A full clean up.
Fix all the errors, clean out the dead code, and get the sites to a healthy baseline with the current stack.
Anonymised clientSam Wallace Proposal · 2026
Digital Ops Intelligence System
Reduce noise.Improve signal.Execute with clarity.
First, a look at your website and SEO report. What I noticed, and what I’d change.
Website UX · a first look
A few hours on your site.
No access, no analytics. Just what I noticed as a visitor, and what I’d change.
01
What I found.
Observations
- On mobile, the menu buries some of the most important storytelling: the lookbooks, the design house, the founder’s story, the reviews.
- I couldn’t work out how to book a virtual appointment easily. My gut says there’s leakage there.
- The made-to-order and ready-to-wear buttons on product pages confused me. Is the difference just price and lead time?
- The SEO content at the bottom of the collection pages has no imagery, which makes it pretty dull.
- The product page stories don’t do the gowns justice. The text isn’t poorly written, but it could be so much better woven into a flowing story that unfolds for each gown as the user scrolls.
- It feels a bit slow and clunky at times.
Errors
- Boutique pages
A banner link reads Wedding Dress Ocassions.
- Scam-warning notice
It says shop only at client.example. Same thing on the international site.
- Our Story, fabrics
The fabric list reads lyrca.
- Product page code
A dead Timely booking embed pointing at clientbookingtest, left in the source.
Small as they are, Google crawls and indexes these, so the mistakes carry into search. Dead code left in the source adds a quieter cost too: heavier, slower pages, crawl budget spent on cruft, and scripts that can trip up how bots render and index the site.
02
What I’d do now.
On the current setup, no rebuild needed.
Un-bury the menu.
Re-organise the mobile menu so the storytelling isn’t hidden, and push the actual customer reviews out across the site so trust is built earlier, not just at the end.
Make virtual visible.
Give the virtual booking button real presence next to the main one, and make the virtual showroom the obvious option inside the booking popup.
Deepen the product pages.
Add scroll depth with magazine-style storytelling, and a hover popup that explains the difference between made-to-order and ready-to-wear the moment it’s asked.
03
What I’d do next.
If this were mine, I’d rebuild it headless, Hydrogen or Next.js with a CMS like Prismic or Sanity, still on your Shopify back end. So the storefront experience truly aligns with the broader client’s bridal experience.
Storytelling without limits.
Editorial, lookbooks and campaigns composed freely and woven straight into the shopping journey, with no theme holding the design back.
Lookbooks that go further.
Yours already shop, but they’re one-off builder pages. Headless builds them from reusable, fully custom content you can restyle, schedule and personalise, so each story works harder than a single page.
Personalisation, built in.
The bridal magazine experience native and tuned per visitor from the ground up.
Fast, and still Shopify.
A Liquid theme with a page builder and stacked apps carries weight on every page. Hydrogen or Next renders lean, purpose-built pages that load near-instantly, lifting conversion and Core Web Vitals, all on the Shopify back end and checkout you already run.
The foundation
- Ecommerce & checkout
Yours today - Marketing
Yours today - Front end
or
- Content
or
- Media
I could be wrong about all of this.
These are one visitor’s notes from one evening. Before changing anything on a site that’s clearly working, I’d want evidence behind the opinion, not just a confident guess.
The risk is breaking something that makes money. Fair. But leaving it untouched risks not growing. The solution is clarity, so you can make evidence-based decisions with confidence. That’s what I’d build.
SEO + Digital PR · a closer look
What the numbers say.
The report’s own figures tell a more useful story when search demand, landing-page mix, revenue and link quality are read together.
01
Organic search.
Side by side
| AU | US | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic search · indexed | 100 → now | Δ | 100 → now | Δ |
| Users | 100 → 119 | +19% | 100 → 110 | +10% |
| Sessions | 100 → 76 | −24% | 100 → 103 | +3% |
| Sessions per user | 100 → 64 | −36% | 100 → 94 | −6% |
| Appointment clicks | 100 → 92 | −8% | 100 → 117 | +17% |
| Confirmed bookings | 100 → 115 | +15% | 100 → 124 | +24% |
| Revenue | 100 → 64 | −36% | 100 → 121 | +21% |
| Revenue per user | 100 → 54 | −46% | 100 → 110 | +10% |
| Revenue per session | 100 → 84 | −16% | 100 → 117 | +17% |
From the client analytics export: current comparison period vs prior period.Some organic growth is substitution from the cut in paid search traffic.
