Three professional services websites, read the way a client reads them
A client doesn't read your website. They scan it, form a view, and act on that view.
So here are three composites, drawn from patterns I see constantly in law, accountancy, and consulting. Read each one the way a prospect would: quickly, on a phone, having just been told you're worth talking to.
One — The Time Capsule
An established firm. Fifteen or twenty years in. The site was built in 2014 and has been updated only by adding things.
There's a photo of the building. A stock image of two people shaking hands over a desk. The partners' names in the header. Four typefaces, none chosen on purpose. A news section whose most recent entry is from 2021.
What the client reads: this firm has been here a long time and has stopped putting effort in.
The cruel part is that it's almost always untrue. These are usually excellent firms doing careful work. But the site is evidence of what they prioritise, and a prospect has no other evidence to go on. Longevity was supposed to read as stable. It reads as stalled.
Two — The Template
A newer consultancy. Four years old, growing, genuinely good at the work.
They bought a well-made template. It's clean. The spacing is fine. Nothing is broken. There's a hero image of a city skyline at dusk and three columns with icons above them.
What the client reads: competent, and completely interchangeable.
This is the most expensive of the three, because nothing looks wrong. The firm believes the website is handled. But the site doesn't say who they are, it says what category they're in. And when a client can't tell you apart from the alternatives, they'll separate you on the only remaining axis, which is price.
Looking fine is not a neutral outcome. It's a slow leak in your margins.
Three — The Over-Correction
A boutique firm that knew the second version was a trap and ran hard in the other direction.
Full-screen video on load. Text that fades in as you scroll. Very small type in very light grey. A headline that says something like "Redefining what's possible."
What the client reads: this firm cares more about seeming creative than being understood.
Distinctive isn't the same as clear. When someone has to work to find out what you do, a proportion of them just won't, and they're disproportionately the ones with the least patience and the most money.
What all three have in common
None of them answer the three questions a prospect actually arrives with.
What do you do, specifically?
Is it for someone like me?
Why should I believe you're any good at it?
The Time Capsule answers one and three, badly. The Template answers one vaguely and nothing else. The Over-Correction answers none of them and hopes atmosphere will cover it.
Every good professional services website answers all three above the fold, and then spends the rest of the page making the third one convincing.
Read your own
Open your site on your phone. Don't scroll. Set a timer for ten seconds and answer the three questions using only what's visible.
Be strict. "Legal services" is not an answer to question one. "Everyone" is not an answer to question two. "We have 20 years of experience" is not an answer to question three, because so does everyone you're competing with.
Most firms fail question two. It's the one that decides whether a prospect keeps reading, and it's the one people are most reluctant to answer properly, because answering it means excluding someone.
That's not a side effect. That's the mechanism.
If you want a second opinion on what your brand is currently saying, I do a short 5 day brand audit that gives you insights into your Positioning & Messaging, Visual Identity, Website — Design & First Impression, Website — Content & Journey, Trust & Proof, and Competitive Standing.
If you’re interested you can learn more or book here
