Web agency.

A web agency takes on six packages of work: concept and structure, design, technical implementation, content, findability, and operation. The visible part — the design — is the smallest of them. Most of the working time goes into decisions you cannot see in the finished site: which content is needed at all, how it is ordered, what happens on a click, and what the page does when something goes wrong.

• Concept and information architecture. Which pages are needed, what they are called, how they connect, and what the path from first visit to enquiry looks like. This is where it is decided whether a website works later.
• Design. Grid, typography, colours, the states of interactive elements, behaviour on small screens. Not just the look of a front page but a system that twenty further pages can be built with without falling apart.
• Technical implementation. Front end, back end, editing system, forms, interfaces to existing systems, loading time, security. This is the part that has to carry for years.
• Content. Copy, images, video, translations. The item that delays projects most often, because it is planned as a side issue and then becomes the main one.
• Findability. Technical SEO, a clean heading structure, structured data, redirects on a relaunch. Start this after go-live and you pay for the same work twice.
• Operation. Hosting, updates, backups, monitoring, small changes. The part almost every quote touches on and almost every project underestimates.

Not every agency covers all six packages to the same depth, and no agency has to. What matters is that the offer makes clear which packages are included, which you take on yourself, and which simply nobody takes on. A detailed picture of our own work in design and implementation sits on our web design page. How such an undertaking runs from the client’s side — from enquiry to go-live, with the client’s obligations and the rights to the result — is described under have a website built.

Behind a professionally built website there are typically seven roles — and in small agencies one person fills two or three of them. That is not a shortcoming; it is the reason small teams are faster. It is, however, the point to ask about, because it decides the pace and the depth of your project.

• Project management. Holds dates, scope and budget together, translates between you and the team, and says no to wishes that would tip the project over.
• Strategy and concept. Settles audience, offer and demand before anybody designs. Left out most often, and missed most painfully.
• UX and interaction design. Structure, user guidance, forms, operating logic. Works on what people do, not on what they see.
• Visual design. The brand on screen, the visual language, the design system.
• Front-end development. Turns design into code and answers for loading time, rendering across devices, and operability with keyboard and screen reader.
• Back-end development. Data model, editing system, interfaces, form processing — everything that computes behind the surface.
• Visibility and measurement. Technical SEO, structured data, analytics and conversion tracking. Without this role, nobody is able to say after go-live whether the new site is better than the old one.

The practical consequence: do not ask how many people an agency has, ask which of these seven roles are actually involved in your project and who fills them. A team of three that covers all seven delivers more reliably than a team of fifteen in which the person from the sales meeting never appears again after the signature. If you want to test how an agency handles the measurement side, look at what we describe as the minimum standard under conversion tracking.

The four routes differ less in the result than in the question of who carries responsibility, capacity and the risk of somebody dropping out. This page therefore looks at them from an operating perspective: who will still be working on this website in three years, and what happens if that person is unavailable?

• Web agency. Several roles under one contract, cover arranged, knowledge held in a team rather than in one head. You also pay for overhead and coordination. It carries when technology, content and visibility are needed at the same time and nobody internally has time to steer.
• Freelancer. A direct line to the person doing the work, no overhead, often the faster route for a clearly bounded brief. The downside is structural rather than personal: no cover during illness, holidays or a change of client, and the range ends where a second discipline is needed.
• Site builder. You take on every role yourself and pay a subscription instead of a fee. That adds up as long as the website is a calling card and somebody in the building regularly has time for it. As soon as findability, interfaces or your own processes come into it, the money saved is more than used up by your own hours. The comparison of a builder against a bespoke site is worked through on build a website with AI.
• In-house team. Sensible as soon as the need permanently occupies more than half a post, or when the business needs so much explaining that external copy always has to be reworked. Set salary, social contributions, tools, onboarding and management effort against the fee — and expect that one internal person rarely covers technology, design and visibility to a good standard at the same time.

In practice, mixed forms are more common than pure ones: an internal owner for content and approvals, an agency for technology and visibility, freelancers as needed for photography or translation. Which criteria to apply when comparing specific providers, and which questions in a first conversation actually reveal something, is in the selection guide.

None of the terms is protected, and every agency may call itself what it likes — the difference lies in where the professional core sits and what is bought in. This classification does not help you judge quality, but it explains why the same enquiry produces three completely different quotes at three providers.

• Web agency. The core is the digital product: website, shop, web app. Strength in structure, implementation and operation. Campaigns and classic advertising material come on top, if at all.
• Advertising agency. The core is the message: campaign, copy, image, channel mix. A website often arises there as a campaign vehicle — strong in design, technically deep to varying degrees depending on the house.
• Digital agency. An umbrella term for everything digital, usually with a focus on performance marketing, analytics and channel management. How much development of its own sits behind it varies widely.
• Full-service agency. Promises everything under one contract. What that means in daily practice, and how you spot a label with nothing behind it, is set out on our page full service agency.
• Specialist agency. One discipline only, but deep: SEO, Google Ads, UX, accessibility. Sensible as a supplement when one place in an existing setup is demonstrably stuck.

Practically, that means: do not read the self-description, read the portfolio. If an agency shows ten campaigns and two websites, it is an advertising agency whatever the front page says. The reverse holds too. Anyone looking for an agency with a City of Zurich angle will find our corresponding page under digital agency Zurich.

By things you can check yourself in twenty minutes — not by awards and not by size. The tests below concern the web craft only; the commercial criteria such as transparency on hours, ownership of data and notice periods are dealt with in the selection guide linked above.