What really moved.
Primary commercial search termAU ≈−60% · US ≈+390%
AU non-branded pages, top 18
| Up | Down |
|---|---|
| Occasionwear category A · ≈+100% | Primary gown category · ≈−40% |
| Occasionwear category B · ≈+1,000% | Accessory category A · ≈−10% |
| Sale category · new | Occasionwear category C · ≈−25% |
| Gown style category A · ≈+10% | Gown style category B · ≈−5% |
| Accessory category B · 3,000%+ | Gown style category C · ≈−15% |
| Named product page A · ≈+30% | Gown style category D · ≈−20% |
| Gown style category E · new | |
| Named product page B · ≈+100% | |
| Occasionwear category D · new | |
| Duplicate category page · new | |
| Lookbook page · new | |
| Outerwear category · new | |
| Indexed volume 84 | Indexed volume 100 |
The declining pages carry more traffic than the growing ones. AU grew smaller pages while larger ones fell.
| AU clicks · indexed | Then | Now | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary collections | 100 | 79 | ≈−20% |
| Everything else | 100 | 181 | ≈+80% |
US non-branded pages, top 18
| Up | Down |
|---|---|
| Primary gown category · ≈+1,050% | Occasionwear category A · ≈−2% |
| Gown style category A · ≈+95% | Gown style category B · ≈−40% |
| Gown style category C · ≈+15% | Accessory category A · ≈−60% |
| Interactive landing page · new | Fit guide · ≈−50% |
| Occasionwear category B · new | Gown style category D · ≈−15% |
| Accessory category B · ≈+190% | Gown style category E · ≈−30% |
| Gown style category F · new | Accessories · ≈−35% |
| Editorial landing page · new | |
| Gown style category G · new | |
| Gown style category H · new | |
| Gown style category I · ≈+45% | |
| Indexed volume 228 | Indexed volume 100 |
The reverse of AU, by a wide margin. The growing pages carry more traffic than the declining ones.
| US clicks · indexed | Then | Now | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary collections | 100 | 273 | ≈+170% |
| Everything else | 100 | 95 | ≈−5% |
The comparison
| Non-branded clicks, top 18 pages | AU | US |
|---|---|---|
| Primary collections | ≈−20% | ≈+170% |
| Everything else | ≈+80% | ≈−5% |
| Site total clicks, branded and non-branded | ≈+9% | ≈+12% |
| Organic revenue | ≈−36% | ≈+21% |
The market detail uses a shorter comparison window than the analytics revenue view. The report describes growth as roughly +9% / +12% in search-console clicks, +19% / +10% in analytics users, and more than +120% in its summary. The first two measure different things. The third appears only in the summary.
Two markets report a single-digit aggregate gain. Underneath, one grew gowns and the other grew bridesmaids and gloves.
02
So what?
More visitors, fewer gown shoppers.
AU organic users grew 19% while the pages that sell wedding gowns declined. The growth came from accessories and occasionwear.
The report names this and doesn’t price it.
The report says users may be entering through more-specific category queries. That is the right diagnosis, but it never asks what those queries are worth. A high-value gown and a lower-value accessory are not the same visitor.
A traffic quality problem.
Organic users up about 19%. The primary commercial query down about 60%. Organic revenue down about 36%. More traffic arrived, less of it shopped for gowns, and less money came out.
The US mix went the other way.
Gown pages grew and accessories shrank. Revenue followed the mix in both markets.
03Sessions per user · AU100 → 64−36% Revenue per user · AU100 → 54−46% Missing from the report2 missing measures
The visitors stopped coming back.
A bride buying a high-value gown researches, saves, returns, then buys or books. That repeat-visit pattern broke. In the US it declined only about 6%.
Fewer return visits and less value per visit look like browse traffic replacing consideration traffic. AU revenue per session fell 16%; the US rose 17%.
- Dollar value per confirmed booking
- Conversion rate by landing page
So a decline in traffic quality can be told apart from a drop in conversion once they arrive.
04
Two headline numbers.
Average position improved by roughly 6 spots in AU and 10 in the US.
Average position covers every keyword the site appears for, while AU’s keyword set grew by roughly 14%. Adding hundreds of easy long-tail terms can lift the average whatever happens at the head, where the primary commercial term lost about 60% of its clicks.
