Instagram story viewer> @elai.uiux> Posts
E LAI STERNS(@elai.uiux)'s profile avatar HD Profile

E LAI STERNS

@elai.uiux

14.7K
followers
47
following
✦ Running @dripdesigns.io
✦ Design retainers → Message me
POSTS STORIES REELS TAGGED
My prediction for PLG companies chasing enterprise deals this year: A lot of them are about to redesign the wrong thing. The brand was built for one person with a credit card. Free trial, cancel anytime, live in two minutes. That worked. Then sales moves upmarket and a procurement reviewer opens the same website and reads it at a completely different depth, checking whether this vendor will still exist in three years, and the site keeps answering a question nobody in that room asked. Cancel anytime is a great line until someone is signing a three year contract. The product is the same. What changed is who's evaluating it, and what they need proven. So here's the forecast. A wave of visual refreshes. Darker palette, a security page, a wall of logos. They'll launch, they'll look better, and the deals will still stall. Because the refresh skips the real decision: which company is this now. What I recommend instead: 1. Write down what procurement has to believe. Durability. Security. Operational maturity. 2. Treat each brand surface as proof of one of those. Show the mechanism behind the claim. 3. Keep the self-serve buyer. Same site, two readers, different depth. Before you brief the redesign, decide which company you're asking people to bet on. by @elai.uiux
2
3 days ago
Download
Strong offer. Strong team. The senior candidate still went quiet. It goes like this. Final round done, terms on the table, then silence. Before signing, the candidate researched the company alone. Site, LinkedIn, the brand. What they found didn't match the stage the founders described in the room. A senior hire is betting on trajectory. Your external presence is the evidence they use to check that bet. If the interview says scaling and the website says 2021, they trust the website. Nobody's sitting next to them to explain the difference. Brand usually sits in the marketing budget. It was part of the offer the whole time, it just never got counted that way. Before your next senior search, open your site the way a stranger would. Decide what stage it says the company is at. If that doesn't match your pitch, fix it before the next final round. by @elai.uiux
3
4 days ago
Download
Our workshops end with fewer ideas than we started with. On purpose. Creative workshops are usually built to generate possibilities. Sticky notes everywhere, everything's a maybe, and someone photographs the wall so nobody has to decide anything today. We run it backwards. We take the existing homepage and strip it down to its logic. Every section has to answer four questions: 1. What claim is this making? 2. Who is it for? 3. What evidence supports it? 4. What question will the visitor have next? If a section can't answer, it doesn't earn its place. It goes. Question three is where things get quiet. Evidence is where a lot of sections die. We leave the room with fewer messages, not more options. A homepage that says three things clearly beats one that gestures at ten. Adding another idea is easy. Cutting one you like is the hard part, and it's where the actual decision happens. by @elai.uiux
0
5 days ago
Download
The most expensive line item at a startup is invisible. Design debt. You won't find it on a balance sheet. It surfaces later, in rooms you're not in. An enterprise deal stalls in procurement. A senior candidate ghosts after the final round. An investor flags your site in a diligence memo. By the time a symptom shows, the debt has been compounding for 18 months. Your product moved. Your positioning moved. Your brand stayed wherever it was two funding rounds ago. The part that stings: you can't feel it yourself. You're too close. You know everything the company has become, so you fill in what the site doesn't say. A buyer seeing it cold reads something thinner. And they decide quietly. The companies that catch this early treat brand as infrastructure. It gets a budget, an owner, and regular maintenance, same as the codebase. Before your next raise, read your site like a stranger with money on the line. Fix whatever makes that stranger hesitate. by @elai.uiux
1
6 days ago
Download
The strongest companies that come to us usually have the weakest websites. Sounds backwards. It isn't. The most common intake at Drip: a funded startup with a real product, real traction, and a site written for the company they were two years ago. The deck still opens with the seed round story. The product moved on months ago. That's a growth symptom, honestly a good sign. You built fast and never stopped to update what the outside world reads. Founders in this spot almost always ask me for a rebrand. I push back. New visuals on an old decision just make the confusion prettier. Here's what I recommend instead: 1. Re-decide what the company is now and who it serves. 2. Put one person in charge of making the whole thing say it. 3. Then rebuild the site, the deck, the brand around that answer. If your product outran your homepage, you're exactly who I built Drip for. Before you redesign anything, define what customers need to understand differently. by @elai.uiux
0
7 days ago
Download
Investors read your website harder than they read your deck. The deck is rehearsed. You built it to get pitched, you stand next to it and defend it. The website sits there alone. Broken form. A screenshot of the product from two versions ago. A team page with someone who left in March. That looks like sloppiness. What's actually happening: nobody is responsible for the whole experience. Everyone owns their page, nobody owns the coherence. And an investor reads it exactly that way. Your site is one of the few places they experience your judgment directly, without you in the room narrating. If the details they can see are loose, they assume the ones they can't see are looser. A broken contact form costs you more trust than a dated logo. I'd argue more than the design itself. Here's what I recommend before your next raise: 1. Click through your own site like a stranger. Every link, every form, on your phone. 2. Check that the product on the site is the product that exists today. 3. Make one person accountable for the whole thing, not a page each. Ownership first. Polish after. by @elai.uiux
0
8 days ago
