Technical SEO in a Business Context: Why Fixes Need a Strategy

Introduction: Technical SEO Only Matters if It Moves the Business

Technical SEO is not a checklist you run through until everything turns green. It is the behind-the-scenes work that determines whether search engines can find, understand, and trust your web pages – but that description only matters if the pages being found, understood, and trusted are the ones that generate enquiries, close deals, or grow your pipeline. Technical SEO directly impacts visibility and conversion rates. When that work is disconnected from commercial priorities, you end up with a fast, well-indexed website that nobody important is visiting.

This article explains why business context must drive every technical SEO recommendation – from crawl and indexation decisions to page speed improvements, schema markup, and site architecture. It draws on current data from 2026, where B2B and service companies are competing not only in google search but increasingly in AI overviews and generative answer engines. If your technical work is not shaped by what you sell, where you sell it, and who you want to reach, it is almost certainly leaving revenue on the table.

In plain language, technical SEO covers crawlability (whether search engine bots can access your pages), indexation (whether those pages appear in search results), site architecture (how your web content is organised), page speed and core web vitals (how fast and stable your pages feel), internal links (how pages connect to each other), and schema markup (structured signals that help search engines understand what a page is about). Technical SEO optimizes website backend structure and code, and it helps search engines crawl, index, and render webpages. It differs from content strategy, which addresses what you write, and from link building, which focuses on how other sites vouch for your authority.

Gareth at RedShaw Consulting specialises in tying these technical decisions to commercial goals for service and B2B companies. If anything in this article resonates with challenges you are facing, the contact page is the simplest way to start a conversation about what is actually worth fixing on your site.

Why Technical SEO Fixes Fail Without Business Context

The most common failure pattern in technical SEO is what you might call “audit shopping.” A tool generates a report with 200 or 300 warnings. Someone – usually an agency or a well-meaning developer – starts working through the list from the top. Broken links get fixed on blog posts from 2019 that nobody reads. Thin tag pages that generate zero leads get consolidated. Meanwhile, the three service pages that actually drive high-value enquiries remain slow, poorly linked, or buried under canonical confusion. Regular audits can identify site errors like broken links, but identifying errors is not the same as knowing which ones matter commercially.

Consider a service business based in London offering three tiers of consulting. Their site health score improves from 72 to 94 after an agency engagement. The audit warnings are resolved. But qualified leads do not increase because the pages ranking well are generic knowledge-base articles, not the pages describing their flagship offering. In a different scenario, a SaaS vendor in 2026 achieves near-perfect crawl stats and passes every core web vitals check, yet their pipeline stalls because the pages that rank are targeting informational queries (“what is X”) rather than high-intent queries that match their buyer profile. Technical SEO improvements can increase organic traffic by 20 to 50 percent, but only when the traffic increase lands on pages aligned with what the business actually sells.

The gap between search engine visibility and business performance is where most technical work goes wrong. Rankings and impressions look impressive in reports, but if the pages ranking are not conversion-relevant, those numbers are vanity metrics. What matters is whether the right pages – core service pages, key location landing pages, high-intent resource hubs – are the ones gaining visibility.

Typical misalignments include spending developer hours on duplicate content across unimportant archives, allowing hundreds of near-identical tag or category pages to stay indexed despite negligible traffic, or pursuing perfect performance scores on blog templates that never generate a single enquiry. With generative engine optimization now layering on top of traditional search, these misalignments become more costly. Being cited in AI overviews or answer engines only matters if the cited pages match your commercially important topics. Research from 2024–2026 into generative engine optimization shows that AI systems select sources based on entity clarity, structured content, and domain trust – not just traditional ranking position. That means unfocused technical work risks optimising pages that neither search engines nor AI engines will ever surface for your money queries.

Crawlability and Indexation: Prioritising What Actually Drives Leads

Crawlability is whether search engine crawlers can access and fetch your pages. Indexation is whether those pages end up in the search engine’s index, eligible to appear when someone types a query. The mechanisms controlling these include the robots txt file (which tells crawlers what they may and may not access), HTTP status codes (200 for success, 301 for redirects, 404 for missing pages), canonical tags (which indicate the preferred version of duplicate pages), meta robots directives like “noindex,” and xml sitemap files that list the URLs you want search engine bots to prioritise. Robots.txt files control which site parts crawlers can access, and XML sitemaps help search engines discover content efficiently.

