I'm Zach Ronski. I'm the Marketing Director at Fello Agency in Toronto. We build brands, websites, and go-to-market systems for B2B tech companies that are doing the heavy stuff - AI, robotics, quantum, advanced manufacturing, MedTech, defense tech.

And I'm going to save you a ton of time right now.

In 2026, your website is not a "marketing asset." It's part of your sales cycle. It's part of your credibility. It's part of your pipeline.

Your buyers are already judging you before your SDR ever gets a reply.

Over 55% of B2B buyers do substantial online research before they contact a vendor. That means your website is doing the pitch when you're not in the room.

So when a CMO asks me, "Zach, should we use WordPress or Webflow or Framer?" I'm thinking something else.

Can your team ship? Can your site prove trust fast? Can you scale pages, ICPs, and proof without begging engineering?

Because if you can't do those three things, the platform choice won't matter. You'll still be stuck.

In 2026, your website is already in the deal

Most B2B buying teams are big. The average buying group is over 10 people. Your champion is not buying alone.

And the cycle is long. The process takes nearly a year in a lot of categories. That's a long time for your website to hold attention, build trust, and keep the narrative clean.

Here's the part most teams miss.

Buyers evaluate around 4.5 vendors. Then they shortlist about 3 to 4 on day one.

And once you're off that first shortlist, it's basically over. In 85 - 95% of B2B deals, the contract goes to someone on the buyer's initial shortlist.

So your website has one job early. Get you on the list. Fast.

Then it has another job after that. Help your internal champion sell you inside the account.

Because your buyer is forwarding pages to legal, to finance, to IT, to operations, to leadership. Your website is getting screenshots in Slack. Your deck is being compared next to two other vendors.

And if your site feels like a science project, you get treated like a risk.

This is why I keep saying it. Your website needs to speak business.

"Platform" is the wrong first question

Most teams pick a platform the same way they pick a gym. It's vibes. It's opinions. It's whatever their developer used last.

I don't start there.

I start with your operating model, because that's what breaks at Series A, Series B, and beyond. Your pipeline goals go up. Your board pressure goes up. Your sales team starts asking for pages every week.

If your website can't keep up, marketing looks slow. Then marketing looks like a cost center. Then the budget gets tighter. Then you get trapped.

At Fello, our whole pitch is basically this: we don't do "branding as art." We build systems that convert. Brand plus web plus growth, tied together, so you can actually show ROI.

That's how you move from cost center to revenue engine. That's how you keep your seat at the executive table.

So here's the real first question you should ask.

How often do you need to ship changes to the website?

If the answer is "weekly," your platform has to support speed. If the answer is "monthly," you still need autonomy, but your governance can be lighter.

Now the next question.

Who ships those changes?

If the answer is "engineering," you're going to lose momentum. Every time. Engineering has a real job. They're building product. Your landing page update is not going to win that internal fight.

I've seen it too many times.

The hard line: marketing ships, engineering builds product

I'm blunt about this because it's a real commercialization problem.

I've watched marketing teams take three weeks just to get a blog post live. That's insane. You're paying people. You're running campaigns. You're trying to build pipeline. Then the site becomes the bottleneck.

And I've seen it even worse.

We wrote a high-quality guest blog for a partner. We do that for some partners because it drives leads and visibility. The blog was ready. It should have taken five or 10 minutes to upload.

Their backend was so bad they couldn't publish it for three months.

Three months.

That's not "a website issue." That's a go-to-market failure. It makes you look sleepy. It makes you look disorganized. It makes you look like you can't deliver.

Enterprise buyers notice that stuff. Technical buyers notice it even faster.

So yes, I draw a hard line.

You can bring devs in for complex builds and custom interactions. You can absolutely do that. But your marketing team needs to own the day-to-day without waiting on anyone.

I say this all the time: you still need a driver behind the car.

My three-minute CMS rule

Here's my benchmark.

If your marketer can't publish a blog post in three minutes, your CMS is not viable.

Not "three minutes after training and a coffee." Three minutes when it matters.

Because this is what happens in real life: sales closes a big deal, and now they need a case study page. A partnership is going live, and now you need a press page. You're going to CES, and now you need a landing page that doesn't look like it was made in 48 hours.

Speed is not a nice-to-have. Speed is how you win.

Training is part of the deliverable

This is where a lot of agencies and dev shops mess up.

They ship the website and they leave. Nobody on your team knows how to run it. Or they're scared to touch it because they'll break the layout. Then every change becomes a ticket. Then you're stuck again.

At Fello, we enforce training. Every website project has to include it. If your team can't operate the site, the project isn't finished.

And I'm not talking about a one-hour handoff call either. I'm talking about real training. Real workflows. Real "here's how you launch pages fast without breaking the whole system."

That's how you scale.

