Do I need a new website, or does mine just need fixing?

If your current site loads in under two seconds on a phone, and your hours, address and services are readable in a form a machine can use, it probably just needs fixing, not replacing. If it’s slow, hasn’t been touched in years, or runs on a platform you can’t update yourself, a rebuild is usually cheaper in the long run than trying to save it.

How to actually check, not guess

Open your site on your own phone, on your regular connection, not wifi at your desk. If it takes more than a couple of seconds to become usable, that’s not a one-off — that’s what every visitor experiences, and a meaningful share of them leave before it finishes loading. Beyond speed, check whether your hours and address are typed as plain text or marked up as structured data an assistant can read directly; that distinction matters as much as how the page looks.

When fixing makes sense

If the bones are sound — reasonable speed, a platform you can still edit, no structural mess — the fix is usually schema, content structure, and closing specific gaps, not a rebuild. That’s on-page and technical SEO work, not a new site.

When a rebuild is the honest answer

If the platform itself is the problem — page-builder bloat, plugins nobody remembers installing, a designer from years ago who’s no longer reachable — patching it usually costs more over a year than starting over. A rebuild here is a static, self-hosted-font site under the same 150KB-per-page budget this one holds itself to, priced at $695.

The honest middle case

Most sites aren’t purely one or the other. A common pattern: the design is fine, the platform is fine, but nothing on the page is structured for what an assistant or a search engine actually reads — no schema, no answer-first content, hours buried in an image instead of text. That’s a fix, not a rebuild, and it’s usually the cheaper problem to have.