A well-scoped accessibility conversation doesn’t scare clients—it wins them. Here’s how WordPress agencies can talk about accessibility in redesign proposals without triggering the “scope creep” reflex.
## Open with business pain, not WCAG identifiers
The client cares about revenue, legal exposure, and looking competent to procurement or grant reviewers. A success criterion number means nothing to them. Reframe:
– **E-commerce client:** Frame as conversion. Customers relying on assistive technology who hit an inaccessible checkout leave. WebAIM’s screen reader survey reports most respondents find the web somewhat or very inaccessible. {{source:https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/}} That’s revenue walking away.
– **Service-business client:** Frame as legal exposure. A demand letter costs more in attorney time and remediation than building it right would. The cost asymmetry sells itself.
– **Public-sector client:** Frame as procurement. VPATs and accessibility conformance reports are table-stakes documents at RFP review. No report, no contract.
## The email template that converts
Subject line: *Accessibility note on your upcoming redesign*
Body (short paragraphs):
> We want to flag one thing before the SOW lands. Recent sites we’ve shipped have all included an accessibility line in the build—partly because WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is referenced in the DOJ Title II final rule published April 2024. {{source:https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state-and-local-government-entities}}
>
> We’ve attached a short automated scan of your current site. Most of the items it flags will be inexpensive to fix during the rebuild and expensive to retrofit after launch. A short scoping call, no charge, walks through the report.
The attachment—a scan output naming the client’s actual broken buttons and missing labels—is more persuasive than any paragraph about regulation.
## Pricing that survives client review
Three patterns work depending on engagement size:
1. **Bundled audit and remediation, one fixed line item.** Best for SMB redesigns with smaller page counts. The client never sees “accessibility audit” as a separate line, removing the impulse to negotiate it out.
2. **Separate audit line plus remediation hours.** Best for redesigns where the existing site carries third-party plugin debt. Audit is fixed price; remediation is hourly with a not-to-exceed cap.
3. **Monthly scan retainer.** Best for clients who publish often or run e-commerce. A modest monthly fee covers scheduled scans, a written report, and a fix queue prioritized by severity. This is the line that funds your agency’s accessibility practice over time.
In all cases, the deliverable named on the invoice is “accessibility conformance report and remediation log,” not “WCAG fixes.” Procurement and legal reviewers know what to do with a conformance report.
## What not to promise
Do not promise “compliance.” Automated tools cover roughly 30-40% of WCAG issues at best. {{source:https://alphagov.github.io/accessibility-tool-audit/}} Full compliance requires human review of content and user flows. Promise “WCAG 2.1 AA conformance to the criteria covered by automated and manual review at the time of audit.” That’s what auditors and procurement officers expect to see.
Do not promise that a single audit closes the issue. Sites change. Content gets added. A scan in March is not a guarantee in October. The retainer line exists for that reason.
A scan output that names real issues on the client’s actual site is the conversion hook. The report opens the conversation. The retainer keeps it going.