Our Services

A full-service agency owns the whole chain, from deciding what a business stands for through to whether the right people can find it and act on it. What you are buying is the order those decisions get made in, since any one of them can be bought from a specialist.

Six practices, all staffed by our own people.

Branding. Evidence, positioning, messaging, naming, and the identity system that carries all of it into the world.

Web design. Marketing sites, stores, portals, and the build underneath them, on established platforms or on custom code where the requirement is genuinely there.

UI and UX design. User research, interface design, prototyping, and design systems, for software where how usable the thing is happens to be the commercial problem.

Organic search. Being found in Google and being cited inside AI-generated answers, which have become two disciplines with different inputs.

Digital marketing. Paid channels, content, social, and campaign work, built on brands this team already knows from inside.

Consultation and audits. An outside read and a costed roadmap you can execute with us, with your own team, or with somebody else entirely.

Brand Vision has traded since 2018, and the founding team carries more than fifteen years between them. Roughly 150 brands and 500 plus projects have gone out from four staffed offices, meaning Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and Miami. Verification you can check without asking us covers four Awwwards and a Webby, professional certification from RGD and CGD, an A plus rating at the Better Business Bureau, and a Clutch profile sitting at 5.0, assembled out of 64 plus recorded client interviews inside 250 plus five-star reviews. Average lift in leads has landed at 250 percent, which averages past programs where retesting was possible and is not a figure anybody should plan against.

What the structure buys you is fewer seams. A positioning decision changes a sitemap, a sitemap changes what search can realistically win, and what search can win changes which claims a brand can credibly make. Held by one team those three move together. Split across three vendors, somebody on your side spends every Thursday translating.

The honest limit. Breadth counts for nothing where a practice is thin, and a generalist team is worse than a good specialist in the one lane you care about most. So the fair test to put to us is which of the six is our weakest, and who by name would be doing the work. Both questions have answers and you will get them.

Six practices, and close to thirty distinct engagements inside them, which no client has ever bought all of. Here is the complete list, grouped the way the work is genuinely organized, so you can locate yourself in it quickly.

1. Branding. Market and customer research, positioning and messaging strategy, company and product naming with taglines, logo design, complete visual identity systems, rebrands and refreshes, and the collateral and templates a team produces material from every week.
2. Web design and development. Custom marketing sites, online stores, portals and web applications, redesigns and replatforming, which means moving a site from one platform to another, content architecture, integrations, accessibility to WCAG standards, speed work, and ongoing maintenance. Built on Webflow, WordPress, Shopify, WooCommerce, or custom code where a hosted platform will not hold.
3. UI and UX. UX research and usability testing, UX audits, interaction design, wireframes and prototypes, full interface design, design systems, mobile app design, and product design for software.
4. Search, meaning SEO and GEO. Technical health, local search, content strategy, off-page authority and digital PR, catalogue and large-estate search work, audits and roadmaps, and visibility inside AI answers.
5. Marketing. Paid media across search, social and video, content programs, social media strategy, remarketing, landing pages, and conversion work.
6. Consultation. Marketing, website, brand, search and usability audits, strategy consulting, and scoped advisory sessions on a single decision.

Two things follow from a list that long, and both matter more than the list.

The first is that any proposal naming more than three of the six deserves suspicion. What ends up recommended follows what your numbers and your market show, and the answer is frequently two things done properly instead of five done thinly. Every engagement is scoped from nothing, which is why there are no packages on this page.

The second is that these groups are not departments quoting each other. The same senior people move between them, which is why a search specialist is in the room when a sitemap is decided, and why a designer is in the room when a naming shortlist gets screened for how each candidate behaves as a wordmark.

If you already know which group you belong in, go straight to it. If you do not, describing the symptom instead of the service is the faster route, and it is how most first conversations here actually start.

Almost always the brand work, because everything after it is an expression of a decision that work makes. Two situations reverse the order and both are common enough to check for before you commit money.

Start with the brand work when the answer to who you are for changes depending on which person in your company gets asked. The test costs nothing. Have your sales lead and your product lead each write one sentence naming the customer and the competitor you beat, separately, then read them side by side. Where those two sentences disagree, a website commissioned now will encode the disagreement into every page, and unpicking it later costs more than settling it would have. That argument gets closed in the strategy document before a designer opens a file.

