Three Things Business Owners Ask Me For, and Why I Usually Talk Them Out of It

Most weeks, a business owner comes to me asking for one of three things: more traffic, a way to show up in ChatGPT, or a brand new website. I talk most of them out of it. Not because the work has no value, but because all three are usually the same problem wearing different clothes, and the fix they are reaching for is the expensive one. Underneath nearly every one of these requests is a business that has not made it obvious who it helps and why it is the right choice. Fix that, and the thing they asked for often turns out to be unnecessary.

Here are the three requests I hear most, and what I tell people instead.

"I want to show up in ChatGPT"

This one is newer, and the questions almost always come out the same way. Do I need more schema? Should I add AI keywords to my site? Is there a ChatGPT ranking factor we can optimise for? People are looking for the equivalent of what they thought SEO was fifteen years ago, a trick, a hack, a hidden setting.

It is the wrong question. The right one is not "how do I get ChatGPT to recommend me", it is "why does ChatGPT understand my competitor better than it understands me". That is a very different conversation, and it usually has nothing to do with schema.

When we look closely, the competitor being recommended is rarely bigger. They are simply easier to categorise. Their website reinforces a specific niche, a specific audience and a specific outcome, so AI can place them with confidence. The business that does not get recommended is usually describing itself in broad, generic language, trying to appeal to everyone, which means neither a person nor a machine can work out where it fits.

I worked with a professional services firm that was getting traffic but struggling to convert it. They described themselves as a "full-service consulting partner". We ran the questions a prospect would actually ask through ChatGPT, and competitors came up again and again. The client barely appeared. We did not start by optimising for AI. We narrowed their positioning, restructured their service pages around the problems they solved, and strengthened their proof. What changed first was not the AI result, it was that prospects started understanding them faster. The AI visibility followed later, once the business had become easy to categorise.

So what I tell people is this. AI is not a new marketing channel to game. It is a mirror. If you ask it who the experts in your category are and it cannot name you, the useful question is not "how do I optimise for AI", it is "have we actually made it obvious what we are known for". If an AI cannot finish the sentence "this business is the expert in ______ for ______", no amount of technical work will fix that. AI is quietly forcing businesses back to the fundamentals of good marketing. (I have written a full guide on getting found in ChatGPT if you want the detail.)

"I need more traffic"

This is the most common request of all, and the most expensive way to solve the problem people actually have.

The logic seems obvious. More visitors, more leads. Double the traffic, double the enquiries. But that only holds if the website is already turning visitors into enquiries. If it is not, all you have done is pay to expose the same problem to more people. Think of the website as a bucket and traffic as the water you pour in. If the bucket has holes, more water does not help, it just spills faster.

I had a restaurant client who was certain they needed more orders, and therefore more traffic. When we looked closer, traffic was not the issue at all. The site was not converting the people already arriving. The messaging did not show what made them different, the menu was clunky, and the ordering journey was full of friction. We left the ad budget alone and fixed the fundamentals instead, the messaging, the user experience and the ordering flow. Online orders increased significantly without a proportional increase in traffic. The website had been the bottleneck the whole time.

The mistake underneath this is treating the website as an online brochure when customers treat it as a trust-checking tool. Before anyone contacts you, they are quietly asking whether you understand their problem, whether you have solved it before, whether they can trust you, whether you are credible, and what the next step is. If the site does not answer those quickly, people leave, no matter how much traffic you buy.

So what I tell people is that if nobody is visiting, you have a traffic problem, and we should talk about traffic. But if people are visiting and nobody is contacting you, you have a conversion problem, and more traffic is the most expensive fix you could choose. (There is a separate piece on the traffic-but-no-leads trap, including a fifteen-minute self-audit you can run yourself.)

"We need a new website"

By the time someone has read enough about AI and watched a competitor launch something shiny, the instinct is to rebuild. The site feels old, it is not performing, so surely the answer is to start again. A full rebuild is the most expensive option on the table, and it is often the wrong one.

Here is what most owners do not see. They compare their current website to the new design mockups, but they never compare everything happening behind the scenes that may already be working. I have watched businesses launch a beautiful new site and then, three months later, discover that enquiries are down and organic traffic has dropped, and nobody can quite explain why. The reason is almost always the same. They rebuilt what they could see and accidentally broke what they could not. Pages that had built authority over years get merged or deleted without a migration plan. A quiet little service page that generated enquiries every month gets removed because it did not look important. Tracking breaks, so nobody can even measure the damage. And because the decline is gradual, the business does not connect it back to the rebuild for months.

