Balancing SEO, compliance and everything in between

The US project is the clearest example I have of different forces genuinely colliding.

SEO needed content to strictly follow keywording, internal linking, and site structure. Compliance needed every page to hold up against state-by-state regulation, a genuinely fractured market where the rules change depending on which state you're writing for, with real consequences on the line if something slipped through. This was the relaunch, after the market had already gone live once, and round two came with its own entirely different set of problems.

Management needed all of it done within two months. Each bit and bob, on its own, had a reasonable demand. Together, on a tight deadline, they can pull in different directions constantly.

What each side wants

SEO wants high-quality content that adds real value while using keywords and internal links naturally, not stuffed in. Compliance wants content that holds up against regulation, full stop, no exceptions, no "close enough." Design wants their layouts implemented correctly, with character limits respected. Management wants all of it delivered inside a hard deadline. None of these parties are wrong to want what they want. The problem was never any single demand; it was that nobody sat down together to reconcile them before the project started.

Where the proverbial paw paw hit the fan

The rollout was fractured from the beginning. There was no single kickoff where every department mapped out the plan together, so each side was working from its own priorities rather than a shared one.

Then, mid-project, the person on the SEO side who'd been providing briefs and headed the project went on leave. Someone else stepped in and changed the priority of specific pages, without looping in design, web managers, or anyone else who'd been working against the original order. That shift alone caused delays across every part of the project. On top of that, we were midway through switching project management tools, which added its own disruption to an already unstable process.

How I navigated it

My focus was simple, in principle: meet the deadline, and manage every change as it came without losing the thread (or more accurately, plot) entirely. In practice, that meant giving SEO priority, since they were already steering the majority of the project anyway, and building a rhythm around the chaos rather than trying to eliminate it. I looped team leads in on every priority change as it happened, and had weekly calls with SEO, design, and web managers to align on progress against the board.

Something had to give, and it was quality. Delivered, publish-ready (and in some cases already drafted) content went back and forth between design, web managers, and content more than it should have; corrections layered on top of corrections because the underlying priorities kept shifting under everyone's feet. Yep - just about enough to make any sane person check their ‘moer-meter’ (temper gauge) a couple more times than necessary.

What I'd tell anyone facing this

Get every head of department in one room at (or even better, ahead of) kickoff, not after. Scope the project together, and agree on realistic timelines as a group, not as separate departments each assuming their own deadline is the one that matters. Keep weekly check-ins running throughout, so blockers surface early instead of mid-crisis. Whichever department you are in, be prepared with your own realistic roadmap beforehand, and don't be afraid to speak up, push back, or question anyone or anything. The art of collaboration is discussing, and sometimes agreeing to disagree. And, as much as it's within your control, don't let ownership change hands mid-project. Once priorities are set, they need to hold, because every time they don't, the cost lands on whoever's actually producing the work. And in the event of a key member going on leave, be sure that all is set in place and everyone involved is still on the same page.