Skip to content
Now accepting Q2 projects — limited slots available. Get started →
Portugues Espanol 日本語 Francais Deutsch English 繁體中文 한국어 العربية 中文 Nederlands
Architecture ReviewPerformance AuditSEO AnalysisMigration PlanningFixed Price

Next.js 諮詢服務:架構、效能、SEO 審計

你的 Next.js 應用在你看到指標之前就已經在流失流量

5-10
days to deliver
30-50pt
Lighthouse improvement avg
GBP 3K
audit starting price
100%
fixed-price engagements
What a Next.js Consulting Session Actually Uncovers — And What It Won't

Your deploy ships, traffic hits your site, and somewhere between the CDN and the browser, conversions leak. A slow LCP metric. A metadata API call that never fired. A bundle so bloated your mobile users bounce before pixels render. Next.js moves fast—App Router, server components, edge middleware—but your team is stuck debugging symptoms instead of root causes. You need someone who's migrated production codebases at scale, not someone who read the docs last week. We audit your routing, rendering strategy, data fetching, Lighthouse metrics, SEO implementation, and bundle composition. Then we hand you a prioritised fix list with effort estimates and expected impact per change. No six-month guessing games. No wasted sprints optimising the wrong layer while your stakeholders watch conversion rates drop.

專案失敗的原因

Here's the thing about slow Next.js apps -- they're deceptive Sometimes it's rendering. Sometimes it's a waterfall in your data fetching layer. Sometimes it's infrastructure, and you're throwing money at Vercel Pro when the real problem is a blocking API call on every page load. Without proper diagnosis, you're guessing. And guessing wastes sprints. We've seen teams spend three months "optimizing" the wrong layer entirely. Every week without a clear answer is another week of compounding technical debt, frustrated stakeholders, and performance that quietly tanks your conversion rate while your team ships features on top of a shaky foundation.
You built on Pages Router -- probably around 2021 or 2022, which was absolutely the right call back then But now App Router is stable, server components are genuinely useful, and you're wondering if the migration is worth the pain. Honestly, sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. The answer depends on your specific routing complexity, your data fetching patterns, and how much of your codebase relies on `getServerSideProps`. So before you commit six sprints to a migration, it's worth getting an independent read on whether the investment actually pencils out for your situation.
Good content doesn't rank if your technical foundations are broken And Next.js -- for all its strengths -- has some genuinely tricky SEO failure modes. Metadata not rendering server-side. Dynamic routes missing from your sitemap. hreflang implemented incorrectly across locale variants. The real kicker is these issues are invisible until your organic traffic flatlines. We've audited sites in London, New York, Sydney -- same story every time. The content team is doing everything right, and the dev team doesn't realize the crawlers are getting a broken experience.
Sometimes you just need a second opinion before making a big call Maybe you're about to refactor your entire data fetching layer. Maybe you're questioning your rendering strategy across 40+ routes. Committing to that kind of work without an independent architecture review is genuinely risky -- not because your team isn't capable, but because it's hard to see the full picture when you're inside it every day. An outside perspective catches assumptions you've stopped questioning. And it's a lot cheaper to validate the approach before you build than after.
Junior teams move fast but they also pick up bad patterns fast And in Next.js specifically, the wrong instinct -- client-side fetching where server components belong, missing `Suspense` boundaries, bloated bundles from poorly configured imports -- becomes load-bearing code pretty quickly. It's not a criticism, it's just how it goes. Senior guidance early prevents the kind of architectural drift that takes six months to untangle later. Having someone in your corner who's shipped production Next.js apps at scale -- not just read the docs -- makes a real difference in code review quality and day-to-day decision-making.

