I just noticed this properly this past week and now I can't really unsee it. So I'll ask for a new component, a new page, a new script, they come out fine, basically first time right, saves me a couple of hours.

Then I ask it to change something that already exists in a codebase with its own conventions: it writes something correct in isolation and wrong in context. New naming that does not match mine, a util it reimplements that already exists two folders over, a style that does not use the tokens we have, the code works but it just is not from this project.

So the ratio i am getting is genuinely inverted from what the demos suggest. Greenfield is a huge win, but brownfield is a wash, because the review and reconciliation eats the gain, and brownfield is like 85% of my actual job. I almost never start something new.

Is this a context problem that better prompting solves, is it a tooling problem, or is it just where the technology is right now.

One B2B assumption I've been questioning:

If someone is genuinely interested, they'll eventually fill out a form, book a demo, or identify themselves.

But think about your own buying behavior.

You might:

Research a product

Check pricing

Compare alternatives

Read documentation

Come back several times

Still not be ready to give your email Yet that doesn't necessarily mean you're uninterested. It might simply mean you're not ready to identify yourself.

So I'm curious:

How do you distinguish “anonymous + irrelevant” from “anonymous + actively evaluating”?

And what website signals do you actually trust before the visitor becomes a lead? Would love to hear how GTM, Demand Gen and RevOps team handle this.

We run a small shop, with like seven of us, our website work has roughly doubled since Jan and we have hired two juniors.

The juniors are good, that is not the issue. The issue is that "on brand" lives in my head and in a 40 page pdf that nobody reads, so what comes back is technically correct and tonally somebody else's. I then spend an hour on each build doing a pass that is basically me redrawing it, which defeats the point of hiring.

We tried making the brand guidelines stricter and it made things worse, because now the work is stiff and still not right. The AI tools have not solved this either, a junior with an AI builder produces the same generic output faster, which just means I do the same corrective pass sooner.

What actually worked for people who scaled past the founder being the taste? I suspect the answer is systems not documents but I would like to hear specifics.

We usually say a B2B website's job is to generate leads. So we measure:

Form fills.

Demo requests.

Conversion rate.

But what about the visitor who:

→ checks pricing

→ explores integrations

→ reads case studies

→ comes back

→ never fills the form

We call them “non-converted.” But maybe that's the wrong conclusion. They didn't become a lead. They may still be becoming a buyer. Curious how other GTM / RevOps teams think about this:

What signals do you consider valuable before a visitor identifies themselves?

#B2BMarketing #RevOps #GTM

I think this is one of the most underrated problems founders have.

You look at your landing page every day.

Eventually you stop seeing it.

You don't notice the confusing headline anymore.

You don't question the CTA.

You don't wonder what "AI-powered growth infrastructure" means.

Your brain fills in the gaps automatically because it already knows the product.

A new visitor doesn't have that luxury.

They have 5–10 seconds to decide:

"Is this for me?"

"What does it do?"

"Why should I care?"

"Can I trust this?"

And if they can't answer those questions, they're gone.

That's one of the reasons I built firsteyes AI.

I wanted to recreate that uncomfortable first visit.

Not:

"Does this website look good?"

But:

"What happens when someone who knows absolutely nothing about this product lands here?"

Those are two very different questions.

So I know its not the best move to use AI for my web design but I have found that the generated first pass is genuinely good, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Structure is sensible, hierarchy is roughly right, it picks reasonable defaults.

So I'd say that it is about 80% of a completed page.

The last 20% is not polish, it is the design. It is the decision that this section breathes and that one is tight. It is the type ramp being a ratio rather than three sizes that happen to look okay on a screen. It is the one asymmetry that makes the page feel like a person made it instead of a prompt. That is the part clients cannot articulate when they ask for changes and absolutely respond to when they see it.

Every tool I have tried treats that last 20 as another prompt, "Make the spacing more generous." Which is like directing someone over the phone to hang a picture. You can technically get there, it takes nine attempts, and by attempt four you have lost the thing you liked about the original. I had a landing page last month where I asked for one type size change and it restyled the entire CTA section. So now I have a page that is frozen at its first draft forever because touching it means risking what already works.

