Adsome · UK trades pilot
Sourced by trade and by town, so no two neighbouring firms get the same pitch.
Ratings read off Google directly. Site problems verified by opening the actual site. 21 of 32 are limited companies with filings we can check.
| Business | Trade | Site | Rating | Grade | Status | The problem we fix | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five Valleys Arbor LtdMinchinhampton | tree surgery | BAD | 5.0116 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | very thin stale site, footer still reads 2023 |
| AW Tree Surgery & Garden Care LtdMinsterworth | tree surgery | NONE | 4.995 reviews | A | no | builtopen | Facebook page only, no website at all |
| Treeation ArboricultureEbley | tree surgery | BAD | 5.089 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | no HTTPS at all, so browsers warn visitors the site is not secure |
| Willow & Oak LtdNailsworth | tree surgery | BAD | 5.085 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | low-end site builder, homepage title is literally Home, no enquiry form on any page, no responsive CSS |
| Tree Surgeon Gloucester LtdGloucester | tree surgery | BAD | 5.073 reviews | A | no | builtopen | their old web domain now serves an Indonesian gambling spam site, so anyone who finds them online lands on that instead |
| I Nixon LandscapesWinchcombe | landscaping | BAD | 5.050 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | site was last touched in 2013, built on table layout with no mobile support and no enquiry form |
| K. Collier Landscapes LtdLonglevens | fencing | BAD | 5.048 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | The site has no H1 heading and only about 2,400 characters of text in total, so Google has almost nothing to read and rank. Their work is far better than what the site says about it. |
| Dowdeswell Forestry LimitedLower Dowdeswell | tree surgery | BAD | 5.046 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | No quote form anywhere on the site, no phone or address on the homepage, and their published email address has a typo with a space in it. Every enquiry has to work around the site. |
| Golden Valley Landscape Gardening LtdBussage | landscaping | BAD | 5.042 reviews | A | no | builtopen | the domain does not resolve at all, so the site linked from Google is dead |
| Moe's GroupStonehouse | landscaping | BAD | 5.038 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | Site is badly broken on a phone: text overflows the screen, the logo is cut off, and there is no phone, email or address anywhere on the page. Most customers look on a phone. |
| BRH Landscapes LtdCheltenham | landscaping | NONE | 4.932 reviews | A | no | builtopen | no website at all, the Google listing points only to an Instagram profile |
| Severn Way Tree CareSlimbridge | tree surgery | NONE | 5.027 reviews | A | yes | builtopen | Google itself shows 'Add website' on their profile. Facebook page only. Reviews describe large tree removals, so the work is high value but invisible online. |
| Elm GloucestershireInnsworth | landscaping | BAD | 5.019 reviews | A | no | builtopen | site is completely dead, https refuses connection |
| Marcus Hannaford FencingUpton St Leonards | fencing | NONE | n/a | A | yes | builtopen | No Google Business Profile at all and their old domain is dead, despite 225 Checkatrade reviews. Customers who hear his name have nothing to find. |
| Stephen Bassett Complete GardensLonglevens | landscaping | BAD | 5.022 reviews | B | yes | builtopen | no quote form, blank placeholder images instead of photos, logo asset dated 2016 |
| M.D Fencing and Landscapes LtdGloucester | fencing | BAD | 4.833 reviews | A | yes | queued | no forms at all, WhatsApp link instead of a quote form, copyright stuck at 2024 |
| KJP Fencing LtdCheltenham | fencing | BAD | 5.023 reviews | A | no | queued | no quote or enquiry form on any page including contact, phone only |
| Marshalls Driveways & Sons LimitedRudford | landscaping | BAD | 4.518 reviews | A | yes | queued | no quote form anywhere, thin template page, no copyright year |
| Greaterscapes LtdStroud | landscaping | BAD | 5.065 reviews | B | yes | queued | no quote or enquiry form anywhere, not even on the contact page |
| T R Lane Fencing and Fabrication LtdStonehouse | fencing | BAD | 5.042 reviews | B | yes | queued | two domains: Google links the abandoned placeholder at trlanefencing.co.uk, while their real site at trlanefencingfabrications.co.uk is current and responsive but has no enquiry form at all |
| Town & Country Trees & GardensBishops Cleeve | tree surgery | BAD | 5.041 reviews | B | yes | queued | single-page brochure site with no service pages |
