Maryna Butovych had sent a developer the technical brief for a construction client’s advertising setup, which depended on a website built by another contractor, and received confirmation that the work was complete; in her questionnaire for this publication, she recalls how no conversions were recorded and repeated checks of her settings failed to explain why. The answer lay on the website.
The code was present across the website except on the thank-you page, the place where an enquiry was supposed to register as a conversion. Using Google Tag Assistant, Butovych found the omission on that page herself. This was the part of another contractor’s work on which her own reporting depended, and it had escaped the checks she had been repeating.
The page outside the check
The checks had stopped at the boundary of her own setup. Her advertising settings could describe the intended conversion correctly while the page meant to record it lacked the tag needed to make that happen, leaving nothing to correct in the settings themselves. She had to inspect what the developer had delivered.
The check had to reach the thank-you page and establish whether the required tag was present, a question the developer’s assurance had left untested. Code on the surrounding pages could not answer for code missing at the point of measurement, however reassuring the rest of the setup might have looked.
The work was somebody else’s; the responsibility had already reached her.
The jobs she took back
Her response was to start making the websites herself, a way of working she says she has kept with all her clients for five years. As a general rule for dividing labour, doing everything yourself is poor advice. A specialist who takes every adjoining task back inside her own practice also takes on work that could otherwise belong to a different specialist, while accumulating the workload herself.
Checking the page is routine verification, and taking over its construction is only one possible response to the omission she found in another contractor’s work. If a collaborator’s website passes the same check, the case for building it herself becomes weaker. The missing tag calls for inspection, whoever has done the building.
Based in Poltava, Butovych describes a practice joining Wix websites and Google Ads with basic SEO, Google Business Profile, YouTube and visibility in AI search. Her IT-rating profile lists Google Ads work from 2018 and Wix work from 2021, dates she supplied to the directory herself.
In her questionnaire of 26 August 2026, she reported 5 regular clients. Her website lists 3 client projects: the Poltava detailing studio LeDetailing, the timber and sauna products shop ROOTY, and the construction company PSM-Profil. The sites were live when checked on 10 September 2026. Those businesses also have YouTube channels that she manages, putting the task of presenting their services alongside the technical work of building their websites.
A client and a referral
LeDetailing was her first client, beginning with a modest website while promotion ran through Instagram and Facebook; in Butovych’s account, the owner then complained that three successive marketers had produced attractive social videos while Instagram advertising brought no enquiries. The videos were not the owner’s measure of success.
Butovych proposed a website with a blog, YouTube video and Google search advertising as the main means of finding customers in place of social promotion. In her account, calls followed, then enquiries, and the studio’s manager asks each person who gets in touch how they heard about the business. That sequence cannot establish which change brought the enquiries.
The owner subsequently recommended Butovych to an acquaintance facing a similar situation, and she says that referral brought her next client, with another following later. That recommendation concerned a relationship which already combined making a site, preparing material and handling advertising, bringing different tasks within the work one client could describe to the next.
What the owner still has to do
There is a limit to how far she will take that relationship, and it appears when the question concerns what the business actually knows. Butovych says she is not an expert in detailing, sauna repairs, shockwave therapy or hangar construction, and she does not intend to become one. The expertise stays with the owner.
In her view, the owner must supply the expertise personally or nominate someone who can, particularly when the material is intended to make the business visible in AI search, because she cannot invent knowledge of a subject she does not understand. Some owners, she says, are reluctant to communicate and show annoyance during filming because they regard the request for their involvement as an interruption to work.
A video can fall within her assignment while its explanation still belongs to the person who understands the service being filmed, so taking over the camera and the website cannot remove the need for an owner to spend time supplying that knowledge.
Paying does not end their involvement. A client who expects the fee to cover every part of promotion still has to provide the knowledge, which puts Butovych in the awkward position of asking for more participation after being paid to take work away.
The question clients most often ask, she writes in the questionnaire, is whether they have to go through testing again. Her answer is that she cannot say in advance which approach will work better. Repeated testing asks for continued patience from owners who are also adapting their businesses under wartime conditions, as she describes her clients doing.
The missing tag revealed the risks of accepting work on trust and led Butovych to take over website development for her clients. This decision removed one handover from the chain and tied the volume of her work to what she can build herself. Verification did not go away with the developer: the tag on the thank-you page still has to be checked after every change, and she still checks it.
