Web Rebuild & SEO for Travel & Tours Company
-
Search Engine Optimization Web Design Web Development
-
WordPress CMS Mobile optimization Technical SEO WordPress SEO
- $10,000 to $49,999
- Mar. 2025 - Apr. 2026
- Quality
- 0.5
- Schedule
- 0.5
- Cost
- 0.5
- Willing to Refer
- 0.5
"Items were not delivered on time."
- Recreation
- Barcelona, Spain
- 1-10 Employees
- Online Review
- Verified
Big Red Jelly rebuilt a travel and tours company's website using WordPress. The team also provided SEO services, including GBP setup, keyword research, on-site SEO, and content creation.
Big Red Jelly delivered a website with commercial content hidden from search engines, a non-functional contact form, and no Google Business Profile setup. The client found the team's project management process to be structured but ultimately ineffective, as they failed to deliver on time.
The client submitted this review online.
BACKGROUND
Please describe your company and position.
I am the Owner of a recreation company
Describe what your company does in a single sentence.
Travel and tours company offering private services and tours to travelers since 2003.
OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE
What specific goals or objectives did you hire Big Red Jelly to accomplish?
- complete website rebuild with a high-converting lead-generation tool with a strong SEO foundation.
- SEO programme under their Grow subscription
SOLUTION
How did you find Big Red Jelly?
- Online Search
- Clutch Site
Why did you select Big Red Jelly over others?
- High ratings
- Pricing fit our budget
How many teammates from Big Red Jelly were assigned to this project?
2-5 Employees
Describe the scope of work in detail. Please include a summary of key deliverables.
Contract 1 — Website Build ($8,650) Full rebuild of an existing WordPress/Elementor site contracted explicitly as a high-converting lead-generation tool with a strong SEO foundation. Deliverables confirmed in writing at signing: approximately 50 commercial pages rebuilt, functional contact form, correct heading tag hierarchy sitewide, 301 redirect audit, schema/structured data implementation, mobile-optimised performance, and a site architecturally capable of search engine indexing.
Contract 2 — Grow Plan ($995/month × 8 months) Ongoing SEO and digital marketing retainer. Named deliverables per the signed Statement of Work: Google Business Profile setup and verification (Month 1), keyword research, on-site SEO optimisation (meta titles, descriptions, H1–H4 tags), technical SEO fixes, broken link repair, schema/structured data, website speed and performance, CRM setup and automations, content creation (2 pages/posts per month), and weekly updates with monthly reporting. Six contracted hours per month across eight months.
RESULTS & FEEDBACK
What were the measurable outcomes from the project that demonstrate progress or success?
No measurable outcomes attributable to the contracted work were achieved. The site was delivered with all commercial content hidden from search engines — structurally preventing organic visibility from day one. The contact form, the sole mechanism for converting visitors into leads, was non-functional for four months from launch. No Google Business Profile was set up during the eight-month SEO programme. Schema was never implemented. These are not outcome shortfalls — they are the absence of the foundational conditions required for any outcome to be possible.
- The only measurable results from this engagement are on the remediation side. After independently completing contracted work:
- Mobile PageSpeed: 60/100 at BRJ delivery → 98/100 after independent rebuild. Same infrastructure. Same platform.
- Schema: 0 types implemented at delivery → 7 types implemented and Google-validated independently
- Google Business Profile: not set up after 8 months → set up, verified, and optimised independently
- Contact form: broken for 4 months → replaced and functioning independently
The performance gap between a BRJ-delivered page and an independently rebuilt page on identical infrastructure — tested on the same day — is documented and objective. It is the most direct measure of what was delivered versus what was contracted.
Describe their project management. Did they deliver items on time? How did they respond to your needs?
Project management was handled through weekly calls and a shared internal Blueprint document maintained by BRJ. On the surface the process appeared structured and professional. In practice it masked a consistent pattern that only became apparent on independent audit.
