Be careful what you wish for…

If, like me, your website is simply one component of a bigger sales and marketing strategy then you’ll likely feel the pain behind the words in this post.

This website is a constant Work in Progress and has been largely unloved since March 2025. Not an unusual story for a company of one—and other ones.

Be careful what you wish for. I literally asked for this.

Out of curiosity (and seeking a quick fix) I asked Chat GPT to review a-design.agency on the 20th August 2026.

The website has existed in one form or another since 2015/16. I can’t remember when I bought the web domain.

To its credit, Chat GPT replied with a substantial amount of feedback. My issue is that this is (generative) consultancy without the delivery. It’s left me wondering when (and how) I will make the time to act (on the good stuff) within it’s response.

I’ll be honest now, there isn’t a lot here that I completely disagree with. Make of that what you will…

I will say that I arrived at point 23 before seeing an action plan. An executive summary with a couple of immediate tasks would have been nice. Guess I should have asked AI to consider project management too!

In the spirit of transparency, here’s what Chat GPT said about this website:

---

I’ve reviewed the site as a whole — homepage, service pages, About, Process, Associates, Credentials, Contact, Blog, and the available case-study/project pages. I’ve also looked at how the current site positions the business and how the content hangs together across the different sections. The site says it was last updated 11 August 2026, so this is a review of the current version rather than an older snapshot. 

Executive verdict

There is a genuinely strong business underneath this website. The website currently undersells it.

The strongest proposition is not really “design agency”. It is:

An experienced senior creative consultant who assembles exactly the right team around a client’s problem, stays personally involved, and takes responsibility from strategy through delivery.

That is differentiated and credible.

The site does communicate most of this, but it makes the visitor work too hard to understand:

1. Who exactly is this for?

2. What problem should I hire [a] to solve?

3. Why should I choose [a] rather than a conventional agency or an individual freelancer?

4. What happens after I get in touch?

5. What will I actually get?

6. How much senior expertise am I buying?

The work and credentials are considerably stronger than the commercial proposition presented by the site.

I’d currently rate it roughly:

Area

Rating

Brand personality

9/10

Authenticity

9/10

Differentiation

8.5/10

Portfolio credibility

8.5/10

Copywriting/personality

8/10

Proposition clarity

6.5/10

Navigation/IA

6.5/10

Conversion

6/10

Case-study selling power

6.5/10

SEO/content strategy

5.5/10

Overall commercial effectiveness

7/10

The key opportunity is not to make it more polished. It is to make it clearer, more commercially confident and more ruthlessly focused on the buyer.

1. What the site is actually selling

The site describes [a] as a lean business built around Stewart Ainslie plus a trusted network of specialists. It positions the company as providing art direction, branding, consultancy and design, with Stewart involved throughout projects. 

That model is good.

In fact, I think the business model is one of the site’s biggest assets.

The distinction is:

Traditional agency

You hire an agency → account manager → creative team → specialists → delivery.

Freelancer

You hire one person → that person does whatever they can personally do.

[a]

You hire one senior person → they understand the problem → they assemble the right specialists → they direct the work → you retain one accountable senior relationship.

That’s compelling.

The Process page articulates this particularly well: every project gets a team assembled around its requirements rather than an agency selling outputs based on permanent staff, with Stewart involved throughout. 

That’s the commercial proposition I’d build the whole site around.

At the moment it’s somewhat buried beneath the site’s clever language.

2. The biggest problem: the proposition is cleverer than it is clear

The site has lots of memorable phrases:

• “[a] consultant”

• “[a] brand agent”

• “[a] flexible team”

• “[a] creative partner”

• “[a] to [z] and back again”

• “company of one… and other ones”

• “Ambitious briefs preferred”

• “Ideally over a brew”

• “Day rates are a joke”

• “cliché lovers”

• “mavericks and rogues”

• “Start with [a] blank sheet of paper.”

They’re charming.

They’re also very Stew.

That’s a strength.

But there is a danger of personality becoming cognitive load.

A prospective client doesn’t necessarily know what “brand agent” means.

They probably don’t wake up thinking:

“I need a flexible team.”