That is not a design tool, that is a slot machine, so what do people actually do here. Do you take the 80% output as a wireframe and rebuild it properly in something you can actually control. Do you fight the prompt loop until you get lucky, or is there a workflow I am missing where you can just go in and move things with your hands like we used to.

I test a lot of ideas and the landing page is usually the test itself, so I've gotten pretty systematic about it, and shipped four in July.

- Page 1 was generated through a prompt-to-site tool, live in about an hour. Got 340 visits from a post that did okay, converted at 2.1%. I haven't touched it since day three because changing the headline meant asking the tool again, and the last time I asked it for a small change it restyled my CTA.

So the test is frozen at whatever it was on day three:

- Page 2, same tool, same story, abandoned

- Page 3 I built somewhere I can edit directly.

Took about three hours to get live, so slower upfront. Seven headline variants since then. Conversion went from 1.4% to 3.8% over three weeks.

- Page 4, same setup, four variants in, sitting at 2.9% and still moving.

The pattern isn't subtle, as the two pages I can edit are the two pages that got better. The two I couldn't edit are frozen at their day-three numbers permanently, which means those ideas got judged on a first draft.

I keep seeing people optimize for speed to first version and I'm starting to think that metric is close to worthless for what we actually do here. We're not shipping a page, we're running an experiment, and an experiment you can't iterate on is just a screenshot.

Has anyone else run into this, where the tool that got you live fastest ended up being the one you abandoned first?

I’m at the point where notes, random drafts and reminders on my phone just aren’t cutting it anymore lol.

I’m posting across Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and LinkedIn, and I mainly want somewhere I can plan everything ahead of time and actually see what I’ve got coming up for the week or month.

Scheduling would be nice, but I care more about the planning side. Content calendar, saving ideas, drafts, captions, maybe somewhere to keep photos/videos before they’re posted. Basically I want to stop having stuff scattered across five different places.

I’ve seen quite a few social media planners mentioned but they all seem to do slightly different things.

What are you guys using? Is there one you’ve stuck with that actually makes planning content easier?

Ive had a store thats been live for about two years now and ranks ok for a few terms. I've been going back and forth on switching to a domain that fits where my business is now and what Im doing bc the one I started with was more if placeholder name and it doesn't really describe what we sell anymore.

Every time I try to research this I end up more confused than when I started. One person says they were back to full traffic in 4 months another says their still down almost half a year later and never fully climbed back. Nobody seems to agree on why some sites bounce back clean and others just don't. Is it how the migration itself was handled, like something about the site's authority beforehand, timing or all of it?

I've got a bunch of blog content sitting there and I'm wondering if repackaging it into a downloadable slide deck in gamma as a lead magnet is worth the effort. For those who turned web content into lead-magnet slides, did it actually convert? What was the workflow?I've got a bunch of blog content sitting there and I'm wondering if repackaging it into a downloadable slide deck in gamma as a lead magnet is worth the effort. For those who turned web content into lead-magnet slides, did it actually convert? What was the workflow?

i mean play console metrics are great, but reviews now often catch a different kind of failure. as crashes show up in crash tools. anr shows up in vitals. and yet, reviews show how users describe the failure in public, and that wording matters.

'app crashes' is one thing.
'crashes after i tap export' is already better and less abstract
'new update broke login on samsung' is much much better (includes more specifics)
and if 'paid but reward never arrived' arrives i read it as a trust fire

for bigger apps i’d treat review phrases almost like alert rules after release. not auto-reply rules. alert rules : like lost progress, charged twice, cant login, ads no reward, subscription still active, crash after update, maybe even something like 'data disappeared'

i’ve seen a lot of workflows and possibilities of doing it better, now trying up appfollow-like solutions that i try using for this kind of review routing. but! the principle is still tool-agnostic: the review is not only a public complaint. sometimes it is the first human-readable bug report from production

and the worst thing is letting those sit as reputation work when they are actually engineering work in the first place

I created my first ever landing page for a workshop im running. I can use all the criticism you can offer. I can also hear all the good points of the landing page as well so I dont over think things and change something that might actually be good.

Weddingphotographypro.com/accelerator

I have 6 days left!!

I've seen a lot of successful and struggling web design companies, and the biggest differentiator between the two is strategy. It's all about positioning and your offer.

