[krm01]

I've been running a design agency for over a decade and have worked on many redesigns (not involved btw with OP). One common mistake I notice among designers, and something I always emphasize to my team, is the importance of designing for the business, not just for aesthetics. Design is not merely a visual exercise; it's a catalyst for business growth. I can cite numerous instances where simple or even major redesigns significantly contributed to a business's success. For example, a redesign of the search animation for a major e-commerce platform once reduced customer complaint calls by 20%. Another time, a comprehensive overhaul of a checkout page resulted in a twofold decrease in cart abandonment. Or the major redesign that led enterprise customers to trust a SaaS product based solely on its appearance and got the big co to adopt their product.

Design is an invaluable tool. The amount spent on it is inconsequential if it's not leveraged correctly. Spending $100,000 and making two minor changes that triple your revenue is an absolute bargain.

[mywittyname]

> Spending $100,000 and making two minor changes that triple your revenue is an absolute bargain.

The hard part is knowing what "minor" changes needs to be made.

Unless you have evidence of what the problem is, you're just stabbing the dark. $100k is probably best spent on a session capture tool that allows you to see how/when/why users are dropping off, hire a UX designer who can think up solutions for the highlighted problems, then use the capture tool to gauge effectiveness and sneak up on a solution.

I won't deny that there are great UX people out there with a natural intuition for this stuff. But there's still the problem of figuring out which ones are great.

Old school UX used to involve video taping users interacting with software.

[bilekas]

> Spending $100,000 and making two minor changes that triple your revenue is an absolute bargain.

This is a qualified statement that really doesn't add up in my head. No minor change is going to triple your revenue, no matter what ui UX designer says.

[jokethrowaway]

That can happen, it's just that it's mostly a game of luck more than skills.

I've seen redesign fail spectacularly and deliver incredible results - and they were done by the same people.

Sometimes following the best practices makes things 10 times worse.

Even when you throw AB testing and pretend you are following the data, the sample size changes so much you can't be sure off anything. I've seen A/B tested changes winning in the benchmarks perform terribly in the long run.

So would you have the same chance to hit the needed changes to triple your revenue by hiring a developer for 20$ per hour on freelancer? Absolutely, yes.

I'm not spending a penny on agencies, let the big companies do that

[krm01]

You’d be surprised. I’ve seen it happen a few times. There’s no silver bullet or a guarantee that happens all the time, but I have had my hands in doubling revenue 2 times by redesigning one page. Different solutions btw for different companies. Or a major major client that, because of the redesign, used the product and endes up spending a lot over the course of 2 years. And no I cant just replicate that on command but in some cases it’s not out of the ordinary.

[bilekas]

I understand, and okay the UI UX is part of it, I just feel that there is usually other factors involved but I don't know enough I guess.

[Suppafly]

There are tons of small things you can do to double or triple your revenue, usually by decreasing how much you spend in the first place, but also things like offering deals for people who buy right away without abandoning their carts or removing roadblocks from the purchasing process.

[bilekas]

> There are tons of small things you can do to double or triple your revenue,

Sure, but that's not 2/3 minor changes.

> offering deals for people who buy right away without abandoning their carts or removing roadblocks from the purchasing process

There is a job in spam advertisement for you yet.