What I ask for differently about content now
The structure, the design and a working draft were finished; writing the copy had to fit around the day-to-day. Since then content is a scheduled phase for me, not an assumption. Five months, three attempts — and what I ask for differently since.
- The situation
- A cycling business needed a website: an introduction, servicing, news, contact details. The visual identity and the logo existed, the written content did not — the client was to write it.
- What I did
- Menu structure, a design matched to the identity, two header variants, subpage templates — and a working draft on a dev subdomain, so there was something concrete to react to.
- The outcome
- The copy was never written, so the site never went live. The work was paid for. What remained was a change in my own method.
The work in numbers
| Period | February — July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Attempts at the content | 3 — templates, fill-in outline, live draft |
| Longest pause | a few months |
| Finished | structure, identity, headers, subpage templates |
| Not finished | the written content |
| Settlement | the work was paid for |
- Project
- bicycle sales and servicing
- Role
- Structure, visual execution, draft site
- Engagement
- One-off commission, 2024
- 01 Templates
- 02 Fill-in outline
- 03 Live draft
- 04 The content was never written
Feb 2024 · Mar 2024 · Jul 2024 · a few months' pause between the second and the third
What can be built without content — and what cannot
Most of a website can be built without a single line of final copy: the menu structure, the visual identity, the layout of the subpages, the behaviour. On this project all of that was finished. What stayed open was the one part that cannot be taken over: what the business does, what servicing it offers, what is worth knowing about it.
The client did not refuse the task. A reply came the same evening the first outline went out: they would get to it, their days were just full at the moment. That is how it stayed — writing the copy sat beside daily operations, with no deadline.
Three attempts
First I collected templates, so there was something to compare against. Industry templates cost around thirty dollars each; I bought none of them, because whatever was worth taking from them I could build. The point of the shortlist was to let the client point and say: something like this.
Second I sent a fill-in outline. I picked a menu structure, wrote my own suggestions under each item, and sent it with the request to add theirs alongside or above — the actual copy, if possible. The layout would have been finalised from that.
Third I built the site on a dev subdomain and sent it over, hoping the copy would be easier to write against real sections. That drew the most feedback — on the identity, the headers, the subpage title bars. None on the text.
What this means if you are in a similar position
If you are commissioning a website and writing the copy yourself, it is worth scheduling that in advance, because in practice it tends to be the longest phase — not the development. Content does not belong near the end of the project; it belongs at the start, and if there is no capacity for it, that is better said early.
There are two workable routes then: copywriting moves to me as a separate, priced item, or the site narrows to as many subpages as can realistically be filled. Either beats a finished structure standing idle for months.
If you have a stalled website project — finished structure, missing copy — write a few sentences about where it stopped. One exchange of emails usually shows whether continuing needs copywriting or a smaller site.
kristof@kristofkarner.comFrom here the details: what exactly the draft contained, why it ran on a separate subdomain, and what has changed in my method since.
What the draft contained
The draft was not a mockup but a working site. What it included:
- Two header variants — one for the homepage, where the header sits on the hero image, and a sticky variant for the inner pages.
- Hero variations — several photographs and colour treatments to choose from; the images licensed, the tint reaching only to the bottom of the photo, with white below it.
- A subpage title bar — a shared band for the top of every inner page, demonstrated on the news archive and on a news post.
- An active footer — the links wired to their destinations.
- A back-to-top button — bottom right, appearing after a little scrolling.
Three sections were deliberately left out: servicing, contact and the shop. What was missing for those was not a structural decision but exactly what should appear on them — a content question again.
The same arrangement fell into place on another project too: there a finished site never went live, and thanks to the development address that left no trace either.
Why it ran on a separate subdomain
The draft lived on a dev. subdomain, not the live address. Given
how the project ended, that turned out well: when the work stopped, there was
no half-finished site left on the live domain. A development
environment is ordinary practice, but its value shows most clearly on
projects like this one — there is nothing to remember to take down.
What is not obvious
A draft is a good approval tool and a poor content substitute
The third attempt drew the most substantive feedback, because reacting to something concrete is easier than reacting to a description — the header behaviour, the hero, the title bar were all settled there. The same draft did nothing for the copy. I still build drafts, but I no longer expect them to start the content moving.
The missing deadline is the most expensive missing piece
Every phase in the project had a beginning and none had an end — including the content. Since then content is a scheduled phase for me: it gets its own deadline before development starts, it becomes clear who writes it, and we record what happens if it is not ready in time. Those three sentences are what this project produced.
Questions about this project
Why do website projects stall at the content stage?
Because content is the one part a developer cannot do on the client's behalf. The structure, the visual identity and the functionality can all be built without outside input; the text describing the services lives in the business's own head. On this project the menu structure, the design, the headers and a working draft were all finished — the copy was not, which is why the site never went live. Writing the content is rarely a refusal; it is a task squeezed in beside daily operations, with no deadline of its own.
What can a developer do when the client does not send the copy?
Lower the barrier to entry, but not take the task over without approval. On this project there were three attempts: first a template shortlist, so there was something to compare against; then a fill-in outline where the copy only had to be typed under each menu item; finally a live draft on a dev subdomain, so it was visible on a finished page where each piece would go. All three stopped at the same place. The next step would be copywriting as a separate, priced item — that was not raised before this project.
Is it worth building the site without content so the client can see something?
It helps with decisions, but it does not produce the content. On this project the draft settled a great deal: the visual identity, the header behaviour and the subpage structure were all decided from it, because reacting to something concrete is easier than reacting to a description. The copy still did not get written. A draft is therefore a good approval tool and a poor substitute for missing content.
How do you stop content from stalling a website project?
By treating content as a scheduled phase rather than an assumption. Since this project I ask for three things up front: content gets its own deadline, set before development starts; it becomes clear who writes it — the client or me, as a priced item; and if the copy is not there by the deadline, the project moves to the smaller-page version instead of staying open. None of the three was fixed on this project, which is how it could stand quietly for five months.
Summary
A cycling business's website was to be built between February and July 2024: the menu structure, a design matched to the identity, two header variants, the hero variations, the shared subpage title bar, an active footer and a back-to-top button were all finished, as a working draft on a dev subdomain. The written content was the client's to produce, and after three attempts it still was not: a template shortlist in February, a fill-in outline in March, a live draft in July — with a few months' pause between the second and the third. The site therefore never went live; the work was paid for. The project changed my own method: content is now a scheduled phase with its own deadline, a named owner, and an agreed consequence if it is not ready.