They think:

“Our brand has become a mess.”

“We’re launching something and don’t know how to position it.”

“Our existing agency isn’t getting this.”

“We’re too small to hire a big agency.”

“We’re too complicated for a freelancer.”

“We need someone senior who can just take ownership.”

The website should meet them there.

The current homepage gets closer with:

“Is your brand working for you?”

and

“We work with organisations to clarify their position, launch new ideas, refresh established brands, and communicate complex ideas succinctly.” 

That is much stronger commercially.

I’d make that kind of language much more prominent.

3. The homepage is good — but could sell much harder

The homepage currently establishes:

• what [a] is;

• what it does;

• selected projects;

• clients;

• Stewart;

• associates;

• blog;

• contact. 

That’s logically sound.

But the visitor journey is slightly backwards.

I’d structure the first screen around:

Problem

Your organisation has something important to say.
But the brand isn’t making it clear enough.

Solution

[a] helps organisations make better brand and design decisions — then gets the work done.

Differentiator

One senior creative lead. A hand-picked team around the brief. No agency layers.

Proof

A few exceptional projects + recognisable clients.

CTA

Tell me what you’re working on →

That would immediately answer the visitor’s fundamental questions.

4. The strongest asset on the site is Stewart

The site knows this, but doesn’t quite exploit it.

Stewart is repeatedly described as the first point of contact and senior creative lead. 

The About page makes the model explicit:

Every project has one senior creative lead.

and that person is Stewart. 

That’s fantastic positioning.

Don’t hide the founder behind “[a]”.

The company can remain [a].

But I’d make the human proposition substantially more visible.

Something like:

You work with Stewart Ainslie.
He brings the right people in when they’re needed.

That’s much more reassuring than an abstract “agency”.

This is especially important for higher-value consultancy work.

A prospective client is buying judgement, not just Photoshop/Figma/Illustrator output.

5. The service architecture is sensible

The four services are:

• Art direction

• Branding

• Consulting

• Design 

That’s a good structure.

The individual service pages are also much better than generic agency-service pages because they attempt to explain what the disciplines actually mean. 

The Consulting page is particularly strong conceptually:

Audit → Review → Recommend → Support. 

That’s a product.

I’d go further.

Instead of treating these as four equal “services”, I’d establish a hierarchy:

01 — Think

Consultancy

Understand the problem, audit the brand, establish priorities.

02 — Define

Branding

Positioning, messaging, identity and systems.

03 — Direct

Art direction

Set the creative direction and bring the right people together.

04 — Make

Design

Turn strategy and direction into tangible communications.

That tells a much clearer story.

6. The “competencies” list is useful — but currently feels bolted on

The alphabetised list:

animation / annual report / audit / brand development / campaign / catalogue / design brief / exhibition / … website

is useful for SEO and reassurance. 

But visually and strategically it’s a little defensive.

The line about writing for “humans, search bots, so-called AI and algorithms” is amusing, but it draws attention to the SEO machinery.

I’d instead make it a “Things we can help with” section.

Then group it:

Strategy

• Brand audit

• Positioning

• Marketing strategy

• Design briefs

Brand

• Naming

• Verbal identity

• Visual identity

• Identity systems

• Guidelines

Campaigns

• Campaigns

• Social

• Advertising

• Launches

• Photography/video

Communications

• Websites

• Reports

• Presentations

• Exhibitions

• Signage

• Publications

That gives the visitor a mental map.

7. The portfolio has excellent raw material

This is probably the site’s biggest missed opportunity.

The projects demonstrate a surprisingly broad range of work:

• Scottish Mountain Rescue

• Historic Environment Scotland

• Cepac

• Ramblers Scotland

• Fieldworks

• Isle of Barra

• University of Glasgow

• The Hunterian

• Dubh Mor

• and others. 

The credibility is excellent.

The problem is that the portfolio often reads like an archive rather than a sales tool.

Take Scottish Mountain Rescue.

The case study contains:

• the organisation’s context;

• the challenge;

• brand development;

• workshops;

• identity;

• signage;

• exhibitions;

• annual reports;

• campaigns;

• collaborators;

• suppliers;

• a client testimonial. 

