What does NiceSalt do?

The thinking and the building. Positioning and messaging, the product, platform, or site itself, the content around it, and the measurement that tells you whether any of it worked.

Who do you work best with?

Founders, operators, and teams building something complicated, where credibility is part of the product. That has meant a physician's publishing platform, a harm-reduction health product, an AI media concept, and multi-tenant platforms inside much larger companies. Health, science, and consumer products are where most of the recent work sits.

How is this different from an agency?

You work directly with the person making the decisions. Fewer hand-offs, faster proof, and specialists brought in when the scope earns them rather than staffed onto it by default. Most projects can start within two weeks.

Someone referred me. What's the fastest path?

Request a free teardown with a link and one line about what's bothering you. David reviews every request and will confirm availability and timing if it is selected.

Production got cheap. Judgment didn't.

I built this site in about a week. It looks fine. Then I asked Google what it thought the site was, and Google told me I sell mayonnaise.

Not a metaphor. Search the domain and one of the results is a product page for Hampton Creek Just Mayo, left over from whoever owned nicesalt.com before I did. Still sitting in the index, quietly competing with a consulting studio.

Small problem, and a funny one. It points at a much less funny one.

Ten years ago a professional-looking site was proof of spend. Someone hired designers, wrote copy, paid a developer. Looking good was a signal because looking good was expensive. That signal is gone. A template or an afternoon with AI gets you something perfectly credible, and I'd know, because that's roughly what mine took.

What the tools won't do is ask the three questions that decide whether the thing works.

Who is coming, and from where

Production answers what the site looks like. It never asks how anyone arrives. Most sites I look at have a confident answer to the first and no answer at all to the second, and the second is what determines whether the first matters.

What am I measuring, and is there anything to measure yet

Analytics is easy to install and easy to misread. I had GA4 and Search Console wired on day one, which felt responsible, and it told me nothing I couldn't have guessed until I went and read the index by hand. A dashboard reports what's happening on your site. It won't tell you what the internet already believes about your address.

What gets built next

DIY sites launch and freeze, because there's no evidence to build a roadmap from. A site that works is a sequence of small bets, each one shaped by what the last taught you. Over a year, the gap between that and a frozen site isn't cosmetic.

None of this is an argument against the tools. I use AI constantly: the build, illustration, motion, content production. It's why a small team can ship what used to take an agency, and I'm not giving that back.

But the tools will happily help you build a beautiful answer to a question nobody asked, and they will never stop to ask who's coming. Mine let me publish a studio on top of a condiment.

If your site looks fine and isn't doing much, the fix usually isn't another redesign. Send me the link and I'll tell you what I find.