The platform landscape (what I actually see work)

I'm not here to crown a single winner. I'm here to tell you what matters, and where things usually break for CMOs.

When you're picking a platform, you're really picking three things: how fast you can ship, how good you can look, and how much you'll depend on other people.

That's the whole game.

WordPress: flexible, powerful, easy to ruin

WordPress can scale. It can also become a nightmare.

The failure mode is predictable. Too many plugins. Too many themes. Too many "quick fixes." Then the site slows down. The editing experience gets weird. Nobody wants to touch it. Then you're paying developers to do basic work.

If you go WordPress, you need discipline. You need someone to own governance. You need a clean CMS structure and rules that don't get broken the first time a stakeholder asks for "just one more widget."

WordPress is fine when the team has strong ops. It hurts when the team is winging it.

Webflow: strong design control, still needs structure

Webflow is popular for a reason. Marketing teams like it because they can move without writing code. Designers like it because they can control the look.

But Webflow doesn't automatically give you a scalable system. You still need the foundation.

You need components. You need templates. You need a CMS model that matches how you actually publish. You need permissions and rules so people don't freestyle their way into chaos.

If you build Webflow like a system, it's great. If you build it like a one-off art project, it gets messy fast.

Framer: speed plus high-end visuals (and yes, we use it)

We use Framer a lot. One reason.

It lets you move fast without sacrificing polish.

We had a client that needed to move incredibly quickly for CES. Deadline was real. Pressure was real. They needed something strong that they could take into meetings and not feel embarrassed by.

We used Framer and shipped a high-quality site in under two months. It helped them show up properly and book strong meetings.

That's what I care about. Shipping. Credibility. Speed.

We also build Framer templates with pre-optimized SEO and blog structures, because the goal is not "launch day." The goal is what happens after launch, when your team has to operate.

Headless plus custom front-end: high ceiling, high dependency

Headless can be amazing when you truly need enterprise-level customization and you have the internal muscle to support it.

But a lot of teams cosplay as enterprise. They build a headless stack, then realize every small change needs dev time. Now you're back to the bottleneck. Marketing gets slower. Campaigns stall. The site becomes a museum.

If your platform makes you wait, it's costing you pipeline. Simple as that.

All-in-one suites: convenient, but watch the ceiling

Some teams want everything in one place. CMS, forms, nurture flows, analytics, the whole thing.

That can be fine. Convenience is real. Integration is real.

Just be honest about the trade. If the platform locks you into bland templates and you can't build visual trust, it will show up in your sales cycle.

I've watched companies lose deals because their visuals looked weak. I've even seen a client lose a deal with Amazon solely because their brand visuals were poor.

That's what "visual trust" means. People decide if you're legit before they ever test your product.

Your website needs to speak business

This is where deep tech companies get stuck.

They put "technical talk" on the website because it feels safe. Specs feel real. Features feel accurate. Engineers like it.

But your buyer is not buying your feature list. Your buyer is buying a change in their world. They want to make more money or save more money.

So your site has to translate.

I've said this in meetings a thousand times: it has nothing to do with your specs, it has everything to do with the clients that give you their hard-earned money.

That translation is commercialization. That's the whole thing we do at Fello.

And it's why I get frustrated when I see homepages that start with three paragraphs about "cutting-edge innovation." Nobody cares. Not at first.

They care about outcomes.

If you want the simple rule, here it is.

Your homepage should lead with value and proof. Then you layer in the technical detail.

The homepage order that wins trust fast

When I audit a site, I'm looking for a pattern. I'm looking for a company that's ready to do deals.

I want a hero that shows credibility. That can be a strong visual, a real product shot, a render if you're early, or a lab shot if you need to ground the story. It needs to feel real.

Right under that, I want proof. Case studies. Real deployments. Real outcomes. If you can't share numbers, share process. Share who you worked with. Share the environment. Show evidence.

Then I want high-quality product assets. Clean UI. Real photography. CGI. Renders. Whatever is true for your product and your security constraints. It needs to look top tier.

Then I want testimonials, because buyers trust buyers. After that, your CTA has to be clear. Tell me what to do next. Demos. Calls. Downloads. Whatever your motion is.

Resource pages come later. Blogs are great. Thought leadership is great. But it can't replace proof.

And yes, I'm going to say it because it's real.

You are selling your website, you are selling yourselves.

Case studies are the trust engine you can't skip

The single biggest red flag I see on B2B tech websites is missing case studies. No dedicated page. No clear proof.

If that page doesn't exist, enterprise buyers assume you're early, risky, or hiding something.

Now, I know the pushback. "Zach, we can't share the numbers." "Zach, our customers are confidential."

Fine. That's normal in deep tech. You can still build a case study.

Talk about the customer's before-state. Talk about the problem. Talk about the implementation. Talk about the change. Talk about the moment it clicked.