Deliverables were marked complete in BRJ's own system on a regular cadence throughout the engagement. Multiple completions were false. Heading tag optimisation: marked complete, errors found sitewide on independent audit. 301 redirect audit: marked complete, junk entries and duplicates found throughout. Schema: marked complete in monthly updates, never implemented. Google Business Profile: marked as on roadmap, not actioned for seven months. The consequence of false status reporting is specific and serious: a client receiving regular completion updates has no reason to investigate independently. By the time the pattern became apparent — through months of zero results and a full technical audit — the billing had run its course.
Responsiveness during the engagement was good. Calls were kept, emails were answered, and the team was consistently pleasant to deal with. When issues were raised the response was always timely. The response was also always the same: reassurance, deferral, or a suggestion that the item was not in scope. Friendly and accountable are not the same thing. This engagement had the first without the second.
Items were not delivered on time. Several named Month 1 deliverables were not delivered at all across eight months of billing. The engagement concluded with BRJ's own written proposal to continue charging monthly to complete the outstanding contracted work — which is the clearest possible statement that the project management process did not result in the project being managed to completion.
What was your primary form of communication with Big Red Jelly?
- Virtual Meeting
- Email or Messaging App
What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?
The visual design output was professional and the site presented well on the surface. The build team was collaborative and responsive during that phase of the project. The sales process was also genuinely impressive — detailed, confident, and effective. Objectives were confirmed in writing, the contract appeared thorough, and the overall proposition was convincing enough to justify a $16,610 commitment. In hindsight that polish was concentrated entirely in the front end of the relationship. If there is something unique about this company it is the distance between the presentation and the delivery — and how long that distance takes to become visible.
Are there any areas for improvement or something Big Red Jelly could have done differently?
Several, all documented.
Technical delivery must be reviewed at the structural level, not only the visual. A peer review process that catches SEO architecture failures before launch is not optional on a site contracted for SEO performance. The core failure in this engagement — commercial content hidden from search engines — would have been identified immediately by a second set of eyes applying basic technical standards.
A team-marketed process must involve actual team oversight. One individual per phase with no visible quality control is not a team. The gap between what is marketed and what is resourced is significant and has direct consequences for delivery quality.
Named deliverables in a signed contract must be delivered. Not marked complete in a project management system when they have not been done. Not deferred month to month. Not questioned as out of scope seven months into an eight-month programme. Not proposed as new paid work after the contract ends.
When a client raises documented failures, those failures require a specific response. Not three generic paragraphs. Not a proposal to charge again for undelivered work. A specific, honest response that engages with the evidence. That is the minimum professional standard and it was not met.
Most importantly: when something goes wrong — and something will go wrong in any engagement — own it. The absence of accountability here was not incidental. It was consistent, documented, and ultimately the defining characteristic of this engagement.
RATINGS
-
Quality
0.5Service & Deliverables
"Visual design quality was professional. Everything beneath the surface — technical architecture, SEO foundation, structured data, performance optimisation, contact form integrity — was either undelivered, incorrectly delivered, or falsely marked complete. The contracted product was not built to its contracted specification."
-
Schedule
0.5On time / deadlines
"Named Month 1 deliverables were not completed by Month 7. The hidden content structure that made the entire SEO programme ineffective was never corrected across eight months of billing. The full thirteen-month engagement — build and SEO programme combined — was contracted to have the site performing by peak season. It was not. Deadlines were not met because the work was not done."
-
Cost
0.5Value / within estimates
"$16,610 paid. Over 250 hours of independent remediation subsequently required to bring the site to the standard it should have been delivered at — exceeding $38,000 in value at the agency's own stated rate. The refund request was declined. No acknowledgement of any failure was offered. There is no version of this in which the cost represented value."
-
Willing to Refer
0.5NPS
"No. Not under any circumstances. Not because the people are unpleasant — they are not — but because the documented gap between what this agency sells, what it reports, and what it actually delivers represents a material risk to any business that depends on its website to generate revenue. That risk is not theoretical. It is documented in this review.