Lunder

The problem

Lunder is a design studio. They had the work, the taste and the client relationships. What they did not have in the building was web design and development.

That gap is common and it usually gets solved badly. A developer is handed a flat file at the end of the process and asked to make it work, which is how you end up with a site that is technically finished and visibly compromised.

How it ran

We came in as the technical half of the team rather than as a supplier at the end of the line. That meant being in the work while decisions were still open, which is the only arrangement where a built site ends up matching what the design intended.

It also meant arguing occasionally. A studio that has spent its career controlling print has strong instincts about layout, and some of those instincts do not survive contact with a browser at 390 pixels wide. Those conversations are the job.

Their own site

The studio site went through a long run of iterations before it landed. The version history runs well into double figures.

Worth saying plainly: designers are the hardest clients to satisfy about their own brand, because for them the site is not marketing, it is the argument. None of those rounds were wasted. A studio that settles quickly on its own site is telling you something about how it will treat yours.

What came after

The website was the reason for the engagement. It was not the end of it. Once the working relationship existed, other briefs followed, handled separately and quietly.

That is usually the real test. Anyone can deliver once.

Why this one is here

Most case studies describe work done for a client who does not do this for a living. This one was done for people who do.

A studio hiring another studio is a specific kind of endorsement. They know exactly what they are buying, and exactly where the shortcuts are.