Improving crawlability ensures search engines discover important pages, but not every URL on your site deserves that discovery. Faceted search URLs on ecommerce websites – the kind generated by every filter combination – waste crawl budget without adding value. Thin calendar or archive pages with a sentence or two of content rarely rank and dilute signals. Duplicate location variants with the same content under slightly different URLs compete against each other. On the other hand, core service pages, high-intent local landing pages, and resource hubs with genuine depth deserve full crawl access and clean indexation. Crawl budget limits how many pages Google crawls on a site, so every URL you allow to consume that budget is a choice about where your visibility goes.

Mapping crawl and index decisions to business goals means asking a simple question for each URL: does this page contribute to revenue or qualified leads? If the answer is no, consider setting it to noindex, consolidating it with a stronger page, or removing it entirely. Google Search Console’s “Discovered – currently not indexed” report is especially revealing here. Pages appearing in that report are being found by Google but not deemed worth indexing – and the reason is often quality, relevance, or duplication, not a broken technical setting. Soft 404s, where a page returns a 200 status code but contains content that amounts to “nothing here,” also waste resources. These are not purely technical errors; they are signals that the page adds nothing useful for users and search engines alike.

Google uses links to discover new pages on the web, which makes your internal linking and sitemap strategy directly responsible for which pages get found first and most often. Descriptive URLs improve user experience and SEO, and organising URLs in directories helps Google crawl efficiently. A logical URL structure should allow access within three clicks from the homepage, and URLs should avoid query parameters for better tracking and cleaner crawl paths. Using keywords in URLs can enhance search visibility, but only when those keywords match genuine search demand and business priorities.

Using Sitemaps, Robots and Canonicals with a Business Lens

Your xml sitemap should emphasise money pages – services, locations, core resources – rather than listing every minor or duplicate URL the CMS generates. SEO strategies involve submitting an updated XML sitemap whenever you add or restructure important pages, and removing URLs that no longer serve a commercial purpose. A sitemap bloated with thin or duplicate pages sends mixed signals about what you consider valuable.

Common robots.txt mistakes include accidentally blocking directories like /wp-content/ that contain images or CSS needed for rendering, or blocking entire subdirectories that house high-value pages. Testing these with Google Search Console’s URL inspection tool and reviewing server log files will show you what Googlebot is actually accessing versus what you think it is accessing. Many site owners assume their configuration is correct because no one has checked it since the site launched. That assumption can quietly suppress pages google finds and would otherwise index.

Canonical tags should reflect commercial intent. When you have near-duplicate service or city pages – say “IT consulting Manchester” and “IT consulting North West” with largely overlapping content – the canonical link element should point to whichever version best matches demand and converts most effectively, not default to the homepage or some arbitrary page the CMS template selected. Misconfigured canonicals can silently remove your most important pages from search engine results. RedShaw Consulting’s audits link each canonical and indexation decision to specific services and target markets. If you are unsure whether your current setup is helping or hurting, the contact page is the place to start that conversation.

Page Templates, Site Architecture, and Internal Linking as Revenue Infrastructure

Most service and B2B sites are built on reusable templates: one for service pages, one for industry verticals, one for locations, one for case studies. Technical SEO decisions made at the template level – whether schema markup is included, how fast the template loads, how internal links are structured – multiply across dozens or hundreds of URLs. A misconfigured heading hierarchy in a service template does not affect one page; it affects every service page on the site. A solid site structure improves search engine visibility across all those pages simultaneously, which is why template-level decisions carry far more weight than one-off fixes.

Site architecture should mirror how the business sells. Primary services, sub-services, and locations should form clear hierarchies rather than existing as random landing pages created for short-lived ad campaigns and then abandoned. When the architecture reflects the business, users navigate intuitively from broad topics to specific offerings, and search engine crawlers follow the same logical paths. Search friendly site structures are not about aesthetics or developer preference; they are about ensuring the pages most important to the business sit at the right depth and receive the most authority.

Internal links are tools to route link equity and users towards high-value pages. Google finds most new pages through internal links, and a strong internal linking structure improves site authority across the site. Internal linking can distribute page authority from well-linked blog posts or resource pages down to deeper service pages that need more visibility. The anchor text used in those links should reflect real search queries and business language – “SEO consulting for professional services” rather than “click here” or “learn more.” Internal links can enhance user navigation on a website, but only when they point somewhere genuinely useful.

