A website is delivered in a state its owner will never see again. From launch it only diverges, and the direction it diverges in is decided by two questions almost nobody asks before signing: who can change this, and who is looking at what it produces.
Take the first. If publishing a page means emailing a developer and waiting three days, then over two years the honest answer is that nothing gets published. The article somebody in the office wrote does not go up. The new service line has no page. The person who joined in March is still not on the site in November. None of this is a decision anybody made; it is what happens when the cost of a small change is a conversation.
So the site slowly reverts to being a brochure, which is the state it was rescued from, and the next redesign gets commissioned for reasons nobody can quite articulate.
The fix is that the person who would actually write the page can publish the page. Not a developer, not me. The office manager opens an editor, writes an article or edits a service line, and it is live. What matters is not which tool: it is that the shapes exist as templates rather than as hand-built pages, so a new page comes out with a route to an enquiry already in it rather than being words on a screen.
That last part is the difference between a site that grows and a site that just gets longer. A published page with no ask on it adds nothing you can count.
Now the second question, which is the one nobody has an answer to. In the eighteen months since launch, how many enquiries came in, from which pages, and is the number going up. Almost every business I ask has a rough sense of how busy the phone was and no number at all, which means every change made to the site since launch is unfalsifiable.
This is why most maintenance arrangements maintain the wrong thing. Updates, backups, certificates and uptime are all worth having and none of them are the point. They keep the site from breaking. They tell you nothing about whether it is working, and a site that is up and producing nothing looks identical to one that is up and producing plenty.
The version worth paying for reads what happened. Once a month, what the path produced, by page, against the month before. Somebody who notices that the page which used to produce a third of the enquiries stopped in June, and goes and finds out why.
Neither of these is a technology problem. They are questions about who is allowed to act and who is looking, and if they are not answered on the day the site launches they get answered by default, badly, over the following two years.
Publishing your own pages, on accounts in your name, is Kinetic CMS, and there is a free walkthrough before you decide anything. Somebody reading what the site did each month and changing it is Care.