First of all, you've got to give businesses an offer they can't refuse. Selling a website is a multiple step process. It's not just convincing someone to pay you and then starting the work. It's crazy how many people still try to sell websites that way, but unfortunately you won't find much luck with that today.

What I do to make selling websites much faster and smoother is target businesses that already have a website.

There are a few reasons for that.

First, so many businesses have outdated websites that need updating.

Second, they've already invested in a website before, so they understand the value of having one. Paying for a website isn't something unfamiliar to them.

Third, I already have information to work with instead of starting from scratch.

What I usually do is get them interested to the point where saying no feels stupid.

Here's how I do it.

I run personalized email automation. What I mean by that is I use a tool called Swokei that lets me upload batches of business websites. Then I run website analysis on all of them. Each website gets scored and checked for things like design flaws, SEO issues, layout problems, mobile optimization, and more.

The cool part is that it generates a human email around the issues it finds. It explains what needs to be improved and what's potentially hurting the business, whether that's poor SEO making it harder for customers to find them, an outdated website, bad mobile experience, or other issues.

And it's not just some boring report that nobody reads. It's an actual email pointing out what needs to be fixed.

Then I run all my outreach campaigns through it.

It's honestly overpowered because I can analyze thousands of business websites and send thousands of personalized emails without manually checking every website and writing every email myself.

Another thing I like is that before running the analysis, I can choose the offer and call to action.

I can try to book a meeting.

I can start a conversation.

Or I can offer a free upgraded version of their website.

I almost always choose the free website upgrade.

This is where things get interesting.

Usually the response is something like, "Sure, if you can make me an upgraded website for free, I have no problem taking a look."

Now I've got their attention.

I build the website with AI in about two minutes and invite them to a Google Meet.

One thing I've learned is to never send the preview link through email.

Your conversion rate will drop.

Instead, I walk them through it live and explain the value. I show them how the website is more modern, how the SEO is better, how it can help bring in more traffic, and all the improvements we've made.

Once they see it, they usually start asking about pricing.

I charge anywhere from $500 to $5,000 upfront depending on the business.

I've had cleaning companies that could barely afford $500 upfront and $50 a month for hosting.

I've also had real estate companies pay $5,000 upfront and $179 a month.

So I close them on the meeting and that's basically it.

Automate email outreach.

Offer a free upgraded version of their website.

Sell it on a meeting.

A strategy like this has allowed me to scale more than ever before.

Curious how other agency owners are getting clients these days.

Hey everyone, fairly new to SEO and trying to wrap my head around internal linking for a site I'm building out.

I've read that you want to link from high-authority pages down to lower ones, but my site is pretty flat right now (homepage + like 15 service/blog pages) so I'm not sure if I even have enough structure to worry about it yet.

A few questions:

Should I be building out pillar pages + clusters from the start, or is that overkill for a small site?

How many internal links per page is too many?

Is it better to link contextually within the body copy or does a clean nav/footer structure cover most of it?

Any advice from people who've actually seen results from this would be great. a lot of what I find on Google is pretty vague.

Most conversion tests focus on button copy or layout, but trust often changes before the click. What web marketing change made visitors feel more confident before they converted?

So I have been looking into how Red Bull runs their marketing and I kept finding things I did not expect.

At some point they built their own media company. Not just a content team but an actual separate media operation. What surprised me is that other networks started paying them to license the footage. I had to double check that part. Most brands pay to get their name out there. Somehow Red Bull ended up on the other side of that transaction.

Their YouTube has over 22 million subscribers and they also have a magazine with millions of readers. I personally did not feel like I was being advertised to and I think that is the whole point.

What I also found interesting is that they operate more like Disney than Coca-Cola. The difference is they own everything they produce like the footage, the stories, and the platforms they live on. Nobody can use any of it without paying them first.

The thing I keep wondering about though is how many brands have tried this.

Has anyone seen a smaller brand actually pull this off? Something under $10M revenue that genuinely owns their niche's media?

TL;DR: Red Bull built a media company that other networks pay to license content from. Curious if anyone has seen this work at a smaller scale or if it only makes sense at their level.

