Consulting
Marketing systems & web architecture
For founders past the local stage — full marketing-system and web-architecture engagements. Available on request.
Entry Point
Strategy Diagnostic
$1,500
Fixed. No retainer. No phase two.
Two weeks
2 slots per month
For founders who know the digital stack isn't producing what it should but can't pinpoint where the breakdown is. The typical situation: you've tried things — new channels, new hires, a site rebuild — and nothing has moved the needle the way it should. The diagnosis is missing.
Most founders spend $30k–$100k implementing fixes in the wrong order. The Diagnostic costs $1,500 and two weeks to establish the right order before any of that happens.
The two weeks
Days 1–2 · Kickoff
A 60-minute call. We cover what you think the problem is, what's already been tried, and what success looks like. Afterwards, I send a short list of what I need access to — analytics, system credentials, and two or three stakeholders I'd like 15 minutes with.
Days 3–10 · Diagnostic work
I run the analysis async — you don't need to do anything once access is shared. I look at three layers: the systems layer (architecture, performance, technical debt), the operational layer (workflows, data, measurement), and the strategic layer (positioning, what the business is actually optimising for).
Days 11–13 · The document
I write the diagnostic document — 12 to 18 pages. No framework theatre. Specific findings, specific recommendations, ordered by priority and dependency.
Day 14 · Debrief
A 60-minute call. We walk through the document, you ask what comes up reading it, and the engagement closes. You leave knowing exactly what the next 90 days should look like.
The document contains
- —The specific bottleneck — not seventeen findings of equal weight. Almost always one or two things.
- —Fixes ranked by impact and dependency — the ordering is usually the part that earns the engagement back on its own.
- —Realistic budget ranges for each fix — whether you implement internally, hire a vendor, or hire me.
- —A plain-language summary your non-technical stakeholders can read without translation.
After the Diagnostic
About a third of clients hire me to lead the implementation. About a third take the document to their internal team. About a third use it to brief a different vendor. All three are good outcomes — the Diagnostic is priced and structured to be genuinely valuable on its own, not as a sales vehicle for a larger engagement.
Full Engagement
Marketing Systems
From $12,000
Project-scoped. Typically $12k–$45k.
6–16 weeks
2–3 per quarter
For founders who know the problem and want someone to own the rebuild. The typical situation: you have traffic, leads, or revenue — but the channels are siloed, measurement doesn't tell you what to change, and spend isn't compounding into pipeline the way it should be at this ARR.
The annual cost of a broken marketing system — wasted spend, missed pipeline, channels that don't reinforce each other — typically runs $80k–$200k at $3M–$15M ARR. Engagements start at $12,000.
What the engagement covers
Weeks 1–2 · Audit
Full review of current positioning, ICP definition, channel performance, and attribution model. Most teams over-invest in channels that are working for the wrong audience and under-invest in the ones that would reach the right one.
Weeks 2–4 · Architecture
How the channels should connect: what content produces what intent signals, how email picks up where organic leaves off, what paid amplifies vs. what it bootstraps from scratch. Delivered as a written system blueprint before we build anything.
Weeks 4–16 · Build
Execution depends on tier. Strategy-only engagements end here with a blueprint your team implements. Execution engagements continue into channel build — content engine, email sequences, paid campaigns, attribution dashboard — all connected at handoff.
What you get at handoff
- —A positioning document and ICP definition your whole team can write against
- —A channel architecture that compounds — content seeds email, ads amplify what's already converting organically, attribution closes the loop
- —A measurement system tied to pipeline and closed revenue, not impressions
- —Documentation of every decision made during the build — why the system is structured the way it is, what to change first if it needs tuning
Right fit for this engagement
- —You have at least 6 months of analytics data I can audit. Before/after measurement is how we know if the system is working.
- —Marketing decisions are made by one or two people, not a committee that needs to align on every change.
- —You're willing to revisit your positioning — most broken marketing systems start with an ICP that's too broad, not a channel that's too weak.
- —You can define what "working" looks like in revenue or pipeline terms, not in traffic or impressions.
Full Engagement
Web Architecture
From $18,000
Project-scoped. Full rebuilds $35k–$80k.
8–20 weeks
2–3 per quarter
For founders who have outgrown their first-generation stack. The typical situation: P99 latency is above 500ms on critical paths, every new feature takes three times longer than it should, and the team is spending meaningful engineering time managing the infrastructure instead of building the product.
The cost of living with a first-generation stack grows non-linearly past $5M ARR. Slower feature velocity, higher incident rate, and compounding technical debt that makes every subsequent fix harder. Rebuilds start at $18,000.
What the engagement covers
Weeks 1–2 · Architecture audit
Review of the current stack: P99 and P95 query times, bundle size analysis, infrastructure costs vs. output, identified bottlenecks. The audit produces a ranked list of constraints and a proposed architecture that addresses them.
Weeks 2–4 · Design and migration path
The new architecture designed with the migration path explicit — what migrates first, how the old system stays live during the rebuild, where the risk points are. No big-bang rewrites. Data migration strategy included.
Weeks 4–20 · Build
The actual implementation. Every system gets logging, tracing, and error boundaries before it ships. Type-safety end-to-end — schema changes propagate as compile errors, not runtime surprises. Documentation is written during the build, not scheduled for after.
What you get at handoff
- —Architecture designed for your actual scaling axis — not a generic "this is how you scale" pattern that doesn't match your data model
- —Observable from day one — logging, distributed tracing, alerting, and error tracking all wired before the first user hits it
- —A runbook covering incident response, common failure modes, and how to extend the system without breaking the constraints we designed around
- —Performance baselines documented — so you can measure regression, not just feel it
Right fit for this engagement
- —You have APM data (Datadog, New Relic, Sentry) or can get it running before the engagement starts. I need performance baselines before I can prioritise the rebuild.
- —You have a developer or CTO who will own the system after I hand it off. I build for transfer, not for dependence.
- —You're committed to the architectural direction once we decide it. Mid-build scope changes cost 2× what the change is worth — not because I charge for them, but because integration debt accumulates.
- —You can give access: database query logs, infrastructure dashboards, deployment history. The architecture decision is only as good as what I can see.