We built this because our agency work was spread across too many tools
One of the biggest problems we’ve had managing client websites is not the actual website work.
It’s the visibility around everything after the site goes live.
For a while, different parts of the process ended up in different places:
- project work in one tool
- support requests in email
- renewals in spreadsheets
- uptime monitoring somewhere else
- passwords/access in another system
- client notes scattered across inboxes and docs
- reporting handled manually
None of those tools were necessarily bad. The problem was that no single place showed the full picture of a client/site.
That’s the reason we started building Over.Site:
https://over.site/
The idea is to give web agencies one central place to manage client sites, ongoing work, support, renewals, reporting, monitoring and general visibility.
I’m interested in feedback from other founders/agencies:
Would you rather use one central platform for this, or do you prefer connecting several specialist tools together?
The fragmentation problem you’re describing is real and it’s not just agencies. Any service business managing ongoing client relationships hits this wall eventually. The context-switching cost between tools is invisible until you try to get a clear picture of one client and realise you’re opening five different tabs.
The central platform vs best-of-breed stack question is interesting. From what I’ve seen, most agencies start with specialist tools because they’re cheaper and easier to justify early on but the hidden cost is always the time spent stitching everything together manually. Over site sounds like it’s solving the coordination layer, not just another tool in the stack. That’s a different and more valuable pitch.
Curious, how are you handling the migration pain for agencies already locked into their existing stack?