Agency #1 AI-visibility headline.
The AI visibility platform was only available for AU. It tracks a small agency-selected prompt set against a selected competitor set, while the indexed organic revenue split between AU and the unmeasured US is roughly 12 to 100. Betting on AI visibility early is right, but making the headline claim is cloudy. Also, the growth in AI click numbers is likely due to Google pushing AI search at the top of its results pages over the past six months.
05
Four things that don’t reconcile.
Each claim against the report’s own figure.
| Claimed | Their own number | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Headline traffic claim: more than +120% in both markets | Users roughly +19% AU, +10% US | Summary vs market detail |
| Top-3 keyword claim: roughly +14% | The movement printed in the supporting table is roughly +6% | Headline vs supporting table |
| Primary category described as remaining strong: roughly +40% | The preceding table shows roughly −40% | Narrative vs supporting table |
| Engagement-duration claim: roughly +90% | Organic is roughly +60%; the larger figure is all-channel | Channel detail vs summary |
06Roadmap risk
Still live, and what I’d measure.
- Four internal links on the AU primary-category page return 404. They point to equivalent pages under different paths:
/collections/category-a→/collections/category-b;/collections/category-c→/collections/category-d; and/pages/guide-a→/pages/guide-b. The US version has none of them. - Search volume appears nowhere in the report. The KPI asks for top-volume keywords in the top 3 and is answered with a count. Without volume, an approximately 60% decline on the primary commercial term cannot be separated from a shrinking market.
- What belongs on page one: revenue per organic user by market and category, and position for the top 20 revenue keywords, not the average of the whole set.
- A dollar value on a confirmed booking, and conversion rate by landing page. Together they show whether a category is winning traffic that buys, or traffic that leaves.
The top roadmap priority.
The roadmap lists consolidating the international sites into one domain with market subfolders as priority one.
They aren’t subdomains. client-au.example, client-global.example, client-uk.example and client-ca.example are four separate root domains, each with its own link profile, its own country signal, and in the case of the ccTLDs a local relevance advantage that a subfolder does not inherit. Consolidating subdomains is a routine job. Consolidating four root domains is a multi-quarter migration with revenue exposed at every step, and the report describes it in one bullet.
It also runs straight into the link programme below. Every link earned over nine months points at .com or .co.uk. If those domains fold into a new structure, that equity has to be redirected and some of it is lost in transit.
Three questions before anyone signs it off.
- What traffic dip is expected, and over what timeline?
- What is the pre-migration benchmark, and who holds it?
- What result triggers a rollback?
07
Digital PR · the link programme.
The KPI was 30 clean links at DR 40+The master sheet shows 12.
The target
From the agency’s own master sheet:
| Master-sheet measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Pieces of coverage listed | 80 |
| Rows at DR 40 or above | 20 |
| Of those, followed links rather than mentions | 12 |
| Unique websites among those 12 | 7 |
| Unique publisher groups among those 7 | 5 |
| The KPI | 30 |
Those five are publisher groups A–E. Six of the twelve links are from publisher group A and three are from one founder article, so those two sources account for nine of the twelve.
The coverage
Claim: 70 pieces of coverage. 90M+ estimated reach.
| Publisher group | Placements | Distinct stories | Followed links at DR 40+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher group A | 64 | 8 | 6 |
| Publisher group B · regional mastheads | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Everything else | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| Total | 80 | 17 | 12 |
Most placements are the same article republished across regional sites sharing one publisher, down to the article ID in the URL. Google consolidates near-duplicate pages, so a syndicated story can count many times as coverage and far fewer times as authority.
The six followed links in “everything else”: anonymised publisher groups span DR 60 to DR 80. Three are business and tech trade press from one founder-profile campaign.
Where it ran, and where it pointed
| Publisher is in | Total | → .com | → .co.uk | → .com.au | No link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 68 | 46 | 20 | 0 | 2 |
| Australia | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| United States | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 80 | 52 | 22 | 0 | 6 |
Clarity comes from seeing the whole journey.
Winning traffic is only the start. The commercial picture runs from demand and authority, through the landing experience, to booking and purchase.
Measure the whole chain: search intent, link quality, UX, conversion and revenue. Then growth in one market and weakness in another can be understood and acted on with confidence.