And when we write case studies, I mandate something.

The story has to be told from the customer's perspective. Not the company's. Not the product brochure voice. The customer's voice.

When I interview customers, I ask them to talk about the frustrating times before using the product. That's where the truth is. That's where the emotion is. That's what your next buyer recognizes instantly.

Video proof and "bang for your buck" repurposing

If you're asking for high-six-figure contracts, you need to show up like it.

Written testimonials alone don't reflect that value level. A serious buyer sees that and thinks you're under-invested. Or worse, they think you're overselling.

Video changes the game because it feels real. It feels harder to fake. It also gives your sales team an asset they'll actually use.

We've done this across industries. For Mosaic Manufacturing, we used video case studies to show the real operational benefits of their tech. We also framed it around the lifestyle of the buyer, because that's what sticks.

I believe B2B should learn from B2C. You're still selling an identity. You're still selling the future state. People want to feel smarter. They want to feel safer. They want to feel like they made the right call.

The other thing I push hard is budget efficiency.

A good video case study might cost 15 to 20k. That sounds big until you use it properly. One video becomes a written case study, a PDF, social cutdowns, trade show loops, and sales outreach content.

That's the "bang for your buck" strategy. You squeeze every drop out of the asset.

It's how you stay present in long deal cycles.

Multi-ICP and dual-use: structure your site like a set of paths

A lot of deep tech companies sell into more than one market. Some are dual-use. Some have multiple ICPs inside one industry.

Your site has to reflect that reality, or you dilute your message.

We implemented this for Sphere, an XR collaboration platform. The strategy involved distinct industry pages that spoke directly to specific ICPs in factories, medical tech, and defense.

That's not "nice segmentation." That's how you convert.

And the results speak for themselves. Sphere's Head of Marketing, Alexandra Corey, said: "The new website has more than tripled our lead generation efforts."

When your site speaks to the right person, in their language, deals move faster.

Landing pages and "collector" pages both matter

I use a simple mental model here.

Landing pages are built to close deals. They are direct. They are ROI-heavy. They push a CTA.

Collector pages build loyalty. About pages. Partnership pages. Mission pages. Meet-the-team content. Those pages create a following. They make people feel like they're part of the club.

Both matter.

Deep tech sales cycles are long. People need reasons to keep believing. People need reasons to keep paying attention. Collector pages do that job when you're not in a live deal.

I've used the highway analogy with clients before. You build the collectors, and you build the express. One side supports fast wins. The other side supports long-term resonance.

Build both, or you'll feel the pain later.

Don't let AI flatten your brand into beige

AI is everywhere now. Everybody can write copy. Everybody can generate visuals. Everybody can build something "good enough" fast.

And that's exactly why "good enough" is dead.

I always think about that line from The Incredibles: "If everybody's super, then nobody is." That's what AI is doing to marketing. It's pushing everyone toward the same average look, the same average words, the same average vibe.

I also can't stand when VCs or founders brag about building websites in 48 hours with AI. Most of those sites look generic. They look like templates with a logo slapped on.

And I'll say it the way I say it in real life.

Your stuff is all just going to look the same as everyone else. Does that mean your services are the same too?

This is where visual trust comes back. Hard.

If you use AI, use it to accelerate research and execution. Use it to move faster. Don't use it to ship "AI generated slop" as your public face.

Because if it looks like bullshit, no one's gonna want to work with it.

Measurement that matters when deals take a year

A lot of CMOs get trapped in KPI theater. They chase numbers that don't map to revenue. They report vanity metrics because attribution is hard.

I get it. Deep tech deals can take six months to two years. Buying teams are big. Your influence is spread across touchpoints.

Still, you need to measure what happens before the sale. That's your leverage with the CEO and the board.

I've worked with companies that weren't even checking Hotjar or Google Analytics. That's wild to me. Those are early warning systems. They tell you what's working long before revenue shows up.

So what should you watch?

You need to know which pages create intent. You need to know which case studies get revisited. You need to know which ICP pages convert. You need to know which downloads turn anonymous traffic into a real contact you can nurture.

Content downloads matter here. Brochures, PDFs, technical overviews. Not fluffy stuff. Valuable stuff. It captures contact info and keeps brand resonance alive while procurement crawls.

And yes, even with AI everywhere, human selling still matters. Older demographics still want a real person. Long cycles still require connection. Your website supports the human relationship. It doesn't replace it.

Budgeting and board buy-in without the branding drama

Let's talk numbers, because this is where CMOs get pinned.

A fully autonomous, editable website for a startup usually lands in the 30k to 60k range. That's the reality when you build custom templates, solid CMS structure, and a system your team can actually run.

Branding budgets at Series A and Series B usually sit between 50k and 150k for a proper rebrand. I'm also careful here. Spending significantly over 100k at Series A can look suspicious to technical buyers. It can signal vaporware. You have to allocate intelligently.

