So proud to be announced as finalists in @webflow professional partner of the year award category. This is for our first enterprise client @sisuclinic which we got chance to work with earlier this year. Congratulations to the whole team 🎉🚀 #webflow #NoCode

I'm looking for a web designer to join our team Please click the link below, read the JD properly and fill the form tally.so/r/PdkMpV

A really nice Sunday morning drive 🌧️

Spent the week with 4 discovery calls, 2 active client projects in motion, and a Monday automation that quietly told me what to write. The pattern I keep noticing is that every problem buyers bring to a Webflow agency in 2026 is kind of downstream of one decision. What's the site architecture, and who can actually edit it after launch. Honestly two questions. Most marketing teams haven't really sat down to answer either one yet.

Webflow agency truth most don't really say out loud. The clients who stay 4 years aren't the ones who got the best design from us. They're the ones whose site got built on a system that didn't get worse over time. Component library, documentation, page architecture, naming conventions. Honestly the boring stuff that takes longer to set up. I think the agencies retained for years are kind of the ones who built systems instead of deliverables. The design always ages, but the system underneath is what holds up.

A marketing director told me on a discovery call this week that her SEO lead feels "handcuffed" by their current agency. 2-hour daily timezone overlap. Every change takes 2-3 hours to ship. She was telling me she thought the problem was the agency itself. Honestly the real problem is more about the architecture. When a site is built so only the agency can operate it, every change has to go through them by default. I don't really think the frustration is the agency. It's a system mismatch underneath.

Most marketing teams asking for faster shipping are thinking they need a bigger team. Honestly what they actually need is a component library. The team shipping 5 pages a week isn't 5x bigger than the team shipping one. They just built once, and now they're shipping from the system. Headcount isn't really the right thing to measure. If your team is filing 4 tickets just to update a landing page, I don't think the answer is hiring a 5th developer. It's probably that the site needs to be built differently from the start.

Ran AEO audits on two of our long-term retainer client sites last month. Both had been doing well on traditional SEO for years. Neither was showing up in ChatGPT or Perplexity for the queries their actual buyers were running. And honestly when we dug in, the miss wasn't some missing AEO-specific layer. It was that the SEO foundation underneath had quiet gaps the existing dashboards weren't surfacing. Google's recent guide put a fine point on this. The work that decides AI search visibility is the foundation work that's been there the whole time. If you want a quick read on where your site actually stands, DM me. 10 min, honest take, no pitch.

A founder asked me this week why DH doesn't promise specific conversion lifts in proposals. Honestly because the website is one variable in a stack of like 12. If we ship a redesign and traffic doubles, was it the redesign? The new positioning? The PR cycle? The funded round announcement? The new SDR team they just hired? I think anyone who promises you a specific conversion lift hasn't really built enough websites yet to know what's actually true.

Almost 7 years now running DH from a small city in India on US-timezone hours for B2B clients. The first three years I genuinely thought the timezone was a disadvantage. The clients in NYC and SF wanting 9 AM EST calls meant I was working evenings, and the whole agency had to be built around it. Honestly I think it's the opposite now. The 9-hour offset means our team has a kind of head start every morning on whatever the US team will see when they wake up. The disadvantage was never really the timezone. It was assuming the timezone was a disadvantage in the first place.

The question I keep getting in 2026 discovery calls is, can we just do this ourselves with Claude over a weekend. Honestly the answer is: yes, for a single landing page, an internal microsite, a weekend project. No, for the marketing site that's running pipe gen, sitting on the marketing stack, ranking in Google, also showing up in ChatGPT, and getting updated by four marketers without breaking something. The agency isn't replacing your dev team and the dev team isn't replacing the agency. The real question I think marketing teams should be asking is who's running the site the day after launch.

