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.

Why expert sites undersell the expert

My wife is a physician who founded and runs a healthcare company, wrote State Change, and can hold a room. For years her website read like a polite brochure. Meet her and you remember the conversation for a week. Visit the site and you'd forgotten it by lunch.

I rebuilt it. Some of what I fixed mattered and some of it didn't, and the gap between those two is the actual subject here.

The site opened with credentials

Board-certified, published in, featured on, founder of. Those answer "is she qualified," which is not the question anyone arrives with. They arrive with "does this person understand what's happening to me." An expert who describes your problem more precisely than you can is presumed competent. Credentials confirm that presumption. They can't create it.

The content was filed by format

A blog tab, a podcast tab, a press tab, a books tab. That's an archive, and an archive puts the work on the reader. Nobody wants the podcast. They want the answer about sleep, in whatever form it happens to exist. Reorganizing around questions instead of formats did three things at once: people found things, Google finally understood what the site was about, and each new piece started making the older ones easier to find instead of burying them.

The exits assumed a decision nobody had made yet

A newsletter box in the footer, a contact page behind a nav link. Both are built for someone who has already decided, and they quietly lose everyone else, which is nearly everyone. What works is meeting people at their actual temperature. Someone who just read about a problem they have is warm. Give them something small and adjacent, right there.

Now the part I had wrong

I assumed the site would be the growth engine. The newsletter had a strong run this summer, and when I traced the spikes they lined up with our social lead's Instagram work, not with anything I'd built. She'd been repurposing high-performing posts from a few months back with fresh subscribe links. I had the dashboard. She had the cause. Some of it gave back as unsubscribes caught up, which is its own lesson about calling a peak a trend.

That is the argument for measuring in the first place. Without it I'd have kept crediting the site and kept investing in the wrong surface.

I'd still make all three fixes. A site that undersells you is a tax you pay on every introduction. But the site is usually where interest converts, not where it originates, and it's worth knowing which one you're building.

The through-line in all three problems is boring. The site was assembled out of parts, a bio here, a blog there, a form somewhere, by different people at different times, and nobody owned the whole thing. Her actual work has a spine. The site presenting it didn't. That's why I build the product, the content, and the measurement as one thing rather than three separate projects.

If yours has that problem you probably already know. It's the thing you apologize for before you send the link.