Key facts
- The client is a dog obedience and behavior-modification trainer operating in Calgary, Alberta, running relationship-based training, off-leash work, and board-and-train style programs, with over a decade of hands-on experience with dogs.
- An audit of the client's own website, run before any pricing was discussed, found a homepage weighing about 42 megabytes and taking roughly a minute to become visible on mobile, driven by two large stock videos hot-linked from an outside video service.
- The same audit found zero structured data and zero meta descriptions across every page checked, and no phone number published anywhere on the site, leaving a single contact form as the only way to reach the business.
- The offer sent to the client was a flat CAD $1,200 a month, with the client's own advertising budget kept fully separate from that fee and fully in her own control.
- The proposal was sent to two email addresses for the client on the same day, following a strategy meeting the offer was originally built to support.
The business behind this proposal
The client trains dogs in Calgary, Alberta and the surrounding area, working on relationship-based obedience, behavior modification for anxious or reactive dogs, off-leash training, and board-and-train style programs where a dog stays with the trainer for a set period. The trainer's own published background includes over a decade of hands-on experience with dogs and several years training professionally, plus a formal animal-care credential and a pet first-aid certification.
A specialty in reactive and anxious dogs is a meaningful differentiator in this niche, since it is a harder, more specialized service than basic obedience and tends to draw a client willing to pay more for a trainer who explicitly says this is their focus.
What the audit found
Before any pricing was discussed, the client's website was crawled in full and run through a mobile performance test. The homepage weighed roughly 42 megabytes and took close to a minute to become visible on a mobile connection, caused mainly by two large stock videos, one in a very high resolution, hot-linked directly from an outside video hosting service rather than the business's own optimized files.
Search and AI visibility were also measured directly: not one page title on the site contained the words dog training or the city name, zero pages had a meta description, and zero pages carried any structured data at all, despite a genuinely substantial, well-written frequently-asked-questions page already existing on the site. No Google Business Profile or business reviews could be found anywhere at the time of the audit either, meaning the business had no presence in the local map results that this kind of search almost always surfaces first.
What was in the proposal
The sent proposal was built as a diagnostic-led pitch rather than a sample-website-led one: it walked through the search and AI visibility gaps, the technical performance problem, and the lead-path gaps, a single contact form as the only way to convert, no phone number, no reviews or social proof shown anywhere, then closed with what the flat monthly fee would actually fix, in plain order, without attaching a specific price to each individual fix.
Google Ads management was included in that flat fee, but with an explicit line stating that the advertising budget itself stays entirely in the client's own hands and is separate from the $1,200 management fee, a distinction the proposal called out directly rather than leaving implied.
The price and what moved it
The number sent was a flat CAD $1,200 a month, set directly rather than structured as a ladder against a revenue or booking target the way several other proposals in this series were. The absence of a ladder here reflects the proposal's own framing: it was built first as a deep-audit walkthrough for a scheduled discussion, with pricing following on the cover after that conversation rather than being the pitch's central mechanism from the start.
The one price detail that was revised after an internal catch was the ad-budget wording itself: an earlier draft of the Google Ads line was corrected to state plainly that the client sets and keeps her own ad budget, separate from the $1,200 fee, once it was confirmed that this separation was the intended arrangement rather than an ad budget folded into the flat number.
What was left out
No client review, testimonial, or social-proof claim was invented for the sent proposal, because none existed on the client's site or in a public listing at the time of the original audit. The proposal stated this plainly as a finding rather than filling the gap with something invented.
A fuller brand and sample-website concept was developed separately after the strategy meeting took place, but that later work was explicitly not part of what was actually emailed to the client as the sent proposal, and is not counted as part of this dossier's scope for that reason.
Where it stands now
The proposal was sent to two email addresses for the client on the same day, the business's general public inbox and a personal address supplied directly by the person who runs the business, following a scheduled strategy meeting the original audit had been built to support.
What happened after both emails landed is not part of the file this page is built from.
Related questions
It was built first as a deep-audit walkthrough of the business's own website, meant to support a scheduled strategy conversation, with pricing following on the cover afterward rather than being structured as the pitch's central mechanism from the outset.
That detail is absent from the source record. Two emails went out on the same day, following a scheduled strategy meeting, and neither is logged as leading to a signed decision.
An earlier internal draft needed correcting on this exact point, so the sent version states plainly that the client sets and controls her own advertising budget, kept apart from the flat management fee, rather than leaving that arrangement unstated or ambiguous.
Two stock videos, hot-linked directly from an outside video hosting service rather than the business's own optimized files, made up the bulk of a homepage weighing roughly 42 megabytes, which is far heavier than a typical small-business homepage.
None could be found publicly for this business at the time of the audit, no Google Business Profile, no listed reviews, and no testimonials on the site itself, so the proposal stated that gap honestly rather than inventing social proof to fill it.
The figures here are pulled from a genuine SearchPod file, with anything identifying the trainer removed. The flat fee matches exactly what the client was quoted following the audit described above, not a rate offered today, and because the underlying record never states a decision, this page limits itself to the fact of the send.
Want a quote like this for your project?
Get a free, no-obligation proposal within one business day. We look at your site and your market and tell you plainly what we would do, and what we would not.
Get your free proposal