Also, I often find that there is no additional document to the strategy document that helps the client and their development team actually execute those recommendations. It's very framed as, “Here's a problem, you should fix it. Good luck." For example, when we deliver an SEO site audit, each set of issues is presented with a background on why it matters, an illustration of the issue, and a series of recommendations, both with screenshots and excerpts from coded. Each set is then prioritized with a score of advantage, ease, and readiness to implement. Example of iPullRank deliverable All problems are coded with a number so that they can be represented in a spreadsheet.
In this spreadsheet, there is a tab for each coded issue that highlights the specific URLs where that issue occurs, along with any corresponding data that represents that issue. As an example, for a list of meta descriptions that are too long, we will include jewelry photo editing service those URLs, their meta descriptions, and their length. The biggest problem is deliverables that are presented more for customer review and approval than developers for implementation. We have a deliverable called “Content Recommendations”, where we take content from a client and put it into a template in
Word and track changes to update body copy, metadata and internal linking structure . It's great for a marketer to review what we're doing on their copy and ensure we continue to maintain the voice and tone. It's also great if the client has a marketing coordinator who will do the manual implementation. It's horrible from a development perspective, in that it forces them to do a very tedious job of going page by page copying and pasting new stuff, and no developer wants to do that. This means that implementing the recommendations in this Word document requires a developer who is on the Alderson side of the