B2 · 2026 · Web
Briqhaus site
Briqhaus was pitching software with no website to show. A large client meeting was booked, so the site had to be live before it. The public face of the platform the CRM and Buyer Portal sit behind.
Visit briqhaus.com- What I did
- Design, copy, front end and back end in about a week: the argument, the page, and Payload CMS on Neon so marketing owns every word.
- Result
- Live at briqhaus.com, built solo in about a week. Marketing edits every word of it without me.
No website, no meeting
Briqhaus was going into sales conversations with nothing to show. The first thing a client does after you pitch is look you up, and looking us up returned nothing. A company selling the software that runs a builder's whole business cannot be a company without a website.
A large client meeting was already booked. The site had to be live before that meeting, not after it.
No website is an answer, and it is the wrong one
Written for someone standing on a site
The reader is a real-estate builder in India who runs projects, a sales team and a lot of paperwork, and who is rarely at a desk. Briqhaus is pitching them one operating system for all of it: leads and quotations, live inventory, RERA-compliant agreements, demand letters, payment tracking, GST and TDS, a branded buyer app, and an AI layer on top.
So the page has one job. Land the promise in a line, prove it with the product, and get a demo booked. Everything else is detail for the second visit.
Three things shaped it. This site sits in front of the CRM the sales team lives in and the portal the buyer sees, both of which I designed, so someone who books a demo should recognise what they are shown. Every claim had to be one the product can back, because marketing the CRM cannot support becomes a support ticket three weeks later. And I had about a week, on my own, with the founders signing it off. The look came from the product rather than a separate brand exercise.
The argument, in the order a builder asks it
Built for the person checking us out
Answer the credibility check first, sell second
Instead of A full marketing site with a page per feature
Nobody arrives at this site to browse. They arrive because someone pitched them and they want to know whether the company is real. That is a different job from explaining a product, and it is the one that was blocking sales.
So the scope was one page that does the whole job: the promise, proof it exists, the workflow, and a way to book a demo. A site that is live and thin beats a site that is thorough and three weeks away, because the meeting does not move.
After A page that answers the first thing a client checks, live in a week.
Walk the workflow, do not list the features
Numbered steps from lead to money, with the real screen at each one
Instead of A grid of features
A feature grid is the default for software like this, and it asks the reader to assemble the product in their head. A builder does not want to know there is inventory management and a demand letter generator.
They want to know what happens between a lead calling and money arriving.
After The page walks a builder from a lead calling to money arriving, and that is what shipped.
Marketing changes the pitch, not a ticket
Payload CMS on Neon from day one, before the first page was designed
Instead of Shipping static copy and wiring a CMS in later
This is a product that ships something new most months, so the claims on the page have a shelf life measured in weeks. A new module, a new client to name, a price that moved.
A site whose copy is a code change makes every one of those edits wait for a developer. That is the same bottleneck that had sales waiting on a website in the first place, moved one step down the line.
So the CMS went in before the design did. Marketing writes the page now, and I never see the edit.
After A day of setup, and the pitch changes as often as the product does without me in the loop.
Nothing on the page the product cannot do
I wrote the copy because I had built the thing it describes
Instead of Handing a feature list to someone to write around
Marketing copy is written to be true in six months. A builder books the demo this week, and a promise the CRM cannot keep becomes a support ticket three weeks later.
I had designed the CRM and the Buyer Portal, so I knew which sentences were safe. That is the argument for the designer writing the page: not better prose, fewer claims that cannot be paid.
After No claim on the site outruns the CRM, so the demo matches the page.
Two things I would change
The site uses the CRM's components and colours, so a demo does not feel like a different company. It also runs a little more modern than the CRM currently does, because the CRM is not there yet and the site should not be held to the oldest thing it describes. That gap is deliberate, and it is a debt the product has to pay. I would rather name it than pretend the two are in step.
The other is how much it shows. The page puts real screens of a product that is only now reaching the market, which is useful for convincing a builder and just as useful to anyone who wants to copy the interface. I would keep the outcome public and move the detail behind the demo. The page can sell what changes for the buyer without handing the layout to a competitor for free.