| Rowan Tindale Landscape DesignStroud | landscaping | BAD | 5.037 reviews | B | yes | queued | no enquiry form, and no phone or email published anywhere on the site |
| Tec GardensChalford | landscaping | BAD | 5.035 reviews | B | yes | queued | no quote or enquiry form on any page, newest content dated 2023 |
| CPH Contractors LtdCheltenham | fencing | BAD | 5.033 reviews | B | yes | queued | single-page site with anchor-only navigation and no service pages |
| B E RudmanCheltenham | landscaping | BAD | 4.933 reviews | B | yes | queued | one-page site with anchor navigation and a yahoo contact address |
| Cheltenham Tree Services LtdCheltenham | tree surgery | BAD | 5.023 reviews | B | no | queued | homepage has almost no text and no quote form, the form is buried on a separate page |
| Cheltenham Building & LandscapesCheltenham | landscaping | BAD | 5.021 reviews | B | yes | queued | no quote or enquiry form on any page |
| Pattern Stone Landscape & DevelopmentsTuffley | landscaping | BAD | 5.019 reviews | B | yes | queued | no form, footer admits stock images only, leftover roofing copy and a misspelt town name |
| J A Ford Fencing and LandscapingQuedgeley | fencing | BAD | 5.016 reviews | B | yes | queued | Wix site with copyright 2018, zero forms, gmail contact address |
| Designer Driveways LtdQuedgeley | landscaping | BAD | 5.014 reviews | B | yes | queued | no quote form, contact email sits on an unrelated domain, no company details |
| Charlton Kings Fencing LtdCharlton Kings | fencing | BAD | 5.013 reviews | B | yes | queued | template landing page with barely a thousand characters of text and no quote form |
| Aspen GroundcareTewkesbury | landscaping | BAD | 5.010 reviews | B | no | queued | no viewport meta tag so it does not scale on mobile, no form, contact details only inside an image |
Google Lighthouse, run against the live URLs. SEO sits low on purpose: previews carry a noindex tag so they cannot compete with the client's own site before they say yes.
| Site | Performance | Accessibility | Best practices | SEO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dowdeswell forestry | 94 | 88 | 96 | 58 |
| k collier landscapes | 87 | 88 | 100 | 58 |
| marcus hannaford fencing | 87 | 88 | 100 | 58 |
| moes group | 78 | 94 | 100 | 58 |
| severn way tree care | 97 | 88 | 100 | 58 |
Every card price below came back from Stannp's own API in test mode, not an estimate. UK second class is what we actually pay; the international rate applies only to the test cards going to Stockholm.
Live from Stripe. Aggregates only: this page is public, so no client names or emails are ever written here.
Refresh with node scripts/stripe-snapshot.mjs. Pilot wins are matched on subscription metadata against the lead slugs, so a UK customer appears here without being named.
Hypotheses, not conclusions. Nothing here has been tested with a real prospect yet.
A firm with a broken site has already decided a website matters and has paid for one before. A firm with nothing has to be convinced the category matters at all. 28 of our 32 are bad-site leads, so wave one should tell us which converts.
Two leads have sites that fail outright: one refuses connections, one redirects to an unrelated beauty salon. That is demonstrable in five seconds and impossible to argue with, unlike "your site looks dated".
Only 24 of 32 have a findable email. The postcard sidesteps that entirely, which is the strongest argument for post over cold email here, but follow-up needs enrichment.
If the printed code does not scan cleanly on 300gsm, response goes to zero and we will not know why. This is why the test cards to Stockholm come before any real send.
Review counts change between printing and delivery. Cards now carry only durable facts, and the build refuses to print a card containing a rating. Numbers live on the sites, where they can be updated.
Two front variants exist per lead, brand-pure and gold-accent. With five leads there is no signal. Split roughly 25/25 across wave one and the QR tracker will answer it per card.
Top up about £11, post all five to Stockholm, check the QR scans and the pine prints true. Five days, and it protects the other 45 cards.
Ten sites costs no tokens and gives a real spread of trades and site problems to compare. Pick the ten sharpest problems, not the ten biggest firms.
Postcards do not need email, but the follow-up sequence does. Worth one Apollo pass across the whole list rather than per lead.
leads/*.json stays the source of truth because the build reads it. The sheet is for you to read and annotate; one command re-syncs it.