Broken links and broken pages need to be evaluated from a business angle. A 404 on an old affiliate link buried in a 2018 blog post is unlikely to affect your pipeline. A broken link on a case study page that external partners reference, or a 404 on a page receiving inbound links from other websites, is a different matter entirely. The decision to redirect, restore, or let a page die should depend on whether the linked page carries authority, whether it serves a current service line, and whether the traffic it attracts is commercially relevant.

Service Hubs, Location Clusters, and Avoiding Self-Competition

Building service hubs – a parent page like /services/seo-consulting/ with related subpages covering specific aspects – creates clear topical authority that both users and search engines can follow. Location clusters work similarly: /london/seo-consulting/ groups geography with service offering, preventing confusion about which page should rank for “SEO consulting London” versus “SEO consulting UK.” Without this separation, multiple pages on the same website end up competing for the same search queries, canonical confusion arises, and search engines choose the wrong version to surface.

Poor internal linking and inconsistent anchor text between similar city or service pages are the root of most self-competition problems. If your Manchester page links to your Leeds page using the anchor “IT support” and your Leeds page links back with “managed IT services,” neither page sends a clear topical signal. The result is that both pages rank weakly for both terms instead of one page ranking strongly for each. This is not a theoretical problem; it is one of the most common issues on B2B and service sites with multiple locations or overlapping offerings.

Restructuring internal linking so that all local and ancillary pages point back into a core service hub improves both crawl paths and conversion journeys. A user landing on a blog post about “common IT security mistakes in Manchester” should find a clear, well-placed link leading them to the primary IT security service page, which then connects to the Manchester location page. That path moves both authority and users towards the pages that generate enquiries. Gareth and RedShaw Consulting typically map these hub structures on diagrams tied directly to service lines and territories before changing menus or breadcrumbs. Altering navigation without that map risks breaking existing equity flows or creating orphan pages that lose all visibility.

Performance, Core Web Vitals, and Page Speed with Commercial Priorities

Core Web Vitals include Largest Contentful Paint, Interaction to Next Paint, and Cumulative Layout Shift. Good Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) is 2.5 seconds or less. Good Interaction to Next Paint (INP) is under 200 milliseconds. Cumulative Layout Shift measures visual stability – whether elements jump around while the page loads. These are not abstract scores. Technical optimizations reduce website load times, and fast websites are prioritized by search engines like Google. Page speed is a major ranking factor for search engines, and the commercial impact is direct: 50 percent of users abandon sites that take longer than 3 seconds to load.

The data supports this. Vodafone improved LCP by 31 percent and saw an 8 percent increase in sales. Research on conversion rates shows that sites with LCP above 4 seconds convert at roughly 1.5 percent compared to 3.8 percent for sites with LCP under 1.5 seconds – a drop of over 60 percent. In 2026, a study of powersports dealer websites found that 78.7 percent failed Core Web Vitals on either mobile or desktop, demonstrating how widespread poor performance remains even as the evidence for its commercial cost grows stronger.

Mobile-first indexing requires websites to function well on mobile devices. Google uses mobile-first indexing for ranking websites, and mobile traffic accounts for about 50 percent of web traffic. For service businesses where initial contact often happens on mobile search – someone on their phone looking for “emergency plumber near me” or “IT support consultation” – a slow, unstable mobile experience kills enquiries before they start. Responsive design is recommended for mobile optimization, and details matter: font sizes should be at least 16px for readability on mobile, and buttons should be at least 48×48 pixels for touch-friendliness. These are not cosmetic preferences; they determine whether a prospect can actually complete a form or tap a phone number.

Not every slow URL deserves equal engineering effort. A slow blog post that generates no leads is far less urgent than a slow “request a consultation” page or a key service page template. Improving user experience can reduce bounce rates, but the bounce rate that matters is on pages where bouncing means losing a potential client, not pages where visitors were never going to convert anyway. Performance work is a revenue optimisation project, not a green-scores-in-google pagespeed insights exercise.