Download
The most expensive voice on your website is usually the founder's. Here's the setup. Someone owns the website on paper. The founder still makes the final call. So the team quietly stops asking what's right for the business. The real question becomes what the founder will approve. Then the founder drops in when something bugs them. Changes a headline, kills a layout, leaves. They don't carry the tradeoffs, the implementation, or what breaks two weeks later. The person who does carry all that has zero authority to decide. That's authority without accountability. And it's expensive. You end up with a negotiated website. Layers of feedback stacked on each other, compromises no single person in the room would have picked on their own. Good people check out too. They're executing opinions instead of solving the problem, and that's a fast way to lose your best thinkers. The founder pays twice. Once with their own attention. Again with a team that never builds the confidence to operate without them. If you want the final say, take the accountability that comes with it. Otherwise hand both to one person and let them own it fully. Decide who owns the website. Then actually let them. by @elai.uiux
0
9 days ago
Download
We spend 90 minutes before anyone at Drip opens a design file. Clients sometimes push back on it. Then it saves their project. The agreement, in order: 1. Three outcomes this work has to produce. Real business outcomes. "Look more modern" doesn't count. 2. Two constraints that don't move. Launch date, budget, a tech stack we can't touch. Named out loud, written down. 3. One thing that would make this project a failure no matter how good it looks. That third one takes the longest. The room usually goes quiet. Good. That silence is the whole point. Because if the founder and the marketing lead disagree on what failure means, I want that fight in week one. Not in month three, after the work is built on the wrong answer. 90 minutes total. It removes three rounds of revisions, two stakeholder conflicts, and one expensive misalignment that would've surfaced way too late. Agencies skip this because it slows the start. It's the only reason we finish on time. Before you brief your next agency, decide what failure looks like. If they never ask, that tells you something. by @elai.uiux
0
10 days ago
Download
An expert buyer can smell an erased tradeoff in four seconds. They already know the hard parts of the problem. The edge cases, the dependencies, the thing that breaks at scale. So when your pitch jumps from "this is painful" straight to "we make it effortless," they read the jump itself. What got cut to make the story that clean. Outcome language with no mechanism. Claims with no conditions. Category phrases any company could paste in. Now they're wondering if the product is shallow. Or worse, if you assumed they wouldn't know enough to push back. I used to think the answer was more technical depth. Wrong direction. Depth for its own sake just buries the point. Expert buyers need a few precise signals: 1. What actually makes your approach different 2. Which constraint you resolve 3. The tradeoff you chose, on purpose 4. Where the boundaries are That's it. Four things that prove a decision was made. The best messaging is simple because the thinking behind it was rigorous. Do the hard thinking first, then compress. The complexity should still be findable when they go looking. by @elai.uiux
2
11 days ago
Download
Vague positioning feels safe. Then a real buyer asks one specific question. And the answer takes four minutes. Four minutes to explain what should be one sentence on your homepage. Founders keep the language wide because it feels inclusive. Every possible customer can see themselves in it. That's the theory anyway. In practice nobody can place you. The referral stumbles trying to describe you. The deck needs a live walkthrough to make sense. Clarity is a commitment. You name who you serve and what you promise, and some people walk away. That part is supposed to hurt a little. Vagueness is a debt. Someone lands on your site, reads two lines, leaves confused. That cost comes back on every touchpoint, and it compounds. Here's what I recommend. Write the one-sentence answer before you touch the website. If it takes four minutes right now, that's the actual work. by @elai.uiux
0
12 days ago
Download
Run this test: put a competitor's logo on your homepage. If nothing feels wrong, you found the real problem. Generic copy means the company hasn't decided who the product is for, what changes for them, and why they should believe it. Finding that sentence is strategy work. A sharper writer can't manufacture a conviction you haven't actually reached. Here's how I work through it with clients: 1. Name the customer so specifically it makes you nervous. 2. Write the change in their words. One claim, one mechanism behind it. 3. List what you'll stop saying. This is the step that gets skipped. Clarity is expensive because it closes doors. Naming your audience means walking away from three others, and that commitment is exactly what the vague version is avoiding. Vagueness feels safe. It also converts nobody in particular. Before you brief the rewrite, decide who you're willing to lose. by @elai.uiux
0
13 days ago
Download
Three AI startups came to us with the exact same problem. None of them knew it yet. Every site was polished. Modern stack, clean type, good motion. Genuinely well built, honestly better than a lot of first drafts we get handed. But swap the logos and you couldn't tell them apart. That's what cheap production does now. The same tools get anyone to the same clean surface, so the surface stops carrying any information about who you are. The real problem underneath all three: nobody inside the company had decided the one sentence only they could say. It didn't exist. So the design had nothing to prove. Polish buys you about five seconds of credibility. Then a skeptical buyer starts looking for evidence, and matching your competitors isn't evidence. My recommendation was the same for all three. Make the claim first, then let every screen on the site work as proof of it. Decide what you alone can say. Design comes after. by @elai.uiux
1
14 days ago
Download

Download All

Save the photos and videos currently loaded on this page.

0Photos
0Videos
Ready to download 0 / 0

Keep this tab open until your download is ready.
back to up