Milestone: shipped a full landing page rebuild for an AI platform
client came in with a working product and a website that didn't show any of it. one paragraph, a contact form, nothing else.
rebuilt the whole thing — dark theme, animated hero, tabbed section showing all 9 departments, live agent console mockup, bento stats section. Next.js + GSAP, under 4 weeks, fixed scope.
live at lancemart.org
two client projects shipped now. slot open for june if anyone here needs something similar — yash-arya.com/hire
Trending on Indie Hackers
This is a useful case study because the gap was not “make the site prettier.” It was that the product already had depth, but the first impression made it look almost empty.
For AI platforms, that matters a lot. If the product has multiple departments, agent workflows, console activity, and measurable outcomes, the landing page has to make the system feel real before a buyer books a call. Otherwise the product looks like another thin AI wrapper even when the backend is stronger.
One thing I’d also watch closely with clients like this is the naming layer. A rebuild can make the site clearer, but if the brand still feels generic, narrow, or temporary, the new page has to work harder than it should.
For an AI platform with multiple departments and agent-console positioning, a name like Beryxa .com would give the same product a stronger enterprise SaaS shell. Not as a replacement for the work you did, but as the layer that helps the redesign feel more credible, ownable, and scalable from the first second.
yeah, that's exactly the framing we worked with the product had real depth but the site was flattening it into nothing. the challenge was less about visual design and more about information architecture: what do you show first so that a D2C founder who doesn't speak AI immediately understands what they're buying.
the console and the department explorer were both decisions around that. make the system feel operational rather than described.
the naming point is interesting in general, though for this client the brand is already established with existing users so that wasn't on the table.
That makes sense. If the client already has users and the brand was not on the table, then forcing a rename would have been the wrong move.
The more interesting angle for future projects is that naming, category framing, and information architecture are all part of the same first-impression problem.
A better page can explain the product, but the category and brand frame decide how much trust the buyer gives it before they even read the page.
For clients like this, especially AI platforms selling to non-technical buyers, I think there is a strong paid layer around: what should the product be called, what category should it own, what should the first screen prove, and what buyer language should the whole site keep repeating.
That could sit very naturally before or alongside your redesign work. If you ever want to offer that as part of a stronger conversion package, happy to trade notes privately.
appreciate the thinking. that first-impression layer — category framing, buyer language, what the page is actually promising — is something I do factor in during the brief stage, even if it's not a formal deliverable.
most clients at this stage don't have budget for a separate strategy engagement, but I agree it's where a lot of conversion is actually won or lost before anyone reads a word.
Makes sense. If naming was not on the table and the client already had users, then the page and IA were the right levers.
I agree that the first-impression layer is where a lot of the trust gets won or lost. For AI platforms especially, the brand and category frame need to make the product feel real before the buyer has to decode the whole system.