Start with the site when the position is genuinely resolved and the site is the constraint. The signals are adequate traffic with thin enquiries, a form people begin and abandon, and pages that take six seconds to become useful. Putting that company through a rebrand is a costly way of avoiding the thing that is actually wrong. What it needs is a build that converts and, frequently, a round of technical SEO cleanup underneath.

Start with search when the destination is adequate and the pipeline is not. Search is the slowest of the three and therefore goes in earliest, even when something else is louder. Meaningful movement arrives in a window of four months to a year, and anybody offering a first page within thirty days is selling a fiction or has quietly picked terms nobody types.

Start with a diagnosis when you cannot tell which of those three describes you. It costs a fraction of any of them and it removes the guess.

Sequence is not the same as gating, and this is where most advice on the subject overreaches. Capture channels, meaning the ones that harvest people already looking for what you sell, can run while foundations get built, and holding revenue hostage to a finished identity is rarely defensible. What does not work is running the two in ignorance of each other.

The compounding argument is the one worth holding on to. Settled positioning makes design faster to approve. A well-structured site makes search cheaper to win. Search visibility makes paid less necessary. Each stage lowers the cost of the next, which is visible in the case studies if you read what order the work happened in.

By reading four things before anything is proposed, and by treating the brief you arrive with as evidence instead of as instruction. A meaningful share of the time the recommendation that comes back is smaller than the one that was asked for.

The four reads, in the order they happen.

1. The numbers you already hold. Analytics, search data, the CRM, and the last twelve months of campaign history. Most of the diagnosis is already sitting inside a client's own accounts, unread, and reading it is free.
2. The market. What people are searching and asking in their own words, what competitors have committed real budget to, and which ground nobody is currently holding.
3. What the business already knows. Sales hears the objection every week. Support hears the frustration. Leadership holds the plan. Where those three accounts contradict each other, the contradiction is usually the most useful thing in the room.
4. What your organization can ship in two quarters. A recommendation depending on a development team whose roadmap is locked has described a wish. Capacity gets asked about during scoping instead of discovered in month three.

Out of that comes a sequence with a reason attached to every item and a stated view on what each one is likely to be worth. Benchmarks are read across industries and never against a general figure, since an enquiry rate that looks weak in one category is strong in another where getting in touch is a much larger commitment.

What we will not do is recommend the discipline that happens to have capacity that month. The check on that sits in the document itself, which names the items worth skipping, the ones your team should keep, and the places where the right hire is a specialist outside this building.

Where the diagnosis is genuinely unclear, the read is worth buying on its own. A search and site audit settles whether visibility is the problem, and interface and usability work settles whether the loss happens after arrival. Either one costs a fraction of the project somebody was about to approve.

Expect to disagree with part of it. There are things about your own business no outsider picks up in a month, including promises already made internally. When you push back, either you hold information that changes the order, in which case it changes, or it is a judgment call, in which case you get our view plainly and the decision stays yours.

Separately, itemized line by line, and never as a package, because a bundle is where the component you did not want gets hidden. Two shapes of money exist here and the difference is whether value lands on a date or accumulates over months.

Fixed scope. Branding programs, websites and applications, design systems, and audits with roadmaps. Named deliverables, milestones, and an end date. Every proposal is broken out far enough that you can strike a component without renegotiating the rest, and comparing two itemized proposals tells you something, where comparing two lump sums tells you nothing.

Monthly. Search and AI visibility, paid media, content strategy production, design support, maintenance, and advisory work. These run monthly because the return compounds, which is why the minimum term on that side is around six months. Leaving early means funding the build-up and exiting before the payback.

What moves the number, in rough order of weight. How many decisions the work has to hold up, which is a different question from how many pages or screens exist. How many audiences you serve. How many people approve direction before it locks, the variable companies underestimate most. The condition of what already exists, since working inside a codebase that fights back can cost more than replacing it. And how much execution sits with us instead of with your team, which is a legitimate lever on both sides.