Hello everyone,

I'm working on setting up a translation agency, and my logo has human characteristics. I'm considering whether she should play a bigger part in the branding in the form of a mascot, but I'm not sure which questions to ask myself to determine whether it is a good idea or not.

One of my ideas was making her part of the hero image so that she "says" the text within, or the FAQ, so that she "answers" the questions herself.

As you've probably noticed, marketing and branding are not my area of expertise, so any advice would be appreciated.

For short video used in web or social marketing, where do you usually send the CTA?I see creators and small SaaS teams using profile links, YouTube descriptions, pinned comments, and dedicated landing pages. The harder part is making the CTA clear without making the video feel like an ad.What has worked best for you: subtle on-screen CTA, verbal CTA, caption CTA, or a dedicated end card?

Publishing content at scale with AI means you move fast, and unfortunately it also means you occasionally publish something embarrassing. Could be a wrong number, an outdated leadership identity or product feature, attribution that doesn't check out, etc. This can damage reputation, trust, and content authority.

For my own content and for content I have generated for others, this has been tricky to work out a solution to get robust, high quality copy I can actually stand behind. When scale hits higher throughput, manually checking every piece of content is exhausting or impossible.

I'm trying to validate whether this is a struggle other people experience also with content generation/marketing at scale.

Would you pay for a quality gate API that sits between your AI content pipeline and publishing, checking every factual claim across 3 different LLMs for reliability, pulling live sources, returning confidence scores, and preserving brand voice? Output as JSON or human-readable verified text.

Hello to everyone,

Semi-long post here 😂

I built this application, but I honestly have no idea how to market it.

For now, I’ve only posted it on Reddit, and in about a week I’ve gotten around 15 users. Some of them are even uploading content, which is really encouraging — but I’m not a marketer, so I’m trying to figure out the right direction.

My goal right now is to find better ways to market and grow it.

I can automate a lot of things (for example TikTok / short-form videos), especially if there’s a repeatable format. But most of the ideas I come up with eventually feel kind of… stupid or ineffective.

For example, I was thinking about doing progress videos on TikTok like:

DAY 1 - Trying to fill this internet wall with content. 8 / 1,000,000
DAY 2 - Trying to fill this internet wall with content. 10 / 1,000,000
etc.

(i have already automate the process of creating those videos)

--

A few words about the project:

The platform is built around a 1M-tile grid where users can claim a tile and upload images/videos, plus connect their social accounts.

Users can also create subgrids, smaller custom grids for things like giveaways, collages, events, or communities.

Subgrids are collaborative: others can contribute content, and activity boosts visibility for both the subgrid and its parent tile.

There’s also an Infinity Grid view that dynamically surfaces all content across the platform based on engagement and visibility.

--

Right now, every user gets one free tile upon signup.

In the future, tiles will probably have a cost, although I haven’t fully decided on the monetization model yet.

At the moment, my main goal is simply to get people uploading content so the platform feels alive before launching a mobile app.

This platform needs content to feel alive, without content is is just an empty grid.

Curious what makes visitors believe a page before they ever compare features, pricing, or testimonials.

Guys

What's the best way to learn GTM and GA4? I've been trying to get into and i am not able to get the knack of it,

What's the best youtube channel or the document where i can learn?

I tested my adspower profile fingerprint trust score on a few sites and they all flagged certain things being suspicious about my browser fingerprint.

Can someone help? Willing to pay lol

The trust score on my normal phone is perfect 100/100

The trust score using my adspower with dedicated residential proxy is 74/100
-it says bot detection, vpn detection and tampering detection

Is there a way to get this score to 100/100? Or is this normal for antidetect browser fingerprints

Thank you!

The more I watch online businesses grow lately, the more I feel like web marketing itself is changing completely.

A few years ago, brands could rely heavily on ads, popups, funnels, and aggressive campaigns to capture attention quickly. Those strategies still exist of course, but consumers today seem far more resistant to anything that feels overly promotional or forced.

People now research everything before interacting with a business. They check reviews, search visibility, online presence, customer interaction, and overall credibility almost instantly. If a business feels difficult to verify or disconnected online, trust disappears very quickly.

What’s interesting is that businesses with smoother digital accessibility seem to grow much more consistently. Easier customer interaction, QR accessibility, Google visibility, and stronger local presence all appear to influence buying decisions heavily now.