Deciding Which Speed Fixes Matter and Which Can Wait

Tying each performance recommendation to business metrics is the only way to prioritise sensibly. For core templates – service pages, location pages, contact forms – the relevant metrics are form completion rate, call clicks, and time-to-first-interaction. If your primary lead form lives on a template with a 4-second LCP and noticeable layout shift, that is where engineering time goes first. Google recommends keeping server response time under 200 milliseconds. A good server response time is under 200 milliseconds. If your hosting or server configuration cannot deliver that baseline, no amount of front-end optimisation will compensate.

The practical order of operations for a non-developer decision-maker looks like this:

Priority	Fix	Why it matters
1	Server response time on key templates	Foundation for everything else
2	Render-blocking scripts on service/contact pages	Directly delays LCP and INP
3	Image compression on high-intent pages	Reduces LCP; often the easiest win
4	Layout stability on form and sign-up pages	Prevents mis-clicks, improves INP
5	Third-party embed cleanup	Chat widgets, analytics tags, social embeds add weight
6	Micro-optimisations on low-traffic templates	Only after high-value pages are fast

In a 2026 environment with both core web vitals and AI-engine expectations, slow or jumpy pages are less likely to be used as reliable sources in both search engine results and generative answers. Simple before-and-after measurement plans make the difference between guessing and knowing: compare conversion and engagement on specific URLs for 30 to 60 days after each change. If the change had no effect on the pages that matter, you have learned something useful and can redirect effort elsewhere.

Fixing Duplicate Content, Canonical Issues, and Template Bloat with a Sales Focus

Duplicate content in practice often arises when businesses create separate pages for each city or industry with largely identical service descriptions, or when FAQs and testimonials are templated blocks reused verbatim across dozens of URLs. Duplicate content can harm website ranking because it forces search engines into a guessing game about which page is authoritative for a given query. When relevant pages compete against each other instead of reinforcing each other, the result is that none of them rank as well as a single, strong page would.

Misused canonical tags compound the problem. If your CMS defaults to canonicalising every variant to the homepage, or if a plugin silently sets canonical tags to the wrong version, you may be suppressing the exact pages you want to rank. Search Console can help identify duplicate content issues, and reviewing the “Duplicate without user-selected canonical” report in google search console often reveals problems that have been quietly undermining visibility for months or years.

The decision about whether to consolidate, differentiate, or remove similar pages should be driven by enquiry types, close rates, and where your best clients actually come from. If three weak “IT support in Manchester” variants exist and none generates meaningful leads, merging them into a single authoritative page – then strengthening it with local schema markup, unique testimonials, and internal links from related content – is almost always the better approach. If each variant genuinely serves a different audience and converts differently, then differentiation through unique content, local proof, and distinct value propositions is the right path.

Template-level improvements are more sustainable than one-off rewrites. Adding fields for local proof points, sector-specific examples, and unique FAQ blocks to a template means every page built on that template gets stronger. A study of nearly 39,500 websites by SearchAtlas found that canonical link fixes and heading structure corrections were among the top levers for improving impressions, keyword coverage, and click-through rates across large sites.

Smart Use of Canonical Tags, Redirects, and Noindex

Canonical tags can consolidate authority between near-duplicate pages while still preserving useful on-site experiences when needed. Filtered views, print versions, or accelerated mobile pages might warrant a canonical pointing back to the primary version rather than being removed entirely. The canonical link element tells search engines which version to treat as authoritative – but only if it is configured correctly.

When you retire a service, rebrand, or merge territories, 301 redirects are commercially appropriate. Use 301 redirects to consolidate duplicate pages when the original URL no longer serves a purpose and a stronger replacement exists. When content is low-value – internal archives, experimental landing pages, user generated content that adds no search value – noindex is often better than redirecting, because the content may still serve an on-site purpose without polluting the index.

Google may automatically choose a canonical URL if not specified, and that automatic choice may not align with your business priorities. The risk of canonicalising key lead-generating pages to weaker ones due to template defaults or CMS plugins is real and common. Auditing canonical tags across the site – especially on duplicate pages and multiple urls targeting similar queries – should be part of any technical seo checklist.

RedShaw Consulting typically maps each canonical or redirect decision back to an explicit business rule. For example: “this is the primary page for ‘SEO consulting UK'” or “this location page is the canonical for all North West variants.” That documentation means decisions can be reviewed, challenged, and updated as the business evolves, rather than relying on whatever a developer set two years ago.