Three commitments attached to the money, stated so you can hold us to them. Media spend is yours, paid to the platforms directly, and management is a separate flat fee and never a share of the spend, since taking a share pays an agency to argue for a larger budget. Reporting runs against leads, qualified pipeline and revenue, and never against impressions. And you own the accounts, the data and the files throughout, not at the end.

One genuine efficiency worth knowing. Two practices bought as a single project cost less than the same two bought in sequence, because the research happens once, the messaging is written once, and the design system is built once instead of retrofitted. That is a smaller scope and not a package discount, and it applies as much to ongoing marketing alongside a build as it does to enterprise SEO alongside a replatform.

Every practice is sold on its own and a large share of the engagements here are exactly that. Four tests decide whether a single service will produce the outcome you are imagining, and they are worth running before you sign anything.

• Is the thing you are buying the actual constraint. Buying visibility for a site that converts at half what it should taxes every visitor you pay for. Buying an identity when the pipeline problem is a three-week response time moves nothing.
• Can the destination hold what the service sends it. A campaign, a search program and a referral all end on a page. Where that page is the weak link, the standalone purchase funds a leak.
• Does the decision underneath it already exist. Content, campaigns and interfaces all assume somebody has settled who the audience is. Where that is still open, the work stalls in review and the delay gets blamed on the wrong thing.
• Who owns the parts we are not touching. Standalone work needs a named counterpart on your side or at your other vendor. Ambiguity here is the most common reason two competent teams block each other.

Where those four come back clean, single-service work is straightforward and we do plenty of it. Local SEO for a multi-location practice with a site that already performs. Ecommerce SEO on a store converting well and getting found badly. Paid campaigns carrying the near term while organic builds underneath. A maintenance and performance program on a site somebody else built. A design system for an in-house product team that has the people and not the framework. Interface work inside a platform we did not make.

Where it reliably disappoints is when a single service is bought as a substitute for a decision. In B2B and professional services that usually looks like content volume standing in for a position nobody has taken. In real estate and development it looks like a launch campaign for a project whose story has not been written yet.

Which of those describes you comes out in the first conversation, and that includes being told the one service you asked about is not the one that will move your number.

Then we say so and name who to call, because the cost of pretending is a project that goes wrong in month four and a relationship neither side recovers. Here is the list, unhedged.

• Broadcast, film and large-scale video production. Hire a production company. We commission photographers, videographers and motion specialists under our direction inside a project, list them by name in the proposal, and add no margin to work nobody told you was bought in. That is a different thing from being a production house.
• Media buying outside digital. Television, radio, print and out-of-home planning belong with a media buying agency. We will brief them and hand over the creative, and we will not pretend to negotiate rates in markets we do not operate in.
• Retained public relations. Media relations, crisis communications, spokesperson training and press office functions belong with a PR firm. What we do is link building and digital PR, which aims at earned coverage and citations and is a narrower discipline wearing a similar name.
• Native mobile app engineering. We design apps and specify every state for whoever builds them. Shipping to the App Store and Play Store is an app development studio's job.
• Enterprise systems work. ERP, data warehousing and full CRM implementation belong with a systems integrator or a certified platform partner. We connect a site to your CRM. We do not configure your CRM.
• Trademark clearance and filing. Our naming work screens candidates and narrows the field, and clearance, filing and any opinion belong with your trademark counsel. This is not a law firm and it will not behave like one.
• Event production and trade show fabrication. We design the graphics and the environment. Somebody else builds the booth and runs the show floor.
• Influencer and talent management. A talent agency does this properly. We can build the brief and the creative standards it gets judged against.

Two notes on the referrals themselves. No commission changes hands, so a recommendation costs you nothing and earns us nothing. And the list exists because how we hire is slow and deliberate, which produces a senior team with real edges instead of a shallow team with none. You can see the people who are here by name and discipline before you decide whether the edges matter for your project.

Seven services, and they differ by how much they decide, not by how much they cost. Ordered from the one that settles the least to the one that settles everything.

Logo design produces one asset. The mark, its lockups, meaning the approved arrangements of symbol and wordmark, and every file format a vendor will ever request. Per square inch it is the most recognizable thing a company owns, and by itself it resolves almost nothing.

