The point of view
Farmer's common sense, applied to digital.
I've often been told the web is a world apart, with its own rules, its own jargon and its own trends. I don't believe that for a second. The best decisions I've made for my clients come down to one dead-simple idea: farmer's common sense.
In short
- Digital loves to complicate what should stay simple.
- Plain common sense: only build what's useful, maintain it, judge it on the harvest.
- The result: less money spent for nothing, clearer decisions, real effects.
I didn't grow up surrounded by screens. I grew up around people who fixed what could be fixed, replaced what was no longer useful, and never spent a euro without knowing what it would bring back. Twenty years later, I build websites and apps, and I realize that instinct is the best method I know.
Digital, on the other hand, loves to complicate. It invents words to sell simple things, it piles up tools nobody uses, it mistakes busyness for work. I do the opposite.
What farmer's common sense is
It's not a philosophy, it's a discipline. Three principles, not one more.
- You only sow what's useful. A farmer doesn't plant a field "just to see". He plants what will feed or sell. The rest is wasted work.
- You maintain what you've sown. A website, like a field, isn't left to rot after launch. What isn't maintained ends up producing nothing.
- You judge on the harvest. Not on how pretty the field looks in spring. On what's in the barn at the end.
It's dumb, and that's exactly why it works. Most bad digital decisions come from forgetting one of those three points.
What it looks like on the web
When I apply this to a project, a lot of "false good ideas" fall away on their own.
We stop building for the sake of building
The question is never "can we add this feature". It's "does it actually serve a purpose". A blog nobody will keep up, an animation that slows everything down, an "about" page nobody reads: so many fields plowed for nothing. I'd rather have a smaller site that does two things well than a huge site that does none.
We look at the right numbers
The number of visitors is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills. What matters is how many people call you, book, or buy. The harvest, not the size of the field. Everything else flatters the ego and drains the budget.
A site that pleases everyone and earns for no one is a pretty failure. I'd rather have a site that ruffles a few feathers and fills your calendar.
What it changes for you
In practice, working this way gets you three things.
- You spend less, because you no longer pay for what serves no purpose.
- You decide faster, because the question "is it useful" settles almost everything.
- You see the effects, because we only measure what has a real impact on your business.
It's not the most sellable method. It doesn't let me bill for useless options or bury a quote under lines you don't understand. But it's the only one that lets me look you in the eye a year later. And honestly, that's all I care about.
If you've got a project and this way of seeing things speaks to you, we're probably meant to work together.
Frequently asked questions
What is farmer's common sense applied to the web?
It's a simple work discipline in three points: you only build what's useful, you maintain what you've built, and you judge a site on its results, not on its looks. Nothing complicated, and that's exactly why it works. Most bad digital decisions come from forgetting one of those three points.
Should I put every possible feature on my website?
No, quite the opposite. The right question is never "can we add this feature", it's "does it actually serve a purpose". I'd rather have a smaller site that does two things well than a huge site that does none of them properly.
How do I know if a feature is useful or not?
I ask one question: does it bring the visitor closer to a call, a booking, or a purchase. A blog nobody will keep up, an animation that slows everything down, an "about" page nobody reads: those are fields plowed for nothing. If you remove the element and nothing changes for your business, it wasn't serving a purpose.
Does a website really need maintenance after it goes live?
Yes. A website, like a field, isn't left to rot once it's launched. What isn't maintained ends up producing nothing: dated content, broken links, security that springs leaks. Going live isn't the end of the work, it's the start of the harvest.
Which metrics should I look at to judge if my site works?
The ones that touch your business: how many people call you, book, or buy. The number of visitors is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills. I look at what's in the barn, not at the size of the field.
Why isn't visitor count enough to measure a site?
Because traffic flatters the ego and drains the budget without guaranteeing anything. You can have thousands of visitors and not a single client. What counts is what those visits actually trigger: a contact, a quote, a sale.
Is it better to have a good-looking site or one that earns money?
A site that pleases everyone and earns for no one is a pretty failure. I'd rather have a site that maybe ruffles a few feathers but fills your calendar. How pretty the field looks in spring says nothing about what will be in the barn at the end.
Does a small business need a big site with lots of pages?
Rarely. A site's size doesn't make its value. A few pages that do their job well beat a bloated machine nobody reads and that you pay to maintain. You only sow what's useful.
How can I avoid paying for useless digital options?
By running every line of the quote through one simple question: does it serve a purpose. A lot of services exist mainly to inflate the bill and bury the client under terms they don't understand. If you can't explain what an option is for in one sentence, it isn't for anything.
What does this common sense actually change for my budget?
You spend less, because you no longer pay for what serves no purpose. You decide faster, because the question "is it useful" settles almost everything. And you see the effects, because we only measure what has a real impact on your business.
Is the web really a world apart with its own rules?
I don't believe that for a second. I've often been sold the web as a special universe, with its jargon and its trends, but the best decisions I've made for my clients come down to one dead-simple idea. Digital loves to complicate what should stay simple, and I do the opposite.
Why choose an agency that works with this common sense over another?
Because it's the only method that lets me look you in the eye a year later. It doesn't let me bill for useless options or bury a quote under lines you don't understand. If you've got a project and this way of seeing things speaks to you, we're probably meant to work together.
Also worth reading
Without measurement, you're playing blindfolded.
A real case: 40% of visitors clicked to book, only 1% actually paid. Without analytics, invisible.
Read the articleFour million views, zero customers.
Views don't pay any bills. What matters is who truly discovers you, and how many buy.
Read the article