brief and gave the business greater ownership of its own story.
Before asking how a website should look, a company needs to decide what a customer should understand after visiting it. Once that decision is clear, design can do what it does best: make the message easier to notice, navigate and remember.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should a business clarify before redesigning its website?
The leadership should agree on the primary audience, the business story, the priority offerings, the evidence supporting its claims and the role the website must perform. These decisions give the agency a clear basis for planning the structure, content, design and visitor journey.
Should positioning be completed before website design begins?
The business should have a clear working position before detailed design begins. Positioning helps determine which messages deserve prominence, which audiences receive priority and how the company should be presented. The position may evolve, but the agency still needs enough direction to create a coherent website.
Can a website agency help develop the business narrative?
Some agencies can facilitate positioning and messaging discussions, especially when they have senior strategic capabilities. The leadership must remain closely involved because decisions about markets, priorities and future direction belong to the business. An agency can help articulate the story, but it needs informed management input.
How do you know whether your company is ready for a website redesign?
Your company is ready when the key stakeholders can give consistent answers about the target audience, main offering, desired position, supporting proof and website objective. You should also know who will own the narrative and make final messaging decisions throughout the project.
Why do website redesign projects often face repeated revisions?
Repeated revisions often arise when stakeholders have different ideas about what the company represents. Each person reviews the pages from a different perspective, and the agency receives conflicting instructions. A shared narrative and clear decision-making authority can make the review process far more focused.
Leave a Reply