Graphic design produces the applied material. Sales decks, packaging, signage, social formats, event graphics, and the templates your people build from week to week. It settles how the rules get used and never what the rules are.

Visual identity produces the system the mark lives inside. Colour, typography, grid, imagery direction, iconography, motion, and the guidelines holding them together. It settles whether you still look like yourself when the logo is nowhere on the page, which is most of the time.

Brand naming produces what things get called, checked against trademark registers and domain availability before any shortlist reaches you. It settles the most repeated thing you will ever ask anybody to remember.

Brand strategy produces the decisions themselves. The audience you serve, the audience you decline, the ground you can hold against a named competitor, the message hierarchy, and the evidence sitting under every claim. It is a written document, invisible to a customer, and it has the longest shelf life of anything here.

Brand research produces the evidence those decisions rest on. Customer interviews, internal interviews, competitive audits, and a read of whatever data already exists. It produces findings and not conclusions, and it is what separates a defensible position from a confident preference.

Rebranding runs every layer above at once for a business with recognition already in the market, which makes it a different job from starting on a blank page.

The fastest way to sort yourself is to say the symptom out loud and follow it. Nobody recognizes us, and you are looking at the identity layer. Our materials look like four different companies, and you are looking at the system and the templates that get made under it. We cannot agree internally on what we are, and that is strategy. We are guessing about our own market, and that is research. The company has moved and the brand has not, and that is a rebrand. We are launching something with no name, and that is naming, which needs the longest runway of the seven because legal screening will not compress for anybody.

Three forks, and a different question decides each one. Most people arrive at the wrong fork, which is why this is worth two minutes.

Fork one, design or engineering. The design side decides what the site says, how it is structured, and how it looks. The engineering side makes it real, meaning the code, the way content is structured behind the pages, the integrations, the speed profile and the security posture. If you have no site and no agreed structure, you want a design-led engagement with the build inside it. If you already hold approved designs, or a live platform needing new functionality, better architecture or fresh integrations, the engineering side is where you belong. If the brand itself is unresolved, neither fork is where you start.

Fork two, new build or website redesign. A redesign is its own discipline and it is not a discounted new build, because the job is carrying forward search equity, meaning the rankings and inbound links the old URLs already earned, alongside working integrations and converting flows while replacing everything around them. The deciding question is whether the existing site holds anything worth protecting. Where analytics say pages are earning and other sites are linking, a redesign is the correct and more careful path. Where nothing is earning, a new build is cleaner and usually faster.

Fork three, the platform. The single condition that makes each one right, and the one that rules it out.

• Webflow. Right when a non-technical marketing team publishes often and design control matters. Ruled out when you need server-side logic living inside the site.
• WordPress. Right where the content library is big, the editorial workflow is genuine, and a plugin is doing load-bearing work. Ruled out when nobody on your side will own updates, backups and security.
• Shopify. Right for most stores, since payment, tax, fraud and stock infrastructure stops being yours to maintain. Ruled out by product structures its variant and option ceilings cannot express.
• WooCommerce. Right when the shop has to behave unusually or commerce sits inside a larger content site. Ruled out when hosting and performance responsibility has nowhere to sit.
• Custom code. Right for portals and applications with real business rules. Ruled out whenever a hosted platform would genuinely have held, which is more often than agencies admit.

The recommendation follows your requirements and never what bills higher, and the argument arrives in plain language so it can be challenged before anything is committed.

They share most of their foundations and diverge across roughly a quarter of the work, which is why buying AI visibility as a separate retainer is usually somebody selling you a second invoice. Worth separating what one budget buys in both from what only the newer work buys.

What serves both at once. A site machines can reach, read and trust. Clear entity information, so it is unambiguous what your company is, what it does, and where it operates. Genuine authority from sources nobody controls. Content that answers a real question directly instead of circling it for three hundred words. Get those right and you tend to do well in ranked results and in generated answers together, which is why the search practice treats them as one program.

Where the work genuinely changes, and it is four things.

