The Search Standard — Presentation May 13

The wireframe

What this is

This is a wireframe of your home page. It is the structure of the page — the order of sections, the logic of the argument, the rhythm of how a serious buyer moves from "who is this person" to "what is the system" to "is this for me" to "what does it cost."

It is the blueprint, not the building.

Think of it the way an architect's drawing relates to a finished house: every wall is in the right place, every door opens the right way, the rooms are sized correctly — but it is not painted, not furnished, and the materials are placeholders.

What this isn't

• It is not the final visual design. The fonts, the cream paper, the hand-drawn arrows, the red margin notes, the placeholder image boxes — none of that is the finished look. Those are wireframe conventions used to communicate structure without distracting us with polish we haven't decided on yet.
• It is not the final copy. The headlines and body text are close to final voice, but every line is still up for revision. Treat the words as a strong first draft, not a contract.
• It is not the final imagery. Where you see a hatched gray box labelled "FULL-BLEED HERO IMAGE — analog desk · phone · ledger · dim warm light," that is a placeholder describing the intent of an image we have not yet sourced or shot.
• It is not built in Kajabi yet. This is a working document. Once you sign off on the structure, the build happens inside Kajabi against this blueprint.
• It is not "almost done." It is a structural milestone. Visual design, photography, copy editing, and Kajabi build are the next phases — each is its own pass.

What to give feedback on

1. The order of the sections. Does the page move in the right sequence for your buyer? Hero → Problem → New Model → Who It's For → Market → Ghost Strategy → Economics → Phone Manifesto → What You Get → How It's Organized → Investment → FAQ → Final CTA. Does anything need to move up, move down, or be cut?
2. Whether each section earns its place. Is there a section that is doing no work? Is there something missing that a serious operator would want to see before they buy?
3. The promises and the disqualifiers. Have I been honest about who this is for and who it isn't? Have I overstated anything? Understated anything?
4. The voice and tone. Does this sound like you? If a line lands wrong — too soft, too hard, not how you would say it — flag it.
5. The argument logic. Does the case build? Is there a missing step in the reasoning between any two sections? Does anything feel like a leap?
6. The investment framing. Is the price introduced at the right moment, with the right context around it?

What to not give feedback on yet (we'll get there)

• Fonts, font sizes, colors, button shapes, exact spacing.
• The look of the placeholder images.
• The red margin notes and arrows (those are designer-to-designer marks; they will not appear in the live page).
• Specific button copy ("Enter The Search Standard" vs. another label — we'll sweep this on the copy pass).
• Mobile layout details.

That work happens after the structure is approved. If we polish visuals before the structure is locked, we redo the polish three times.

How to leave feedback

Use the comment tool on the wireframe page itself (it lives in the right margin). Comment directly on the section you mean. Short, blunt notes are better than long ones. "Cut this," "move this up," "I would never say it this way," "missing here" is exactly the right register.

The Brand review

What this is

This is a strategic brand note — a working document that lays out:

1. The mark as delivered (the existing logo, shown plainly so we can talk about it).
2. Why a redraw is being recommended, not a rebrand.
3. What stays — the ideas the current mark owns that are correct and worth carrying forward (the phone, the bronze, the "Search Standard" wordmark architecture, the tagline rhythm).
4. What gets replaced — the executional choices in the current rendering that are working against the brand (the metallic gradient, the heavy bevel, the sunburst, the decorative shield, the inflated letterforms).
5. The principle the new mark will be built against: does the concept read first, in one color, at any size?
6. Why this isn't a rebrand — because positioning, name, tagline, and color family all stay. Only the rendering changes.

It is a diagnostic and a direction, not a finished logo. It is the document a logo designer would receive before drawing anything.

What this isn't

• It is not the new logo. No new mark is shown. The redraw is the next phase, executed by a logo designer working from this brief.
• It is not a recommendation to throw out your brand. The opposite — it is a recommendation to protect what the brand has earned (the phone, the bronze, the name, the tagline) and replace only the rendering that is currently working against it.
• It is not an opinion piece. It is a structured argument with five sections, each one doing a specific job. It is meant to be read top to bottom.
• It is not a tone or copy document for the website. This is about the mark — the logo and how it carries the brand. Website voice and copy are handled separately on the wireframe.
• It is not final. It is a working note, open to discussion. The header literally says: "Working note · open to discussion."

What to give feedback on (please focus here)

1. Do you agree with the diagnosis? Is the current mark working for you, against you, or somewhere in between? Be honest — if you love it as-is, say so.
2. The four things being kept. The phone as doctrinal centerpiece. The weathered bronze. The "Search Standard" wordmark architecture. The tagline rhythm (quiet, lean, essential). Are any of these wrong? Is anything missing from this list that you would want kept?
3. The five things being replaced. The metallic gradient. The heavy bevel. The sunburst frame. The decorative shield. The compressed inflated letterforms. Do you disagree with any of these being on the "replace" list? Is there anything else in the current mark you also want gone?
4. The principle. Redraw the execution. Keep the idea. Built against the test: does the concept read first? Does this principle feel right to you for The Search Standard?
5. The framing of "redraw, not rebrand." Does the distinction land? Are you on board with this being a narrow surgical change, not a fresh start?
6. The "private bank's letterhead" reference. This is the register the new mark is aiming at — quiet authority, signaled through omission rather than ornament. Is that the right reference for how you want the brand to feel?

What to not give feedback on yet

• The new logo itself — it doesn't exist yet. We can't critique what isn't drawn.
• Specific typography choices — those get decided during the redraw phase.
• The colors of the document you're reading (cream paper, monospace labels, serif body) — that's the look of the brand note document, not of the future brand.
• Whether the wireframe colors and the brand note colors match — they are intentionally separate workstreams right now.

How to leave feedback

Use the comment tool on each numbered section. Short notes. "Agree," "Disagree — keep this," "Add this," "Wrong reference" — direct is better than diplomatic. If your reaction to a whole section is "no, the diagnosis is wrong here," say that and tell me why.