Their Promises vs. My Experience
What Webtec Advertises to Customers
Before my story, here's what Webtec (trywebtec.com) tells potential customers on their own website. These are direct quotes from their public pages.
Hindsight
Red Flags I Missed Before Signing
In my opinion, looking back on the engagement, several things should have prompted harder questions before I put $6,000 on my American Express. I'm sharing them here because they may appear familiar to others evaluating similar agencies.
⚑
No discovery call or brief review before work began. In my experience, they acknowledged receipt of my 50-page brief and started designing without a single call to confirm they understood it. The wrong business name in their files suggests the brief wasn't read carefully before work started.
What to ask: "Will someone review my brief with me on a call before design begins?"
⚑
A satisfaction guarantee with no written definition of "satisfaction" and no process for invoking it. In my experience, "0% risk — love your site or don't pay" sounds airtight until you try to enforce it. There was no written escalation path, no defined criteria, and no refund process.
What to ask: "Show me the satisfaction guarantee in the contract — what triggers it and how is it invoked?"
⚑
No contract language about asset transfer if the engagement ends. In my experience, the site was withheld after I ended the engagement. I only received the files after filing a chargeback with American Express. There was nothing in the agreement that required transfer within a defined timeframe.
What to ask: "What is your written policy for transferring files and credentials if we end the engagement for any reason?"
⚑
Portfolio work that all looked structurally similar. In my opinion, a portfolio where every site follows the same layout — dark hero, icon grid, testimonials, FAQ accordion, CTA — is evidence of heavy template use, not custom design. Their portfolio didn't show they could build something that looked fundamentally different for different clients.
What to ask: "Can you show me two sites you built for clients with very different brands — and explain the structural differences?"
⚑
No milestone sign-off before proceeding to the next phase. In my experience, I was shown full visual designs before anyone had confirmed I'd approved the information architecture. Fundamental structural problems discovered late in the process are expensive to reverse.
What to ask: "Do you require my written approval of the sitemap and wireframes before moving to visual design?"
⚑
Placeholder content treated as acceptable for first-round delivery. In my experience, live dev URLs showing "$0M+," "0+," fake testimonials attributed to Herman Miller, and a stock image of the word "FAILURE" on a success story — this is what was presented to me as a reviewable deliverable. In my opinion, this reflects the standard of care applied to the work.
What to ask: "What is your policy on placeholder content in deliverables? Will I ever see 'lorem ipsum,' fake names, or zero-value stats in a design sent for my review?"
The Full Story
What I Hired Them to Do
I'm a founder who built and sold a data analytics company after eight years, working with Fortune 500 clients including Apple and Amazon. I hired Webtec (trywebtec.com) to build a website for my new fractional executive practice — a business where I partner with CEOs and founders as a part-time operational leader. Monthly retainers range from $8,000 to $24,000. The website needed to match that level.
I provided a 50+ page comprehensive brief covering everything: brand guidelines with specific hex colors (#262626 charcoal, #f1f1f1 off-white), a logo treatment ("stark."), three client personas, six speaking topics, three service tiers with pricing, tone of voice guidelines, and approved copy for most sections.
I told them directly through Basecamp on November 28, 2025: "This isn't a refresh of an existing site, but a brand-new site that needs some thought upfront." I uploaded the comprehensive brief on December 2, 2025.
What I Got Back
A template. Not a template thoughtfully shaped for my brand — a template where my content was dropped into a pre-existing layout with little regard for the brief I'd spent weeks preparing.
Over three-plus rounds of written feedback — including two formal critique documents — I flagged the same problems repeatedly. Some got fixed. Many didn't. The core issue — that the site felt generic rather than built for a premium personal brand — never changed.
I walked away from the $6,000 rather than launch a site that would undermine my credibility with the executives I'm trying to reach.
The Specific Problems
Every issue below is documented in screenshots, deliverable files, or Basecamp records.
