A content audit is not a redesign. It is a cleanup that makes the redesign possible. If you skip it, you end up migrating pages you don’t need, rewriting content you could have merged, and paying for scope you never wanted.
USDA’s content strategy guidance frames a content audit as a full catalog of site content that helps you understand gaps and optimize what you already have. Their example also highlights ROT analysis (redundant, obsolete, trivial) as a practical filter for what should go away. USDA content audit guidance
Mass.gov gives a useful reminder: audits are cleanup, not redesign. That separation is helpful because it keeps teams from debating new copy while they are still trying to understand what exists. Mass.gov content audit overview
If you are planning a redesign, this is the audit approach that keeps scope under control and helps you make real decisions.
What a content audit actually does
A content audit answers four questions:
- What content exists right now?
- What content is still accurate and useful?
- What content is duplicated, outdated, or misaligned?
- What content should be kept, merged, or removed before you redesign?
This is different from content strategy. Strategy is about what you should publish. An audit is about what already exists and whether it deserves to survive.
The audit starts with a real inventory
You can’t make decisions on content you haven’t listed. The first step is a spreadsheet inventory that includes:
- URL
- Page title
- Primary goal of the page
- Last updated date
- Owner (if known)
- Notes on accuracy, duplication, or gaps
USDA’s audit guidance recommends an inventory spreadsheet and calls out the benefit of a full listing before you try to interpret relationships. That sequencing saves time. USDA content audit guidance
If you want a shortcut, start with a crawl export and then add your business notes. That is usually enough to start making decisions.
The four decision buckets: keep, cut, merge, rewrite
The audit is useless if it doesn’t end in decisions. I use four buckets that make the next phase obvious.
Keep
Keep content that is accurate, unique, and aligned with how buyers decide. It still needs refinement, but it has a clear purpose. These pages should stay in your new information architecture.
Cut
Cut content that is outdated, off‑brand, or off‑strategy. This is the ROT category Mass.gov highlights: redundant, obsolete, or trivial content. Removing it makes redesigns easier and faster. Mass.gov content audit overview
Merge
Merge content when you have thin pages that compete with each other. This is common in service businesses with multiple “near‑duplicate” service pages. A merge reduces duplication and clarifies the buyer path. It also improves how search engines interpret your primary page. If you need help, see service page anatomy.
Rewrite
Rewrite content that is strategically important but unclear. This typically includes your homepage, core service pages, and the pages that answer buyer objections. Homepage messaging and technical service copy are the usual rewrite targets.
What to measure without overcomplicating it
If you have analytics access, add a few basic signals to your inventory:
- Pageviews or sessions
- Time on page (if you trust it)
- Conversions or assisted conversions
- Entry vs supporting pages
You don’t need perfect data. You just need enough to see which pages matter and which ones are dead weight. The marketing site analytics baseline article explains how to collect that without getting lost in dashboards.
Who should be involved in the audit
Content audits fail when only one person owns the decisions. You need a small, cross-functional group that can make quick calls. I recommend:
- A marketing owner who understands positioning and pipeline goals
- A service owner who knows what is actually delivered
- A sales or account lead who hears objections and deal blockers
- One person who is responsible for compliance or legal accuracy
Keep this group small. The goal is clarity, not consensus. You can always loop in more people once the audit decisions are made.
Special cases: legal pages, proof pages, and legacy content
Some pages look low-traffic but are high-risk. That includes legal notices, privacy policy pages, and trust pages like reviews or case studies. These should not be cut without a business owner sign-off.
If you have a dedicated reviews page or a case study set, mark these as "rewrite" instead of "cut." A poor case study is still a clue about what your buyers need to see. You can turn it into a better asset instead of deleting it. The case study structure guide can help you decide what to keep.
Legacy blog posts are a different category. If they still bring search traffic, consider merging or redirecting instead of deleting. That reduces the risk of losing organic visibility while you simplify the site.
The audit should feed your redirect plan
Every "cut" or "merge" decision should produce a redirect action. If you skip this, you'll introduce broken links and lose the value of any existing search visibility.
When you move or remove pages, maintain a mapping file that pairs old URLs with new destinations. This is the same logic used in website migration planning. Even if your redesign is not a full migration, the discipline is the same. Keeping this mapping early turns a risky guessing game into a clean implementation task.
A clean audit flow that works for service businesses
This is the flow I use with service firms when scope matters.
- Build the inventory spreadsheet
- Tag ROT candidates quickly
- Flag pages that support revenue directly
- Decide keep/merge/cut/rewrite
- Share a one‑page summary with stakeholders
That’s it. The goal is a decision map, not a research project.
How to avoid analysis paralysis
Content audits can stall because teams try to perfect every page review. Don’t do that. You need clarity, not perfection.
Here’s what helps:
- Set a time limit for page review (2 to 3 minutes each)
- Mark “uncertain” pages for a second pass
- Let the business owner decide final calls
If you need to move quickly, focus on top‑level navigation pages and high‑traffic entries first. That usually surfaces 80% of the decisions.
How the audit reduces redesign risk
When you audit first, you get three benefits:
- Scope clarity. You stop paying to migrate low‑value content.
- Copy priorities. You know which pages deserve investment.
- Architecture confidence. You can map content to buyer stages without guessing.
That last point is critical. If you are planning a services hub or a multi‑service navigation, you need to know what content exists before you can structure it.
What to do with the audit results
The audit should feed three artifacts:
- A trimmed sitemap
- A rewrite list with owners
- A migration backlog with deadlines
Those three outputs are enough to guide the redesign. If you want a bigger governance system, connect the audit to your content governance plan.
The quiet win: fewer pages, better decisions
Every redesign I’ve seen that went well started with fewer pages, not more. A strong audit gives you permission to remove what no longer matters. That saves time, money, and internal debate.
If you want help running the audit or deciding what to keep, send your draft inventory through the project brief and I’ll mark the pages that should survive. If you want a quick second opinion, use the contact form.
