REC Power
2026
Where to Spend the Design
Impact
Shipped: Three deliverables in five weeks, against a launch date that could not move
Still in use: VECKTA publishes from the Canva system on LinkedIn
Reused: The landing page became a template on their site for content beyond the book
team
Senior Visual Designer
(myself, design lead)
DG+ account and communications lead
Project manager
Communications support
VECKTA's developer
skills
Editorial Design
Design Systems
Information Design
Art Direction
The Challenge
The date could not move. Brand guidelines review started March 13, the workbook was final April 23, and the landing page went live at the start of May.
The harder constraint was volume. VECKTA wrote the content, and there was a lot of it, all substantive. The workbook followed the book's five-step roadmap, and every step arrived with real material behind it. Site profiles with square footage and utility rates. Payback math. Financing structures. A portfolio example where 186 sites became a $20 million deployment instead of a $166 million one.
None of it was padding, which is exactly why it was a problem. Padding is easy to cut.
It also went deeper than the book. The three sections the roadmap sits inside, challenging limits, adapting purposefully, and empowering co-creation, are VECKTA's own company values. So the workbook was not built on a book that happened to be for sale. It was built on the structure the company uses to describe itself, which is part of why the content had so little give in it.
The landing page had the same load. Body copy, seven endorsements, four messaging pillars, an audience list, and a form. On a page built to capture leads, that is a lot of reading before anyone reaches the form.
And copy was still being corrected right up against sign-off, which meant layout had to be structurally right before the words were settled.
How I built it
Move 1. Decide where the design effort goes.
Left: Concept (Now shown to client)
Right: Landing page that shipped
How I built it
Move 2. Make density navigable instead of shorter.
How I built it
Move 3. Build it to keep running.
Working with stakeholders
I pushed to cut the copy, and my argument was a craft one. A landing page that reads like a book stops being readable, and legibility takes the hit first.
Communications pushed back, and that position was also fair. The content was doing work, the client had supplied it, and the client wanted it.
So I stopped arguing about length and cut it myself. I laid out a version with the cuts already made and showed the difference instead of describing it, mostly through the workbook where the contrast was easiest to see.
That produced a compromise. Some cuts held. Other wording the client wanted kept, and it stayed.
The developer sat on the client side, so the page handoff crossed organizations. I handed over a component-based page assembled from elements already in their library, which meant the developer was working with known parts rather than building new ones. VECKTA has since reused that page as a template for other content.
The Outcome
Everything shipped on the launch date.
VECKTA holds the performance data for the page and the download, so I have no campaign metrics. What I can see instead is that both systems are still in use. The Canva kit shows up on their LinkedIn feed. And the landing page has become another template option in their WordPress site, used for content that has nothing to do with the book.
That last part was not the plan. The page was scoped for the book and nothing else. I built it inside VECKTA's existing components to protect the timeline and avoid dev cost on their own build, and the reuse only came up at the end of the engagement, once it was clear the page could carry other content. Which is a better outcome than a planned one, because it means working inside the constraint produced something nobody had scoped.
At the close I wrote the creative recommendations, as a pitch for continued work. The first was to expand the landing page from a single-purpose book page into a flexible component system, naming the gaps directly: image placement, interactivity, and layouts that can carry long-form content. That is the same constraint that stopped my Figma layout, raised at the point where it could be scoped and paid for instead of squeezed into a launch. The second was to build an interactive tool from the workbook, so a business could adjust its own inputs and watch a utility bill turn from a fixed expense into a profit lever.
Reflection
The decision I am proudest of is the one nobody saw. Killing my own layout was the right call, and it is the kind of call that never shows up in a portfolio because there is no artifact at the end of it.
What I would do differently is raise the component question at kickoff as a scope item rather than absorbing it later as a design constraint. It was the right read for that timeline. But named early, it becomes a budget conversation while there is still time to have one.