A staffing cost that was really a content problem.
Three programmes, each with its own incentives and eligibility rules, and those rules differing by state. Customers could not tell what they qualified for, so they rang — and the sales team answered the same handful of questions all day instead of selling.
Commercial and residential customers also shared one enquiry path. Two entirely different buyers arrived in the same inbox, and somebody sorted them by hand every morning.
A page per scheme, and two separate front doors.
One page per programme
VEET, REES and ESS each explained on their own terms, with incentives stated as numbers rather than as "savings".
Eligibility in the customer’s words
Written so a homeowner or a facilities manager can decide whether they qualify without calling anyone.
Split commercial and residential paths
Separate enquiry flows from the first click, routed to the right sales owner with the right qualifying fields.
A content model that survives changes
Incentive figures and rules are editable content, so a programme update is an edit rather than a rebuild.
Two calls that shaped the build.
No full eligibility calculator
The client wanted one. We built a short qualifier that ends in a conversation instead — a calculator that appears to give a final answer creates disputes when the real assessment differs.
One site, per-state pages
Rather than separate sites per state competing with each other in search, a single site with state-level pages. Cheaper to keep current and stronger where it counts.
The phone stopped being the eligibility desk.
- Customers self-qualify on the page, so calls start at the quote rather than the basics.
- Commercial and residential enquiries arrive pre-sorted, with the fields each needs.
- Programme changes are handled by the client’s own team as content edits.
Client-reported outcomes, described qualitatively — we publish numbers only where the client has agreed to them.