我們構建的內容

Audit your routing architecture, rendering strategy, data fetching, caching, and middleware configuration

Identify which layers are bleeding performance before your team wastes sprints guessing

Trace root causes for LCP, CLS, INP, and TBT failures with per-metric breakdowns

Get a clear migration roadmap that shows whether App Router is worth the investment for your codebase

Review metadata API usage, structured data, sitemap generation, hreflang, and indexation blocks

Fix invisible SEO failures stopping crawlers from indexing your content correctly

Analyse bundle size, tree shaking, code splitting, dynamic imports, and third-party script impact

Validate your refactoring strategy before your team commits six months to the wrong approach

Map migration paths from Pages Router to App Router, CMS integrations, and hosting switches

Catch bad patterns early before they become load-bearing code your junior team can't untangle

Deliver a prioritised action plan with estimated effort and expected impact per fix

Walk away with a fixed-price session and a clear plan—no retainer, no long-term commitment

常見問題

Next.js 諮詢參與包括什麼?

這是典型參與實際涵蓋的內容。我們深入了解你的架構——路由結構、資料獲取模式、跨路由樹的渲染策略。我們使用 Lighthouse 和 Core Web Vitals 進行全面效能審計,加上包分析來查找實際膨脹你的 JS 負載的原因。在 SEO 方面,我們檢查中繼資料渲染、結構化資料、網站地圖配置,以及如果你運行多個語言版本的 hreflang。你會獲得一份優先行動計畫——不是 60 個模糊建議的清單,而是按影響力排序的具體修複,附上預估工作量。所有這一切在 5-10 個工作天內交付。

這與程式碼審查有何不同?

程式碼審查捕捉語法問題、風格不一致、明顯的錯誤。這很有用。但這不是同一回事。我們看的是系統設計——你是否為每條路由採用了正確的渲染策略?你的資料獲取模式是否創建了將 TTFB 增加 800ms 的瀑布流?你的 SEO 基礎是真正穩固還是只是在技術上存在?從理論上講,這個區別很清楚,但在實踐中,大多數團隊沒有人定期提出這些問題。老實說,我們發現的問題幾乎總是架構問題。不是打字錯誤。不是缺少分號。而是六個月前做出的決定,在當時是合理的,但現在卻在悄悄地造成問題。

你能幫助我們從 Pages Router 遷移到 App Router 嗎?

可以——而且我們已經做了足夠多次來圍繞它建立真正的流程。方法是逐路由遷移,這意味著你現有的 Pages Router 功能保持不變,同時我們逐步將路由帶到 App Router。伺服器元件、串流、新的中繼資料 API——所有這些都是漸進式採用,而不是一次令人恐懼的大規模轉換。零停機遷移不是錦上添花,而是標準配置。在遷移過程中,你保持線上運行,你的團隊在遷移與正常開發並行時不會受到阻礙。

你提供持續諮詢還是只提供一次性審計?

兩種選擇都可用。一次性審計——涵蓋架構、效能和 SEO——起價 £3,000。這是固定的範圍、固定的交付物,在兩週內完成。保留諮詢費用為 £2,000-5,000/月,取決於範圍,涵蓋持續的架構指導、PR 審查和效能監控。老實說,大多數客戶從審計開始。它清楚地界定了真正的問題,許多客戶在之後會轉為保留諮詢,因為他們希望長期有人在他們身邊。無論如何,審計是一個明智的起點。

如果我們需要實施而不僅僅是建議怎麼辦?

Social Animal 不僅僅是一間諮詢公司——我們是全方位開發機構。所以當審計揭示優先事項,而你需要有人實際實施修複時,我們的工程團隊可以直接承接。你不必將一份 40 頁的建議文件交給你自己的團隊並祝他們好運。許多客戶將諮詢參與作為更大型建設項目的範圍界定階段。這是一個相當自然的進展——我們發現問題所在,就最重要的事項達成協議,然後我們著手建設。

Get Your Quote

Most quotes delivered within 24 hours.

Get Started
Get in touch

Let's build
something together.

Whether it's a migration, a new build, or an SEO challenge — the Social Animal team would love to hear from you.

Get in touch →