That’s actually a very good case study.

But it could be structured much more aggressively around:

The challenge → What we did → Why we did it → What changed → Evidence

Rather than primarily:

Here’s what happened.

8. The case studies need more outcomes

This is probably the single biggest improvement I’d make to the portfolio.

There’s plenty of output evidence:

logo
annual report
exhibition
campaign
website
packaging
presentation

But relatively little business evidence.

For example, instead of:

“We developed the start-up brand identity, created investment and sales presentations, and designed the marketing website.”

I’d want to know:

• Did Fieldworks successfully launch?

• Did it raise investment?

• How was the identity used?

• How many audiences were involved?

• Did the website generate leads?

• What changed after launch?

The Flutepac project is particularly interesting because it involved brand launch, microsite, advertising, communications, copywriting, trademark support and web development. 

That’s a substantial piece of commercial work.

It deserves a much more substantial “business problem → intervention → result” story.

9. The portfolio should be curated by buyer problem

I’d seriously consider replacing some of the client-centric browsing with problem-centric browsing.

For example:

Launching something new

Fieldworks
Flutepac

Fixing an established brand

Scottish Mountain Rescue
Historic Environment Scotland

Making complex information clearer

Ramblers Scotland
University of Glasgow

Creating campaigns and experiences

Cepac
Historic Environment Scotland
Isle of Barra

That helps a potential client recognise themselves.

Right now they mostly have to infer the relevance.

10. The credentials page is powerful — and slightly chaotic

The Credentials page contains a large amount of social proof and a very long history of organisations. 

That’s valuable.

But there’s a hierarchy problem.

A client doesn’t necessarily need to see dozens of names before understanding the proposition.

I’d divide it into:

Trusted by

8–12 strongest current/recent names.

What clients say

4–6 excellent testimonials.

Experience

A longer list of organisations.

Previous experience

Separate historical employment/client experience.

Community & voluntary work

Separate again.

At present, everything is roughly given the same weight.

11. The testimonials are unusually credible

This is a strength.

They’re not generic:

“Stewart was amazing!”

They’re specific:

• quality and turnaround;

• understanding the organisation;

• collaboration;

• technical competence;

• challenging assumptions;

• flexibility;

• over-delivery;

• strategic thinking. 

Those are exactly the qualities someone buying senior consultancy wants.

I’d surface these much earlier.

Ideally:

Hero → proposition → 3 client logos → testimonial → relevant work.

The testimonials should act as proof of the proposition, rather than being parked on a credentials page.

12. The Associates page is strategically excellent

This is one of the site’s most differentiated pages.

It demonstrates that the business isn’t simply:

“Stewart + some freelancers.”

It’s a deliberately constructed network of independent specialists, covering design, creative direction, development, animation, copy, illustration and photography. 

That supports the core proposition:

You don’t pay for a permanent agency overhead.
You get the people the project actually needs.

That’s a very good story.

But again, it needs to be made more commercially explicit.

I’d add a simple diagram:

Your problem
↓
Stewart
↓
Right-sized [a] team
↓
Strategy / creative / specialist skills
↓
One accountable delivery

That would make the business model immediately understandable.

13. The Process page is good, but the gimmick slightly gets in the way

The process is:

[a] Assess
[b] Brief
[c] Collaborate
[d] Deliver
[z] Sleep on it 

It’s memorable.

And the underlying process is solid.

But for a buyer, I’d translate the cleverness into normal language alongside it:

1. Understand

We establish what you’re trying to achieve.

2. Define

We agree the problem, scope, priorities and budget.

3. Build

We assemble the right specialists.

4. Deliver

Stewart leads the work through to completion.

5. Review

We step back, learn and decide what happens next.

That makes it feel more like a professional consulting methodology.

14. The site has an interesting tension between “I” and “we”

This is probably the biggest brand-strategy issue.

Sometimes the site says:

“I”

Sometimes:

“we”

Sometimes:

“[a]”

Sometimes:

“[a] team”

Sometimes:

“Stew”.