I recently discovered Grow SEO while researching visibility-focused marketing systems and it honestly made me rethink how modern web marketing is becoming more about reducing customer friction and building trust organically rather than simply pushing promotions everywhere.

Curious if others here working in marketing or online business are seeing the same evolution happening lately.

I’ve been running a web agency with my brother for about 4 years now, and I just wanted to share this because I really wish someone told me this earlier.

When we started, I genuinely thought this was going to be easy. Like… businesses need websites, we can build them, how hard can it be?

It turned out to be way harder than I ever expected.

For the first 3 years, it was just a constant struggle. We did get clients, but it was never consistent. Some months we’d get a few, then suddenly nothing. It always felt like we were starting from zero again.

Our whole model was simple. I would find businesses that didn’t have websites, and my brother would build them. And yeah, it worked sometimes… but the biggest problem was this

If we didn’t do outreach for even one day, everything stopped.

No pipeline, no leads, nothing. Just silence.

We tried everything to fix that.
Paid ads didn’t work.
SEO didn’t work, or at least not for us.
Manual outreach worked, but it was exhausting and didn’t feel sustainable long term.

At one point we were just tired. Like properly tired.

Then we started experimenting with email automation. We used tools and tried to scale things a bit. It worked a little. When we filtered better leads and wrote better emails, we saw improvements… but it still wasn’t where we wanted it to be.

It felt like we were close, but missing something.

And then one day it just clicked.

For 3 years we had been targeting businesses with no website… but the real opportunity was businesses that already had one.

It sounds so obvious now, but at the time it felt like a huge realization.

These businesses already understood the value of having a website. They were already paying for one. And once we started really looking, we noticed how many of them had outdated, broken, or just poorly performing websites.

There were so many.

So we shifted our approach and started targeting them instead, offering redesigns.

We got some clients from that, but again… something was still missing.

The problem was personalization.

At that point, we weren’t even really personalizing anymore. We were just uploading lead lists that we hoped had bad websites, writing a generic email offering a redesign, and blasting it out with automation.

And yeah… it worked a little. We got some replies, even a few clients. But it felt random. Like we were guessing more than anything.

Some people resonated with it, most didn’t. And deep down, I knew why.

It didn’t feel real.

There was no actual insight about their website. Nothing that showed we had taken even a second to look at what they had.

And that’s where we started to feel stuck again.

I remember searching everywhere for a tool that could solve this. Something that could actually look at a website and help me point out real things that could be improved without me having to manually check every single one.

Couldn’t find anything.

So we decided to build it ourselves.

We started working on a tool we called Swokei. The idea was simple, but it solved the exact problem we had.

You can upload your own leads like any email tool, or let it find businesses with outdated or no websites. Then you choose your campaign settings like the language of the email, how long you want it, and the tone depending on how you like to communicate.

After that, you run an analysis.

It goes through each website, looks for real issues or improvement opportunities, and writes a full email for each business based on that. So every email actually feels like you sat down and reviewed their site.

We also added a quality threshold so it can skip websites that are already good enough and only focus on the ones that actually need help.

And if a site can’t be reached or analyzed properly, you can set a fallback message so the campaign doesn’t just break.

Once the analysis is done, you just click start campaign and it sends like any normal email automation tool, but with ready to send deeply personalized emails already written for each lead.

Honestly, when I first tried it, I told myself
This is the last thing I’m trying before I quit the agency.

I was that close.

But then… it worked.

We started getting replies constantly. People genuinely thought we had manually reviewed their websites. Conversations felt easier. Warmer. More real.

And for the first time ever, we had a consistent flow.

We’d get interested replies, invite them to a call, quickly put together a draft redesign for free, present it, and close them on the call.

I went from struggling to get any meetings… to having meetings almost every day.

Our agency had never seen anything like that before.

I’m not sharing this to sell anything. If you think it sounds like that, I get it. But honestly, I just wanted to share what finally worked for us after years of feeling stuck.

If you’re in that phase right now where nothing seems to click… I’ve been there for a long time.

Sometimes it’s not about working harder, it’s just one small shift in how you see the problem.

For us, it was realizing we were chasing the wrong people all along.