Assets for Acreswebsite redesign:before & after

Assets for Acres is a land buyer based in Dallas, Texas. It makes cash offers on land parcels: farm, forestry, rural, residential and commercial land.

Its own site says it buys land in any condition and any situation, from owners who inherited a parcel, are behind on taxes, owe liens or have a lot they will never use. It promises no fees, no commissions and that it pays all the closing costs, and it says it closes with title through escrow.

A landowner arriving here has probably held the parcel for years and is not sure it is worth selling. The page has one job: get that person to send the details of the land, without asking for so much that they leave.

This is not an agency rebuild. I gave the concept about 2 hours and spent them on the fixes that do the most for customers: the 20% of the work that gets 80% of the improvement.

To show how much that improves, I score every original homepage and every concept on the same 100-point checklist. Most checks are yes or no, and a script runs the technical ones (speed, mobile, accessibility). When in doubt, the point goes to the original site.

The original does more right than most sites I look at. It puts the offer form on the first screen, which is where a seller who is ready wants it. "No Fees, No Commissions and We Pay All The Closing Costs" is a strong promise and the page repeats it in several places. The photos look like real land, and the footer has a full Dallas address, a phone number and an email. What holds it back is how much the first screen asks of the visitor, and how little it says about who is asking.

The first screen and the mobile view, original on the left and concept on the right. The slider at the top of the post compares the first screen up close.

First screen

01Say where, next to what

The tag "Nationwide Land Buyers, Dallas, TX" sits above the headline, and the paragraph says "anywhere in the US". The original only says "across the nation" in a paragraph further down.

02The promise first, the form later

The headline "We Buy Land for Cash", the three promises the original already makes and a four-item checklist take the first screen. The form moves to a section near the bottom of the page.

03One main button

"Get My Cash Offer" is the one filled button. "How It Works" is an outline beside it, so the second choice does not compete with the first.

Mobile

01A button on the first phone screen

The original's first phone screen is a form with no button on it. The concept shows the headline, the checklist and a 56px gold "Get My Cash Offer" button before the visitor scrolls.

02Text that is still small

Body text on the concept's phone view is 14.7px at the median, up from 14px. That is better but still under the 16px I want, and I list it below.

1. 01Say where you buy on the first screen. "We buy land" is clear, but a visitor should not have to hunt for a drop-down to learn whether you cover their state.
2. 02Keep the form short and tell people why. Name, phone and state are enough to start an offer on a parcel. Ask for county, acreage and the story on the call.
3. 03Put a button before the form, not a form before the reason. A landowner who is not sure yet needs the promise first: no fees, closing costs paid, any condition.
4. 04Put your phone number where a thumb can reach it. A seller who would rather talk than type should not need to reach the footer.
5. 05Show a name, a face or a past deal. A land buyer who is only an email address is a big ask for someone selling a family parcel. One real sold parcel, with the county and the price range, does more than any layout change.

The concept does not score 100. About 2 hours doesn't fix everything, and the checklist applies to my work too:

• The form is longer than the original. It has seven fields, one more than before. I would cut it to name, phone and state and ask the rest on the call.
• The form is not wired up. It posts nowhere, and the consent wording about text messages that the original form carries is gone. If the business sends texts, that wording has to come back.
• Two claims are mine. "Response within 24 hours" and "All 50 states" are not on the original site. Assets for Acres needs to confirm each one or drop it.
• The photo is stock. The green field under a blue sky is not the business's land. The original's aerial forest and its road-sign photo looked real, and I dropped them; they should go back in.
• There is still no proof. No reviews, no number of parcels bought, no years in business, no owner name. Neither site has them, and layout cannot invent them.
• The phone number is not in the header or the hero. It is on the second screen and in the footer.
• Accessibility got worse. The scan found 31 serious issues in the concept, almost all low-contrast text, against 3 on the original. Lighthouse mobile speed is better, 88 against 61.

If I were talking to the owner of Assets for Acres, I would start with what the original gets right. Your form is on the first screen, you say "we pay all the closing costs" several times, and your footer shows a real Dallas address. Plenty of land buyers hide all three. My concept mostly rearranges what you already say so a visitor sees the promise and a button before a wall of fields.

The choice I am least sure about is moving the form off the first screen. For a seller who is ready, a form on the first screen is the fastest path, and I may have added a click for them. I think the button wins for the seller who is unsure, but I would want to see the numbers from a real test before I told anyone to do it. I also made the form longer, which is the wrong direction.

What the concept does not solve is trust. There are no reviews, no owner name, no count of parcels bought and no photos of land you have handled. I could not find any of them on the original site either, so I did not make them up. The business has to supply them, and they will do more than any color I picked.