Spent the morning on a discovery call where the marketing director told me their site was fine, the team just needs to ship faster. Their actual problem when we dug in: every section is hard-coded, there's no component library, no design system, no documentation on what's where. Every "fast change" requires a developer to go re-read the codebase first. Honestly "ship faster" is rarely a speed problem. From what I've seen it's almost always a system problem hiding as a speed problem.

14 WordPress to Webflow migrations across 7 years now. The pattern that holds in every single one is that the marketing team had been quietly carrying the WordPress maintenance tax in dev hours for months before the migration even got approved. Site speed had been getting slower. Plugin updates had been pushed and put off. A few pages had been quietly broken for weeks because nobody had the bandwidth to actually fix them. Honestly the migration doesn't make a team faster overnight. What it does is make visible the cost everyone had been paying invisibly already.

3.5 years into a retainer with a venture-backed CPG SaaS client. We've shipped 50 projects with them since the relationship started back in 2022. The thing I keep noticing is that the year-four pages we ship have better intent fit than the year-one pages did. Not because the team got better at design over the years. More because they got better at knowing which page their buyer actually needs next. Honestly I think what changes in a long retainer isn't the design work. It's the judgment about what to design in the first place.

From what I've seen, most marketing teams running AEO audits aren't really measuring the second loop. They're checking architecture and stopping there. The questions worth asking on the testing side are kind of basic. Did the LLM actually cite us this week? Did the citation drive a click through? Did the AI-referrer traffic convert through the regular funnel? Heat-map on AI-sourced visitors, demo CTR from AI traffic. Same stuff you'd track on any other channel, just for a different source. Honestly without both loops running, you're kind of flying blind in a search channel that's already eating a real chunk of B2B referral.

We've got a Monday morning automation running on our own site now. Basically what it does is look at our SEO and AEO data, update a Notion board with the priority list, and tell us what blog posts we should ship that week. Honestly the only reason DH writes content on a Tuesday is the automation already did the thinking on Monday. Same operating system we tell clients to run on their marketing site, just running on us first.

Been seeing a pattern in 2026 discovery calls. A marketing director will come to me asking for help with 4 things: AI search visibility, faster page updates, fewer plugins, and an internal owner who can actually run the marketing site without filing a ticket. They think these are 4 separate problems they're solving. Honestly after 14 WordPress to Webflow migrations, I can tell you they're not really separate. They're all symptoms of one thing. And that thing is the CMS underneath, not the marketing team running it.

Walked into a discovery call last quarter where the marketing lead told me every single site change has to go through engineering. Their dev team is product-focused. Marketing tickets sit in the Jira queue for 2 weeks, sometimes 4. The CMO can't ship a campaign banner without filing a ticket. The site is basically read-only from marketing's side. Honestly the unlock here was never going to be a faster dev team. It's just whether the marketing site is set up so marketing can actually edit it.

Google just published an official guide saying that optimizing for generative AI search is still SEO. The myth-busting list is the interesting part. They explicitly say llms.txt, content chunking for LLMs, AI-specific rewriting, and AI-specific schema markup aren't needed. What does matter: non-commodity content, clean semantic HTML, strong page experience, high-quality images and video, and a crawlable site. The same SEO foundation work most marketing teams have been deferring. If you're a VP or Head of Marketing at a funded B2B and want to know where your site actually stands in AI search, DM me. I'll spend 10 min on it and tell you what's broken in the SEO foundation underneath.

Ran our AEO audit on our own site this month. Found a bunch of things that needed fixing, fixed most of them. Honestly we've been recommending this to clients for a while, felt a bit weird to not have done it properly for ourselves.

I've been getting more questions about AEO this year. Honestly Google's own announcement last week confirmed what most agencies should have been saying all along. AEO isn't really a new architecture refit on top of your existing site. It's just SEO done well. Page hierarchy that tells a clear story, content that's actually unique to your team, author bylines with real source signals, and a structure both search engines and LLMs can parse. If your SEO is broken, your AEO is broken too. From what I've seen most marketing sites are still failing on the SEO foundation, not on some special AI-only layer that needs adding.