01
Fake testimonials with a Fortune 500 furniture company's name
They filled testimonial sections with fabricated quotes. One was attributed to "Herman Miller" — a publicly traded furniture company (ticker: MLKN), not a person. Other fake names: "Isabel Gabalis, CEO," "Ashley Jones, CEO," and "John Doe, Head of Marketing." These appeared across the About page, Home page, Vistage page, and Case Studies page. The fake person's title wasn't even consistent: "Herman Miller" was "COO" on the About page but "CEO" on the Vistage page.
Evidence: About page, Vistage page, Case Studies page screenshots (Round 1 & Round 3)
02
Fake testimonial copy described web design, not executive services
The fabricated testimonial text on the About page described web design and development work: phrases like "building our systems," "our new site," and "hand-built code." These appeared on a website for fractional executive leadership. It reads like placeholder copy recycled from a different Webtec client's project.
Evidence: About page screenshot showing full testimonial text
03
Wrong business name on project and deliverables
My company is "Stark Fractional Group." The Basecamp project breadcrumb reads "Stark Ventures > To-dos." Their deliverable files were named "Stark_Ventures_1_1.pdf" and "Stark_Ventures_UX_Blueprint_1_1.pdf." The correct name was on the first page of the brief I uploaded. Eventually corrected, but it tells you how carefully the brief was read.
Evidence: Basecamp todo list screenshot, deliverable file names
04
Stock image of "FAILURE" on a success story
The Case Studies page showed three cards. The third — "Scaling a Founder-Led Company from Chaos to Clarity," a story about a successful engagement — used a stock illustration of someone pointing at the word "FAILURE" on a whiteboard. A success story illustrated with the word FAILURE. Removed after I flagged it.
Evidence: Round 1 Case Studies page screenshot
05
Placeholder stats showing "$0M+" and "0+"
The About page showed "$0M+" for "Company Built & Exited," "0+" for "Employees Scaled," "0+" for "Years Operating," and "0+" for "Industries Served." Live on the dev site. Updated after feedback.
Evidence: Round 1 About page screenshot
06
Duplicate sections on the same page
The Vistage page showed "How the Vistage Experience Works" twice in a row with duplicate "Schedule An Intro Call" buttons. The FAQ intro text also appeared twice. Still present in the Round 3 screenshots.
Evidence: Round 3 Vistage page screenshot
07
Every page used the identical template layout
Nearly every page followed the same pattern: dark hero → icon columns → content → testimonials → FAQ accordion → CTA with my photo → contact form. The "Book a Speaker Who Understands Execution" block appeared on the About, Who We Serve, Fractional, Vistage, Speaking, and Case Study pages. No visual distinction between pages about very different services.
Evidence: All Round 3 page screenshots
08
Entire service line initially replaced with generic placeholder
My brief described three services: fractional leadership, Vistage peer advisory coaching, and speaking. Their initial blueprint replaced the Vistage service with a generic "Business Coach" page — no mention of peer advisory groups, monthly meetings, or the Vistage brand. Corrected after first feedback round.
Evidence: UX Blueprint PDF vs. comprehensive brief
09
Inconsistent illustration styles
Case study cards used cartoon business illustrations. The Vistage page used sketchy line drawings. The Speaking page used isometric illustrations. None matched each other. None matched the brand tone described in the brief, which said to avoid "generic business stock photos, cheesy handshakes, corporate clichés."
Evidence: Round 3 screenshots across all pages
10
They didn't transfer the site until I filed a chargeback with American Express
After ending the engagement, Webtec did not transfer the website assets to me. The site — built on my dime — was withheld. Only after I disputed the $6,000 charge with American Express did they move to transfer it. A company that advertises "0% risk" and "don't pay a dime" required a credit card dispute before handing over work I had already paid for.
Evidence: American Express chargeback filing
Timeline
November 28, 2025
Told Webtec via Basecamp: "This isn't a refresh of an existing site, but a brand-new site that needs some thought upfront. Should we get that sitemap/UX doc going?"
Source: Basecamp todo list screenshot
December 2, 2025
Uploaded 50+ page brief (SFG_Comprehensive_Brief) to Basecamp: "Hi! Please see the brief attached. Let me know if you have any questions."