That is why I treat a website as a business asset, not a design project. Every page, ranking, backlink and conversion path has value. A redesign should never start with "what should the new site look like". It should start with "what is this website already doing well that we cannot afford to lose".

None of that means a rebuild is never right. If the platform genuinely cannot support what the business needs, if the business has fundamentally changed, if the structure is broken, or if there was never a real strategy to preserve in the first place, then rebuilding is the honest answer. But the cost gap is bigger than people expect. An optimisation sprint for a typical small business usually runs $2,000 to $10,000 over a few weeks. A full rebuild usually starts around $5,000 to $20,000 over one to six months. They are not cheaper and dearer versions of the same thing, they solve different problems. (I have written a full decision framework on redesign versus optimise if you are weighing this up.)

The one problem underneath all three

Notice the pattern. In every case, the owner reaches for the most visible, most tangible, most expensive lever. More traffic. An AI trick. A new website. And in every case, the real issue is sitting upstream, where it is harder to see and far cheaper to fix: the business has not made it clear who it helps, what it does better than anyone else, and why it is the obvious choice.

That is why I can usually diagnose the situation with one question, before we talk about design, platforms or budgets. If we doubled your website traffic tomorrow, would it convert enough of those visitors into leads? If the answer is no, the problem is clarity and conversion, and no amount of traffic, AI optimisation or rebuilding will fix it. If the answer is yes, but the platform or structure is holding you back, then we have a genuine case for bigger investment.

The uncomfortable version of this, said plainly, is that a lot of website spending is an expensive way to avoid a strategy conversation. The good news is that the cheaper problem is usually the real one. Getting clear on your positioning, your proof and your conversion path tends to cost a fraction of the traffic, tools or rebuild people walk in asking for, and it makes all three of those work better if you do eventually need them.

So what should you actually spend on first?

In order, almost every time:

1. Clarity first. Make it impossible to misunderstand who you help, what you do and why you are different. This single fix improves human conversion and AI visibility at the same time, because they are the same problem.

2. Proof and conversion next. Reviews, case studies, results, clear calls to action and a simple path to enquire. This is what turns the visitors and trust you already have into leads.

3. Signals and reach after that. Once the site converts, then it is worth investing in traffic, local signals and AI discovery, because now you are scaling something that works rather than amplifying something that does not.

4. Rebuild only if the foundations are broken. Not because it looks dated. Only when the platform, structure or business model genuinely cannot support where you are going.
   

If you are not sure which of these you need, do not guess. Start with a second opinion before you spend, because the most expensive mistake is paying for a big fix to a problem you never had.

What to do next

If you take one thing from this, let it be the question I ask before any project: if we doubled your traffic tomorrow, would your website convert it. If you are not confident the answer is yes, the lever you are reaching for is probably the expensive one.

The lowest-risk next step is a second opinion before you spend. A short audit will tell you whether your real problem is clarity, conversion, visibility or foundations, so you put your money against the thing that is actually holding the business back, not the thing that happens to be easiest to see.

Get a second opinion on your website before you spend. Whether you are weighing up more traffic, AI visibility or a rebuild, start there, and you will usually find the answer is simpler and cheaper than the one you came in expecting.

Speak to us now

FAQ

Why would a growth consultant talk me out of more traffic, AI visibility or a new website?

Because in most cases those are the expensive solutions to a cheaper problem. If a website is not converting the visitors it already has, more traffic just multiplies the leak, and a rebuild often deletes the parts that were quietly working. The honest recommendation is usually to fix clarity and conversion first, which costs less and makes any later investment in traffic or a rebuild work harder.

What is the real reason my business is not getting found in ChatGPT?

Usually unclear positioning, not a technical gap. AI recommends businesses it can clearly categorise and trust, so if your site describes you in broad, generic terms, schema and keywords will not rescue it. The businesses that get named have made their niche, audience and outcomes obvious, and backed them with proof.

Is it cheaper to optimise a website or rebuild it?

Optimising is almost always cheaper and faster, and for most businesses it is the right first step. As an indicative guide, an optimisation sprint is typically $2,000 to $10,000 over a few weeks, while a full rebuild usually starts around $5,000 to $20,000 over one to six months. A rebuild is only worth it when the foundations themselves are the problem.

What should I fix on my website before spending on ads or a rebuild?

Clarity. Open your homepage and ask whether a first-time visitor can understand who you help, what you do, why you are different and what to do next within about five seconds. If not, that is where your next enquiry is hiding, and it is the cheapest thing to fix before you spend on anything else.