• Measure a delivered site. Ask for two or three current client projects and test them on a phone with a public loading-time tool. An agency that promises speed has to be able to show it on a real project, not on its own front page.
• Ask about the code. Where is the repository, do you get access, and what happens to it at the end of the contract? Anyone without a clear answer probably has no clean versioning either.
• Test operability without a mouse. Open a reference project and navigate it with the tab key only. Visible focus markers and a sensible order are a reliable sign of careful craft.
• Ask to be shown the editing system. Not as a presentation but live: how do you change a piece of text, swap an image, create a page? If it looks complicated, nobody will do it after go-live.
• Ask about the relaunch plan. Replacing an existing site requires a redirect list. Without one, the new website loses part of its existing findability on the day it goes live — a mistake that costs months.
• Talk about accessibility. In the EU, binding requirements have applied to many digital offerings since 28 June 2025 under the European Accessibility Act. In Switzerland the Disability Discrimination Act so far obliges mainly the public sector; a partial revision intended to cover private providers as well is before parliament and, as at August 2026, is not in force. An agency that states the difference between applicable law and a planned revision precisely tends to work precisely elsewhere too.

Go-live is the start of the running costs, not the end of the project. A website is software: it has dependencies that age, security holes that get found, and content that goes out of date. Anyone who does not plan for operation is planning the next relaunch in three years.

Four things arise regularly in ongoing operation. First, technology: updates to the system and its dependencies, backups, restore tests, availability monitoring, certificates. Second, content: new services, changed prices, current projects, staff changes. Third, measurement: somebody has to look at the numbers and derive changes from them, otherwise the tracking is expensive decoration. Fourth, small developments: an additional form field, a new landing page, an integration.

How that is organised decides the cost. A maintenance agreement with a fixed scope covers technology and security and is the cheapest option for websites that change little in content. An hour bank fits when small changes arise regularly and nobody can predict their extent. A retainer only pays off once editorial and marketing work run alongside operation — at that point maintenance turns into support. What such an ongoing collaboration looks like on the visibility side is described under ongoing SEO.

The most expensive option is "we will get in touch if something comes up". Websites do not get in touch. They get slow, their forms quietly stop sending, their content ages — and it usually only gets noticed when the enquiries stop. Half an hour a month spent on availability, form submissions and the key numbers prevents most of these cases.

Three models are usual — fixed price per project, hour bank and monthly retainer — and they answer different questions. The fixed price answers "what does this one undertaking cost me?", the hour bank "how much work can I call off?", the retainer "who looks after this permanently?". Choose the wrong model and you argue later about supplements instead of about results.

For the fixed price: it is only as good as the specification behind it. A fixed price without an agreed number of pages, without defined language versions and without clarity on who supplies copy and images is not security. It is an appointment to argue. For the hour bank: ask for a statement that shows what the hours went on, and set the amount above which you are asked in advance. For the retainer: it is a booking of capacity. Two offers at the same monthly price can contain very different numbers of hours.

To put hourly rates in context: in German-speaking Switzerland they run, in our experience, roughly between CHF 100 and CHF 250 depending on role and seniority. That is a market assessment from practice and not a surveyed statistic — use it as a rough yardstick, not as a negotiating argument. The concrete price frames for DLM Digital are collected on web design and SEO costs; anyone needing a first order of magnitude for their own undertaking gets there in a few minutes with the website cost calculator.

A web agency is the wrong choice when the undertaking is too small, too unclear, or not carried internally. This section sits deliberately on an agency’s own page, because an engagement that starts for any of these reasons ends expensively for both sides.

• The undertaking is too small. A single page, one form, a change of wording: you do not need an agency with project management, a concept phase and sign-off loops for that. A freelancer, or an hour with your existing provider, is faster and cheaper.
• The goal is unclear. Anyone who cannot say what should happen commercially on the new website will get a different offer from every provider. Settle the goal first — in a short paid preliminary project if necessary.
• Nobody internally carries the project. Every web project needs approvals, subject-matter answers, copy and credentials. Without one person who has two to four hours a month for it, the project fails regardless of the agency’s quality.
• A system change is coming. If a new inventory or booking system arrives in six months and the website is meant to connect to it, you will build twice. Postpone the start, or limit it to the parts that are independent of it.
• The demand is not there. If your customers come exclusively through personal referral and there is no meaningful search demand for your service, a fast and honest calling-card website is the right answer — not a twenty-page project.

The most honest test is the cheapest one: write down in five sentences what should be different in twelve months. If those five sentences do not come together, the result of that exercise is worth more than any quote.

DLM Digital is a small web agency with its own development team, based at Gustav-Maurer-Strasse 23 in 8702 Zollikon near Zurich. We build and run websites, online shops and web applications, and alongside that we work on findability — classic SEO, GEO and Google Ads. Short paths instead of layers: whoever sits in the first meeting works on the project afterwards.

The evidence is completed projects rather than awards. For JUCAN Tailored Suits, a website, a Shopify store and the branding were built. For Leo Ristorante in the Globus building in Zurich, a complete site. For Steuererklärung Zürich, a web application with a login, document upload and appointment booking. Alongside those: Nolte Küchen Zürich, Basilica Zürich, Racher Papeterie, Edelweiss Räumungen, Rohrsanova and Kanal One. Every project, with its starting point and its scope, is under our work.

Just as honestly, this belongs here too: what we are not. We are not an advertising agency with media planning for poster, radio and television. We are not a provider of native iOS and Android apps. We have no legal department of our own for privacy notices and contracts. When an undertaking sits there, we say so in the first conversation — and we would rather advise against it than take on an engagement we can only half carry. What genuinely fits together under the label of full service, and what does not, is set out on the page full service agency.