Technical SEO, Lead Quality, and Service-Line Priorities

Connecting technical seo to lead quality means thinking beyond traffic volume. Better crawl configuration and internal linking for high-value services should increase enquiries that match your ideal client profile, not just any traffic from any query. A page ranking for “enterprise cybersecurity audits” may attract fewer visitors than a generic “IT tips” blog post, but if those visitors are procurement leads at mid-market companies, the commercial value per visitor is orders of magnitude higher.

Segmenting technical work by service-line value is essential. Flagship consulting offerings, profitable retainer services, and strategic locations where you have genuine delivery capacity deserve priority. If your best clients buy enterprise contracts and arrive via organic search for specific, high-intent search queries, then the indexation, speed, schema markup, and internal linking on those pages should be flawless before you touch lower-priority templates. A technical seo strategy that treats every page equally is a strategy that treats no page seriously.

Tracking whether technical changes improve the mix of leads – not just their volume – is where CRM integration becomes important. Tag leads by service line. Note in your CRM which enquiries convert versus which do not. After making technical changes, monitor whether the proportion of high-value enquiries shifts. Google analytics and search console data will show impressions and clicks, but conversion tracking, close rates, and revenue attribution tell you whether the work actually moved the business.

Gareth often starts engagements at RedShaw Consulting with a “service priority matrix” workshop, identifying service lines by profit margin, strategic importance, delivery capacity, and market potential. Only after this matrix is agreed do crawl, index, template, location, and canonical decisions get locked in. This approach ensures alignment between technical seo work and the realities of what the business can sell and deliver.

Aligning Technical Work with Sales and Operations

Involving sales and service delivery teams when deciding which pages to protect, improve, or retire from the index is not optional – it is the only way to avoid generating leads your team cannot or does not want to fulfil. Over-indexing pages for services you no longer offer, or for territories where you lack capacity, wastes crawl budget and generates poor-fit leads that frustrate both the prospect and your delivery team.

A quarterly review where marketing, sales, and operations look at top-ranking pages, lead sources, and pipeline data creates a feedback loop that keeps technical decisions current. This is not a complex undertaking: a shared dashboard showing which important pages drive which enquiries, combined with a brief conversation about capacity and priorities, is usually enough to decide the next round of adjustments.

RedShaw Consulting can facilitate these cross-functional reviews and translate business priorities into concrete technical actions. If your team struggles to connect what is happening in search with what is happening in sales, that gap is exactly what the contact page is for.

Local Search, Schema Markup, and Generative Engine Optimization

Local search is where on-site technical SEO meets Google Business Profile, map packs, and queries with local intent – “accountant near me,” “IT support Sheffield,” “law firm central London.” The intersection is not just about citations and reviews. It is about the structure of your location pages, the consistency of your NAP (Name, Address, Phone) data across structured data and visible content, and how internal links connect location pages to service hubs.

Schema markup types like LocalBusiness, ProfessionalService, Service, Review, and Breadcrumb help search engines understand who you are, what you offer, and where. Schema.org provides a standardized vocabulary for structured data, and structured data helps search engines understand content context. Structured data can enable rich results like star ratings and FAQs in the search engine results page, and implementing structured data can improve click-through rates – but only on pages where those rich snippets drive commercially relevant traffic.

Beyond traditional rich snippets, generative engine optimization adds a new dimension. Well-structured local and service schemas, combined with robust internal links, can increase the chance of being cited in AI overviews and generative search results for specific service-plus-city combinations. Structured data is essential for AI engines to understand entities, and an Ahrefs study found that only about 12 percent of URLs cited by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot appear in Google’s top 10 organic results for the same query – showing that traditional ranking and AI citation are different games with different rules.

Not every office or micro-location requires a separate indexed page. Decisions should be based on search demand, local competition, and whether you genuinely operate in that area. Maintaining separate city pages only makes sense if you have staff or capacity in those locations and can provide unique content with local proof. Otherwise, you are creating duplicate pages that weaken your overall local seo presence rather than strengthening it.

From Rich Results to AI Citations: Structuring Data for 2026

Structured data and clear site architecture help enable search engines – and increasingly, AI answer engines – to understand “who you serve, what you deliver, and where.” This clarity is central to generative engine optimization in 2026, where being cited as a source in an AI summary can drive visibility that traditional organic search alone cannot deliver.