I also allocate roughly half of a branding project's budget to strategy and research. That's where the foundation comes from. Visuals matter, but the strategy is what makes the visuals believable.

If you need CFO buy-in, don't walk in and say "branding." A lot of CFOs hate that word. Frame it as communication strategy and marketing investment. Frame the website as a lead generation tool with measurable ROI.

And if someone questions why you need to invest, do the competitor comparison. Put your current site next to the leaders in your category. Show the gap. Boards understand gaps.

I also use the Michelin star restaurant analogy for this. If you're asking someone for a premium contract, every detail has to match that level of trust. Your website is one of those details.

A clean migration plan that doesn't eat your quarter

Most website migrations fail because the company can't make decisions. Too many stakeholders. Too many opinions. Too much committee.

We move faster at Fello because we're prescriptive. We do three to five weeks of research, then we tell you what's going to happen. That's how you avoid endless loops.

If you're migrating platforms or rebuilding the site, you need a simple approach.

Make a magic list

I literally call it a magic list.

Write down what the site must do in the next 12 months. Not "someday." The next year. Include the ICPs you have to support, the content you need to publish, the proof you need to show, and the people who will own updates.

This list becomes your filter. It stops you from getting distracted by shiny features.

Lock decisions early

Loop in the right decision-makers early. I've seen projects stall because boards change direction mid-stream, or founders weren't aligned, or sales wasn't bought in.

If your website is going to drive pipeline, sales needs to be part of the process. If your website is going to represent the company, leadership needs to align. If those people aren't in the loop, you'll feel it later.

Launch fast, iterate faster

Ship the core system, then iterate with data. That's how you avoid six-month website projects that die before they launch.

And keep the CMS simple. Keep the templates reusable. Make publishing easy. Your future self will thank you.

The quick self-audit: fix these this month

If you want to know whether your current site is holding you back, look for a few obvious signals.

If you don't have a case study page, build one. That absence is a trust killer in enterprise sales.

If your homepage leads with features and specs, rewrite it. Lead with ROI outcomes and proof. Then earn the right to talk technical.

If your visuals look generic, upgrade them. Professional-level visuals are non-negotiable when you're selling big contracts. Bad aesthetics make buyers doubt everything else.

If your marketing team is scared to touch the CMS, your system is broken. Your site should not require a dev ticket for basic work.

If your team needs weeks to launch a page, you're moving too slow. In 2026, slow looks risky.

And if your website feels like you're "believing but not authenticating it," you need to close that gap. Branding, to me, is the act of authenticating your claims.

Pick the platform that lets you move 10x faster

So here's where I land.

Choose the platform that lets your marketing team move without permission. Choose the platform that supports visual trust. Choose the platform that makes it easy to scale ICP pages, publish proof, and ship campaigns.

Then build the system around it. Templates. CMS structure. Training. Governance. Analytics.

Because in 2026, your website is not a brochure. It's your commercialization layer.

Move faster than you think you should. Build proof earlier than you think you need. Pivot to an ROI narrative or you're going to stay in the lab.

Create a business, not a research problem.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should we move to a Headless CMS to future-proof our stack?

Usually, no. Unless you have a massive internal team, headless is often just 'cosplaying as enterprise.' It creates a bottleneck where marketing needs a dev ticket for every change. If your platform makes you wait on engineering to ship a campaign, it's costing you pipeline. Marketing needs autonomy, not a complex stack that becomes a museum.

What is a realistic budget for a B2B SaaS website overhaul?

For a fully autonomous system your team can actually run, expect $30k to $60k. If you include a full strategic rebrand, that sits between $50k and $150k. Be careful spending significantly over $100k at Series A - technical buyers often view that as 'vaporware.' Allocate half your budget to strategy and research to ensure the visuals actually convert.

How do we determine if our current platform is hurting revenue?

Apply the three-minute rule. If your marketer can't publish a blog post or landing page in three minutes - without engineering help - your CMS is not viable. Speed is a commercial advantage. If every update requires a ticket or a developer, you are losing momentum to competitors who ship fast and iterate faster.

Does website performance really impact the vendor shortlist?

It is the deciding factor. Buyers typically shortlist 3 - 4 vendors on Day One, and in 85-95% of deals, the contract goes to one of them. If your site lacks 'visual trust' or loads slowly, you don't just lose the lead - you never make the list. Your website is doing the pitch when you aren't in the room.

Should engineering own the marketing website?

No. Engineering builds product. Marketing ships the commercial layer. I draw a hard line here: if marketing relies on devs for day-to-day updates, you create a go-to-market failure. You can bring devs in for complex calculators or custom tools, but your marketing team must own the CMS and landing pages to drive speed and ROI.