Mentoring and second opinion
An external check on a strategy, an agency proposal or a technical decision before committing budget.
Book a call- 15
- years deciding alongside in-house teams
- 6
- senior specialisms inside the team
- 48 h
- to reply, at most
Brands we've worked with
Do any of these situations sound familiar?
It's rarely work that's missing: what's missing is someone outside to confirm the direction, validate what the team already suspects and give a verdict when opinions differ.
The team has a hypothesis and wants it validated
There's a clear idea of what should be done, but nobody wants to commit quarters of work without an outside check.
The in-house team disagrees and nothing moves
Two defensible routes on the table, each with its champion, and the decision spending weeks in meetings.
Leadership wants an outside verdict before signing
There's budget on the table and whoever approves it wants an independent read on what's being proposed.
The in-house SEO team needs backup, not replacement
Knowledge and execution stay in-house; what's missing is someone to test the big decisions against.
An agency proposal sounds good and nobody can judge it
A well-presented plan with ambitious deliverables and no internal way to tell whether it holds up.
The senior profile is alone with nobody to check against
Whoever decides is the sharpest person in the house, and precisely because of that has nobody above to review the reasoning.
Four fronts we check
The weight changes with what's on your table: validating a technical decision isn't the same as ordering the year's plan or reading an agency proposal.
Strategy and priorities
Check the year's plan attacks what actually moves the business, not what's easiest to execute.
See the detail
- Review of the current plan and why it's ordered that way
- Planned effort checked against the return you can expect
- Identifying what can be stopped at no cost
- What's missing from the plan and nobody has raised
Technical and architecture decisions
Validate decisions that are expensive to reverse: URL structure, rendering, templates, domains or markets.
See the detail
- The chosen option checked against the discarded ones
- Risks of the decision and what can be tested first
- Spec review before it enters a sprint
- Translating the decision into engineering language
Third-party proposals
Read an agency, tool or vendor proposal with judgement and say which part holds up and which is smoke.
See the detail
- Review of scope, deliverables and assumptions
- What's promised without being guaranteeable
- Questions worth asking before signing
- Comparison between proposals when there are several
Team judgement
So the team takes the next similar decision alone: the goal is to leave judgement, not dependency.
See the detail
- Working sessions on the project's own data and real cases
- How to defend a priority in front of leadership
- What to watch weekly and what to ignore
- Review of past decisions and what they taught
When two routes are defensible, someone has to decide
The real options go on the table, the uncomfortable questions get asked, and you leave with a direction taken and argued. Not with a menu of options for you to decide again.
Is this the right priority?
What gets done first and what stays out.
Is this technical project worth it?
Development cost against a realistic return.
Do we sign this proposal?
What holds up, what's missing and what to ask first.
Which of the two is right?
An argued verdict to unblock the decision.
Are we late on AI visibility?
What's urgent today and what can wait.
Is our team the right size?
Missing profiles and what's worth outsourcing.
Is what we've been told true?
A claim checked against evidence, not faith.
Who does it?
Senior profiles who have taken these decisions many times. Whoever reviews your project is who sits in the session and signs the recommendation.
Why Laika?
Because an unchecked decision gets paid for over quarters.
Validating the direction costs one session; taking the wrong one costs a year of roadmap. And a team that decides well once learns to decide well again.
We give a verdict, not a menu of options
When two defensible routes are on the table, we say which we'd take and with what argument. A report that doesn't decide unblocks nothing.
The knowledge stays in your company
We explain the reasoning, not just the conclusion. The goal is that you take the next similar decision without us.
We work with whoever decides, not with a middle layer
The senior profile reviewing your project is the one in the session and the one signing the recommendation.
We've seen many times how each route ends
Fifteen years of projects give one concrete advantage: recognising decisions that already went wrong somewhere else.
We're uncomfortable when needed
If the internal plan doesn't hold up, or the proposal you've been sent promises what it can't guarantee, it gets said in the session.
We look at search and AI together
Today's decisions affect both fronts. Checking them against only one leads to the wrong choice.
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from hiring a consultancy?
In who leads. Here your in-house team keeps leading the actions and the requests; we validate decisions, confirm the direction and leave the judgement inside the company.
What if the in-house team can't agree?
It's one of the most common reasons people call us. We hear both positions, review the data and give an argued verdict so the decision can be closed.
Can you review another agency's proposal?
Yes. We review scope, deliverables and assumptions, and tell you what holds up, what's promised without being guaranteeable and what to ask before signing.
How often are the sessions?
Usually one session every two weeks, with direct access in between for urgent matters. If your team moves fast, we adjust.
How long until I see results?
The first findings and decisions land within weeks. Impact on visibility and revenue depends on your platform and your team's implementation speed: on mid-sized projects we usually talk about three to six months for solid movement.
I worked with another agency and it didn't work. Why now?
What usually fails is judgement, not effort: tasks get executed without deciding what matters. Before proposing anything we review your data, and if the problem isn't visibility we'll tell you, even if it means not selling the project.
Tell us what you have to decide
With the decision on your table and what you've already discussed internally, we can tell you whether you need one session or ongoing support.
Need an outside verdict before deciding?
We review what you have, give our opinion without unnecessary diplomacy and leave the judgement inside your team.
We look at your project before proposing anything. Reply within two working days at most.
Talk to us about your decision