For a B2B service firm, the schema types that matter most are ProfessionalService, Service, Review, WebPage, and Breadcrumb. Each should map to a real business unit or offering. If you offer three service lines across four cities, you need schema that accurately reflects those twelve combinations – not a generic Organization markup slapped on every page. Google recommends using HTTPS as a ranking signal since 2014, and Google confirmed HTTPS as a ranking signal in 2014 – a foundational trust element that underpins all of this. HTTPS encrypts data between users and websites. Chrome marks HTTP sites as ‘Not Secure’ since July 2018, and 15 percent of websites still do not use hypertext transfer protocol secure. Implementing HTTPS can improve trust and conversion rates before any other technical work begins.

Schema drift – where markup does not match visible web content – is especially damaging when answer engines rely on consistent, verifiable signals. If your structured data says you offer “digital marketing consulting in Birmingham” but the page content only mentions generic marketing services with no Birmingham reference, AI engines may discard the signal or, worse, lose trust in your domain’s data quality.

Gareth and RedShaw Consulting focus on a small, high-impact set of schemas aligned with actual services and locations rather than installing every possible markup type. Periodic validation using Google’s Rich Results Test and Schema.org guidelines ensures markup stays accurate as services evolve. The goal is not to tick a schema checkbox but to track whether implementing or correcting structured data leads to measurable changes: rich result appearances in search engine results, AI citations for priority queries, and ultimately, qualified lead volume for the services that matter most.

Content Usefulness, UX, and Technical SEO Working Together

Technical SEO cannot rescue unhelpful or misaligned content. A fast, well-indexed, perfectly structured page that answers the wrong question or addresses the wrong audience will not generate leads no matter how clean its technical foundation. Both content and technical infrastructure must be shaped by the same understanding of customer problems and buying journeys.

What technical SEO does is make genuinely useful content – guides, comparison pages, FAQs that address real sales objections – more discoverable and trustworthy for both humans and search engines. When keyword research informs the topics, internal linking connects related pages into logical journeys, schema markup clarifies what each page covers, and fast, stable pages keep visitors engaged, the content has a chance to do its job. Without that technical support, even excellent web content may never reach the relevant pages of search engine results or get cited in a generative answer.

Aligning content structure with technical elements means putting FAQ schema on service pages where the questions match real objections buyers raise in sales calls. It means using clear section headings that mirror actual search queries, and implementing logical breadcrumbs that match the mental models visitors bring. UX decisions – navigation labels, form placement, above-the-fold content – interact directly with page speed and core web vitals. A heavy hero slider on a conversion page might look impressive but can destroy INP and push form elements below the fold on mobile devices, reducing both rankings and completions.

RedShaw Consulting’s recommendations always link content improvements, technical changes, and UX adjustments back to specific business outcomes: shorter sales cycles, higher close rates, more enquiries from the right service lines. That integration is what separates search engine optimization seo that drives revenue from digital marketing activity that merely generates reports.

Making Technical SEO Decisions That the Business Can Defend

The central idea running through this entire article is straightforward: every technical SEO action – fixing broken links, restructuring internal linking, changing canonical tags, improving page speed, implementing schema markup – should be clearly tied to business goals and measurable hypotheses. If you cannot explain why a specific technical change matters in terms of which service or location it supports and which metric should move, the change probably should not be at the top of your list.

A simple decision framework helps:

1. What service or location does this change support? If it does not support one, deprioritise it.
2. What metric should move? Impressions, clicks, form completions, call taps, or lead quality – pick one.
3. How will we know in 60 to 90 days? Set up tracking before making the change, not after.

Maintaining a living technical SEO backlog ranked by commercial impact – not by seo tools severity scores – keeps the work focused. The vast majority of audit warnings are not emergencies. A site audit that flags 300 issues is not telling you to fix 300 things; it is giving you 300 data points to evaluate against your business priorities. Revisit the backlog whenever service lines change, when you enter new markets, or after a site migration.

For site owners who lack the time or in-house expertise to align these decisions, Gareth at RedShaw Consulting can help build that framework. The goal is not to make technical SEO feel overwhelming but to make it manageable and defensible – every decision grounded in what the business actually needs, every result measured against outcomes that matter. If that sounds like the kind of technical seo work your business needs, the contact page is the right starting point. Technical SEO is ongoing, but when it is connected to a clear business strategy, every hour spent on it is an hour spent moving the business forward.