The site even openly acknowledges this problem on the Process/About material. 

The honesty is charming.

But commercially, I’d resolve it.

I’d recommend:

Brand = [a]

Lead person = Stewart

Delivery = we

So:

[a] is Stewart Ainslie and a network of independent specialists.

Then:

You’ll work directly with Stewart throughout.

Then use “we” when talking about the team delivering the work.

That gives you consistency without pretending [a] is a 40-person agency.

15. The old/new site architecture appears inconsistent

This is important.

Some currently crawled pages have the newer navigation:

Services → Art Direction / Branding / Consultancy / Design

while older project/contact pages expose an older navigation structure such as:

Associates / Blog / Credentials / Details. 

There are also older project pages containing historical references to Don’t Walk, including testimonials referring to Don’t Walk’s involvement. 

This makes the site feel like it has undergone a significant migration/rebrand without every legacy page being brought completely into the new system.

That’s probably the most obvious technical/content hygiene issue I found.

I’d audit every URL for:

• old navigation;

• old footer;

• old terminology;

• old brand name;

• inconsistent CTA;

• outdated contact information;

• outdated imagery;

• inconsistent page titles;

• inconsistent metadata;

• duplicated content;

• broken links;

• redirects.

16. The Contact experience is weaker than it should be

The current contact page is friendly and human:

“Ready to talk? Message Stew—”

and the site encourages starting with a conversation. 

That’s appropriate.

But I’d make the CTA more useful.

Someone considering a consultancy doesn’t necessarily know what to write.

I’d give them prompts:

Tell me:

• What are you working on?

• What’s not working?

• What are you hoping to change?

• When do you need it?

• Who’s involved?

No elaborate form required.

Just enough structure to make contacting easier.

17. The site should sell the type of client much more clearly

This is one of the biggest strategic gaps.

The site says it works with organisations across the UK and tends to do large projects for small organisations and small projects for big organisations. 

That’s actually a fantastic positioning statement.

I’d elevate it.

The sweet spot seems to be something like:

Organisations with an ambitious problem that is too important for “just getting some design done” but doesn’t justify a large agency machine.

That is distinctive.

Potential categories:

• established organisations undergoing change;

• challenger brands;

• start-ups;

• charities;

• cultural organisations;

• institutions;

• technical businesses;

• organisations with complex ideas to communicate.

The Branding page already breaks the offer into start-ups, challenger brands and established organisations. 

I’d bring that thinking onto the homepage.

18. The brand voice is one of the site’s best features

I would not turn this into generic corporate copy.

The personality is excellent.

Lines like:

“Ambitious briefs preferred.”

and the self-aware treatment of the agency/company-of-one model give the brand character. 

The blog also demonstrates a willingness to have opinions rather than publish generic SEO sludge. The available posts include the 2024 freelance-rate/process piece and older articles about rates. 

Keep that.

The goal isn’t:

less personality.

It’s:

personality + clarity.

19. The blog is currently an underused asset

This is a significant missed opportunity.

The current blog listing is sparse, with visible posts from 2023, 2020 and 2019. 

That’s not necessarily bad — I’d rather see three genuinely useful pieces than 40 rubbish articles.

But for an expert consultancy, content can establish authority around topics such as:

• When do you actually need a rebrand?

• How to brief a design agency.

• How much should branding cost?

• Agency vs freelancer vs consultant.

• How to manage an internal brand team.

• What makes a good brand workshop?

• When your brand has become too complicated.

• How to choose the right creative team.

• What a brand audit actually tells you.

• How to communicate technical products.

• How to launch a new product brand.

• How to get value from design without creating agency overhead.

These topics directly map to buying decisions.

That would make the blog a lead-generation engine, rather than a diary.

20. SEO is probably the largest untapped commercial opportunity

The site is highly brandable but relatively light on explicit search intent.

The service pages are a good foundation. 