Source: Basecamp todo list screenshot
First Delivery
Received project overview and UX blueprint. Files titled "Stark_Ventures" (wrong name). Vistage missing, replaced by generic "Business Coach." Speaking topics narrowed to only data/AI. Sent formal 10-issue feedback document.
Evidence: Deliverable filenames, feedback document
Round 2 — First Screenshots
Received visual screenshots. Found fake testimonials (Herman Miller, John Doe), "FAILURE" stock image on success story, $0M+ placeholder stats, identical template layout on every page. Sent detailed design critique.
Evidence: Round 1 page screenshots
Round 3 — Updated Screenshots
Some fixes: stats updated, FAILURE image removed, my photo added to homepage, Vistage page created. Still present: fake testimonials, duplicate sections, same template on every page, inconsistent illustrations. Sent final feedback and copy revision guide.
Evidence: Round 3 page screenshots
Final Decision
Concluded the design team could not deliver what the brief required. The site felt like a customized template, not a custom build. Walked away. $6,000 sunk cost.
Chargeback Filed
After Webtec failed to transfer the website assets, I filed a chargeback with American Express for the full $6,000. Only after the dispute was opened did they transfer the site. A "0% risk" guarantee that required a credit card dispute to enforce.
Evidence: American Express chargeback filing
What did get fixed — in fairness: After my feedback, the team corrected the business name, added my photo to the homepage, updated the placeholder stats, removed the FAILURE image, created a dedicated Vistage page, and added the "Who We Serve" section. The designers were responsive to specific, concrete requests.
The problem was the overall design approach. No amount of item-by-item fixes could transform a template into a site that felt intentionally designed for a premium personal brand. That gap between "functional template" and "premium brand" is what I was paying $6,000 to close — and it never closed.
Why I'm Publishing This
Before I hired Webtec, I searched for honest reviews and couldn't find any that told me what working with them would actually be like. If I had, I might have asked harder questions before signing.
This isn't a hit piece. Every claim above is tied to a specific screenshot, document, or page on Webtec's own website. When the full documentation goes live, you'll be able to read my brief, see their deliverables, and review my feedback — then make your own call.
If you're a founder or business owner evaluating web design agencies, you deserve to see this kind of information before you write the check.
The footer on every page of the site they built reads: "Website Redesign by Webtec."
General Consumer Advice
Before You Hire Any Web Design Agency
These questions apply to any web agency, not just this one. In my opinion, any agency unwilling or unable to answer these clearly in writing before you sign is a risk.
- Get the satisfaction guarantee in writing. Ask exactly what triggers it, what the process is to invoke it, and what you receive if the guarantee applies. "Love it or don't pay" means nothing without a written definition of both "love it" and "don't pay."
- Ask who owns the files if you part ways. Get a written commitment — in the contract — that all design files, credentials, and assets will be transferred to you within a defined number of days if the engagement ends for any reason, at any stage.
- Require a brief review call before design begins. If they're willing to start designing without speaking to you about your brief, they're not reading it carefully. A single call where they play back your goals in their own words tells you whether they understand the project.
- Ask for milestone sign-off in the contract. You should formally approve the sitemap before wireframes begin, and wireframes before visual design begins. Without this, you can end up reviewing a fully styled site built on a structure you never agreed to.
- Ask to see their work for clients with similar briefs. Request examples of sites they built for clients in your industry or with your complexity level — not just their best-looking portfolio pieces. Ask to speak to one of those clients directly.
- Confirm what "custom design" means to them. Ask directly: "Do you use templates or pre-built themes as a starting point?" There's nothing wrong with templates, but you should know what you're paying for before you write the check.
- Find out who specifically is doing the work. Who will be the designer on your project? Can you see recent examples of that person's individual work? "Our team" is not an answer when you're paying a premium price for a premium result.
- Read the reviews that don't appear on their website. Any agency curates its own testimonials. Search independently: their name plus "review," "complaint," "experience." Look at third-party sources. If you can't find honest reviews, that itself is information.