Evidence nobody else holds. A study you ran, numbers only your business has, a named specialist willing to take a position. Those get attributed because no alternative source exists. A tidy restatement of what everybody already agrees on gets absorbed and nobody is credited, which has changed the economics of the content side considerably.

Passage-level structure. Answers get lifted in fragments. A question, answered plainly in the sentences immediately beneath it, travels. The same claim buried in the eleventh paragraph does not.

What the rest of the web says. These models lean on agreement between sources they do not control when they decide whether a company gets named in the first place, so earned coverage has stopped being purely a ranking investment.

A specific technical trap. Several crawlers feeding AI answers will download the JavaScript on a page without ever running it, so anything that only exists once a script has run is not there as far as they are concerned. That one detail quietly rules out a lot of otherwise competent builds.

Measurement is where honesty matters most, so here is the limit. There is no position four in a generated answer. Measurable things do exist, meaning how often you appear against a fixed list of prompts, the sources named alongside you, and whether your share of those mentions moves. Anybody quoting you a ranking figure for AI search has invented a metric. AI search optimization work here starts by establishing how the platforms currently treat your category, before anything gets promised about changing it.

The smallest thing we sell is a scoped advisory session, which is a working conversation on one decision plus a short written recommendation. Plenty of situations need an hour and a half and a direct answer, and quoting a full program against one of those would be selling volume.

Above that, the genuinely small engagements, in ascending order of size.

• A single-discipline audit. Search, site, brand or usability alone. A UX audit on the two journeys carrying your revenue is frequently the highest-return thing available for the money, because it tells you what to stop arguing about.
• A focused fix list. Three pages rewritten, a navigation restructure, a form shortened, a redirect map repaired. We have talked clients out of rebuilds and sold them this instead.
• A brand refresh. Staying inside an identity the market already recognizes, where the gap is consistency and documentation and not direction.
• One flow redesigned. Onboarding, checkout or signup, scoped as a single journey instead of a whole product.
• A month of design support. Sized to how much material your team actually produces, with no commitment beyond it.

What we will not shrink, and this is where a smaller scope becomes a false economy. Research where the whole decision depends on it. Accessibility, which costs several times more to retrofit than to design in. Redirect mapping on any migration, because that is the single most avoidable way a launch loses a quarter of traffic. And measurement setup, since a program you cannot judge is one you will cancel for the wrong reason.

The situation where small is exactly right is a company with clear priorities and finite budget, which describes most early-stage companies we work with. Foundation first, one thing properly, then the next. The situation where small is a trap is a business trying to buy a whole transformation in instalments while nobody sequences them, which produces six defensible purchases and no compounding.

Ask for the smaller version. If it will not do the job, you will be told why in specifics, and you can still buy it.

Say what the situation is and the read you get back will be direct about what it actually needs, up to and including that nobody should start anything yet. No written brief required, and no obligation to have decided which of the six practices you are here for.

1. Tell us what is actually wrong. Reach the team and describe it as a problem and not a specification. Growth that has flattened. An identity that stopped matching the company years ago. Traffic arriving and nothing happening after it. Two vendors producing work that will not fit together.
2. We do the reading first. Your site, your brand material, your search presence and your competitive set get reviewed before the call, so it opens somewhere useful and nobody spends half an hour on facts that were a search away.
3. A working call, thirty to forty-five minutes. Goals, constraints, timeline, and the real budget. You leave with an honest read on where the gap is whether or not you hire us.
4. An itemized proposal inside three to five business days. Scope, named deliverables, phases and cost broken out line by line, so it can be compared honestly against any other agency you are speaking to.

Three items on your side set the pace. Analytics access where a site is in play. Any brand or research material you have already paid for. And a clear view of who signs off on direction. What slows it is a committee nobody chairs, and settling that before a proposal costs less than settling it afterward.

Location changes very little. The Canadian side of the practice runs from Toronto, with US offices in Chicago, San Francisco and Miami, and we work with companies in cities where we have no presence at all. Decision-making speed on your side matters considerably more than distance. We travel for the sessions that genuinely warrant everybody in one room.

Where the fit is wrong you will hear it on the call, which happens and is a better outcome than a project neither side should have begun. If you would rather read before speaking to anybody, the general questions cover the ground most people want settled first.