Think about your own work or business in this area: Maker launch on TinyLaunch: Your client's site structure, signed off before the mockups. the product is a site structure tool for web agencies and freelancers who build websites for… What is the single biggest problem you have there right now? Be specific about what it costs you (time, money, customers) and what you have already tried.

Loretta Turcottenegative

My biggest headache is definitely the initial site mapping and getting client buy-in. I spend so much time translating a single-sentence brief or a PDF into a Google Sheet sitemap, then sketching in Figma, and then wrestling with email threads for approvals. It's a huge time sink, easily a full day or more per project, especially if the client's initial brief is vague, which happens more often than I'd like. I've tried creating more detailed questionnaires upfront, but it doesn't always solve the core structural issue. It feels like I'm constantly reinventing the wheel for this early stage.

Simulated interest: 50/100

Herbert Kundeneutral

The biggest problem is getting clients to commit to page names and structures early on. They tend to dither, which delays the design phase and eats into our margins. We use a paid sitemap tool and Miro, but the client review process, often via screen shares and links, is clunky and prone to back-and-forth. This can cost us days of billable time across the team if a client changes their mind late in the game. We need a cleaner, more definitive sign-off before we commit designers.

Simulated interest: 50/100

Kiana Poserneutral

The biggest challenge for me is the sheer manual effort involved in translating a client's often vague PDF brief into a structured site map. This process is incredibly time-consuming, easily taking days per project, which impacts my billable hours and therefore my income. I've tried using more advanced spreadsheet formulas and flow charting tools, but it still feels like I'm rebuilding the wheel each time. The core issue is getting from abstract requirements to a concrete, logical structure efficiently. I'm curious about how a dedicated tool would streamline this, but I'd need to see it demonstrably faster than my current method.

Simulated interest: 40/100

Eekalabya Gandhinegative

The biggest problem is definitely the time it takes to manually validate the page structure with founders. I spend hours on WhatsApp and Google Slides, trying to get everyone on the same page. It costs me at least 3-4 hours per project, sometimes more if there are back-and-forth revisions. I’ve tried creating more detailed spreadsheets, but it doesn’t seem to speed things up significantly. This delay impacts my ability to take on more projects and can sometimes lead to scope creep if things aren't perfectly clear from the start.

Simulated interest: 75/100

Aurélie Massonnegative

The biggest problem right now is the manual effort involved in presenting and getting sign-off on site structures. We draft everything in Notion, map it out in Miro, and then export PDFs for review. This process is time-consuming, especially with revisions, and it feels cumbersome. It probably costs us several hours per project, which adds up significantly given our team size. We've tried to streamline it by being very clear upfront, but the back-and-forth on structure before we even get to visual design can be a bottleneck.

Simulated interest: 80/100

Matthew Harveypositive

The biggest problem is getting clients to truly *understand* and commit to the structure early on. They see the sitemap as just a formality, not the bedrock it is. I've tried endless calls and detailed explanations, but it doesn't always stick until we're deep into design and they realize we can't just add a whole new section. This costs us significant time in revisions and can erode client trust when we have to push back hard on scope creep. Honestly, if this tool can make that client buy-in more concrete and less of a battle, it's incredibly valuable.

Simulated interest: 75/100

Loet de Bruijnneutral

The biggest hurdle I face is getting clients, especially startups with tight budgets, to fully commit to a site structure before we've even discussed visual design. It's often a back-and-forth, trying to explain the long-term value and how it impacts their SEO down the line. I currently use Figma comments and shared links for this, but it can feel disjointed. It adds time because I have to manually translate feedback into structural changes, and if they don't buy in early, it can lead to costly rework later. I've tried to make it more visual with simple flowcharts in Notion, but it's still not as streamlined as it could be.

Simulated interest: 70/100

Esther Souzanegative

The biggest problem for us is definitely scope creep. We start with a brief and a page tree, which is great for initial alignment, but clients often want to add more features or change the structure once they see initial designs, even after the page tree sign-off. This adds significant time to the project, sometimes an extra 10-15 hours per project, which we can't always bill for directly. We’ve tried being more explicit in our contracts about what's included in the initial sign-off, but it doesn't always prevent the 'just one more thing' requests. It impacts our team's bandwidth and frankly, can be quite frustrating when we're trying to stick to a schedule.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Melba Robelnegative

Honestly, the biggest hurdle is translating vague client feedback into concrete site structures. We spend so much time deciphering notes, whether they're scribbled on PDFs or in scattered Google Docs, before we can even start mapping things out in Mural. This back-and-forth eats up valuable hours, and sometimes, if a client is particularly unclear, it can delay the whole design phase, which feels like a loss for everyone. We've tried more structured intake forms, but it hasn't fully solved the ambiguity problem.

Simulated interest: 30/100

Barsaba Asaroneutral

The biggest problem I face is ensuring clients fully grasp the site structure *before* we move to mockups. Often, their feedback comes late, leading to rework. This costs me time, maybe a few hours per project, which adds up. I use spreadsheets and shared folders, which is fine, but it can be a bit clunky for clients to visualize. I've tried more detailed call summaries, but it's not quite the same as them seeing it laid out clearly. What I'm missing is a way to get that sign-off more definitively earlier on without introducing a complex tool.