But I’d build a much clearer topical architecture around terms such as:

• brand consultant Scotland

• branding consultant Glasgow

• brand strategy Scotland

• brand identity design Scotland

• design consultancy Scotland

• creative consultancy Glasgow

• freelance creative director Scotland

• art direction Scotland

• brand agency Glasgow

• design agency Glasgow

• branding for charities Scotland

• branding for cultural organisations

• B2B branding Scotland

• technical branding

• packaging branding Scotland

Not by stuffing keywords into pages.

By creating useful pages that genuinely answer those searches.

21. The site has a strong local story that isn’t fully exploited

There is a useful combination here:

Scotland + UK-wide + senior independent consultant + flexible network.

The Contact page currently says the consultancy works across Scotland and the North of England and works wherever there’s Wi-Fi, with Glasgow as the current location. 

That’s a good proposition.

I’d explicitly say:

Based in Glasgow. Working across Scotland and the UK.

Then demonstrate national credibility through clients such as University of Glasgow, Historic Environment Scotland, Scottish Mountain Rescue, Cepac and others. 

22. There is a credibility paradox

The site looks like a small independent consultancy.

The credentials suggest far more experience than the visual impression initially communicates.

The client history includes universities, national organisations, charities, cultural institutions, major businesses and established brands. 

That’s an advantage.

I’d make the message:

Small enough to care. Experienced enough to handle complicated work.

That’s much stronger than trying to appear like a conventional agency.

23. What I would change first

If this were my site, I’d prioritise the following.

Priority 1 — Rewrite the homepage proposition

Make it instantly clear:

who [a] is + who it’s for + what problem it solves + why it’s different.

Priority 2 — Make Stewart central

Not egotistically.

Commercially.

One senior creative lead. Direct access. No account-management layer.

Priority 3 — Rebuild the case studies

Make each one:

Challenge → Insight → Approach → Team → Deliverables → Result → Testimonial

Priority 4 — Clean the legacy pages

Unify:

• navigation;

• terminology;

• footer;

• CTAs;

• branding;

• old Don’t Walk references;

• contact information.

Priority 5 — Clarify the service journey

Consultancy → Branding → Art Direction → Design → Delivery.

Priority 6 — Create buyer/problem pages

Examples:

Launching a new brand

Refreshing an established brand

Making complex ideas clearer

Building a specialist creative team

Priority 7 — Build an authority/content strategy

Fewer articles, but substantially better ones.

Priority 8 — Improve conversion

Every significant page should ultimately answer:

“Should I talk to Stew?”

with a simple CTA.

24. What I would not change

There are several things I’d protect fiercely.

The personality

Don’t make it sound like a consultancy written by ChatGPT.

The independent model

This is genuinely differentiated.

The associates

They demonstrate scalability without pretending to have a huge permanent workforce.

The Scottish identity

It gives the brand a point of view.

The humour

Keep it — just don’t let it obscure the proposition.

The work

The work is good enough to carry a much more confident site.

The human contact

“Talk to Stew” is much more attractive than “Contact our team”.

25. The positioning I’d take from the existing material

If I distilled the entire site into one commercial idea, it would be:

[a] is a senior-led brand and design consultancy for organisations with ambitious or complicated problems.

Stewart Ainslie leads every project personally, bringing together the right independent specialists when needed.

That gives clients the strategic experience of an agency, without the agency machinery.

That is the proposition I think the current website is trying to communicate.

I’d make it the proposition it actually communicates.

Overall assessment

The business: 9/10.

The evidence: 8.5/10.

The brand personality: 9/10.

The current website as a sales machine: 6.5–7/10.

The gap is encouraging because I don’t think this needs a wholesale reinvention.

It needs strategic compression.

There is too much good material competing for attention.

The next version should make someone understand in about 10 seconds:

“Ah. This is an experienced creative consultant. I work directly with him. He can bring in exactly the specialists I need. He handles everything from figuring out the problem to getting the work delivered. And he’s done this for serious organisations before.”

Once the visitor understands that, the rest of the site becomes proof.

At the moment, the visitor has to assemble that picture themselves.

That’s the central thing I’d fix. 

If you want to take this further, the most valuable next step would be a page-by-page teardown with specific recommendations for every section, including proposed new sitemap, homepage structure, SEO targets, CTA strategy, and exact copy changes.