Where they started
Dazzle's site was a grid of forty images with client names underneath. Beautiful images. No context, no brief, no outcome, no indication of what any of it cost or achieved.
The pitch problem followed from that. Prospects arrived, admired the work, and then asked for a call to understand what Dazzle actually did — brand identity? campaign? packaging? All three, as it turned out, but the site didn't say so. Roughly half their discovery calls were spent explaining their own service offering.
They also had a positioning problem they hadn't named. Three founders gave us three different answers to "what should someone hire you for?" That's not unusual at their size, and it's fatal on a website, because a site can't hedge the way a person in a room can.
What we built
We started with three separate ninety-minute founder interviews and wrote up where the answers diverged. The overlap was clear once it was on paper: brand identity for consumer businesses at the point they're about to scale. Everything else was work they'd accepted, not work they wanted. The site got built around the overlap.
Six projects became real case studies — the brief, the constraint, what they made, and what happened afterwards. Getting the outcome numbers took three weeks of chasing former clients, and it was the highest-value part of the project. Two clients declined, so those two projects stayed in a visual gallery instead of being padded with vague claims.
The motion design is deliberately restrained. Their work is loud, so the site is quiet: slow reveals, a cursor-following light on dark sections, and image transitions that hold still once they land. We built and threw away a much busier version in week two because it made the portfolio images harder to look at.