Journal · 14 September 2026
What an Oxford spin-out needs from its first website
The first website for a university spin-out is usually built in a hurry, just before a funding round. A little planning makes it work much harder.
Oxford produces a steady stream of companies from its research. Some are formed around a single patent; others around a platform that a group has been developing for a decade. At some point, usually around the first serious fundraising conversations, someone realises the company needs a website. The founders are busy, the budget is tight, and the result is often a single page with a logo, a stock image of a DNA helix and an email address.
That page does the company very few favours. Here is what we suggest instead, based on the questions spin-outs ask us most often.
Who will actually read it
Before deciding on pages, it helps to list the readers. For most early-stage science companies there are five groups:
- Investors, who will look you up before and after a meeting. They want to see the problem, the approach, the team and some sign of momentum.
- Potential partners, such as pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers or research collaborators. They want enough technical detail to decide whether a call is worthwhile.
- Candidates, who are often the most thorough readers of all. Scientists and engineers considering a move from a stable academic post want to understand the company and its people.
- Grant panels and programme managers, who want a clear, accurate summary.
- Journalists and the wider sector, who need a sentence they can quote correctly.
Each group needs something slightly different, but all of them value clarity over polish.
The pages worth having at seed stage
A spin-out does not need twenty pages. Five or six well-written ones are plenty:
- Home. One clear statement of the problem you solve and how, with links to the pages below. Avoid opening with a slogan.
- Technology or platform. A plain explanation of the science, pitched at an intelligent non-specialist, with a deeper section or downloadable summary for experts.
- Applications or pipeline. Where the technology will be used first, and what stage each application has reached. Be honest about stage.
- Team. Founders, key staff, scientific advisers and board members, with short biographies and links to publications where relevant.
- News. Funding announcements, grants, publications and hires. Even three or four items show the company is active.
- Careers. Even if you are not hiring today, a page that describes how you work and invites speculative applications is useful.
A contact page with a form, plus clear details of the registered company, completes the set.
Separate the company from the department
Many spin-outs keep using a page on their founding department's website for too long. That makes it hard for investors to see the company as an independent entity, and it can cause confusion over what is university research and what is commercial activity. Your own domain and site, with your own name and story, signals the shift.
Be careful with university branding. Spin-outs usually have specific permissions, set out in their agreements, about how they may refer to the university. Check those terms before using any crest, logo or wording that implies endorsement. A neutral line such as "founded on research from the University of Oxford", if permitted, is often enough.
Explaining the science well
The hardest part of a spin-out website is the technology page. Scientists tend to write either for their peers, which loses everyone else, or for the general public, which can feel patronising to specialists. A layered approach works well:
- Start with a paragraph a generalist investor could read aloud to a colleague.
- Follow with a section that introduces the key concepts and why the approach is different.
- End with technical detail, figures and references for the specialists who want them.
Diagrams help a great deal. A clear schematic of how the platform works is worth more than any amount of stock photography. Microscopy and data figures can look striking, but each needs a caption and alt text that a non-specialist can follow.
What not to say
Two habits cause problems on science websites. The first is overclaiming: promising cures, revolutions or market sizes the evidence does not support. Investors discount it, and in regulated sectors such as diagnostics and medicines it can create compliance trouble. The second is vagueness: so many caveats that the reader cannot tell what the company does. Aim for specific and modest.
Keep it maintainable
The site should be easy for someone on the team to update without a developer. News, team changes and new vacancies happen often in a growing company, and an out-of-date team page is one of the first things a candidate notices. A simple content management system, set up with clear templates for news and people, removes most of that friction.
When to invest more
As the company grows, perhaps after a Series A or when products approach market, the website will need to do more: product pages, case studies, regulatory information, investor relations. A site built on a sound structure from the start can grow into that without a full rebuild. That is the main reason to spend a little more care on the first version than the deadline seems to allow.
How the first site usually comes together
A small spin-out site does not need a long project. A realistic plan looks like this:
| Week | What happens | Founder time needed |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kick-off call; we read papers, deck and grant summaries | About two hours |
| 2 | Page plan and first draft of the technology page | One hour to review |
| 3 | Remaining copy; photographs of the team and lab | Half a day for photos |
| 4 | Design of key pages on mobile and desktop | One hour to review |
| 5 | Build, technical review of every page by a scientist | One to two hours |
| 6 | Launch, handover and editor training | One hour |
The bottleneck is almost never the build. It is getting a founder or senior scientist to review the technical copy. Book that time in advance.
Mistakes we see often
- A site that describes the grant, not the company. Grant language is written for assessors. Investors and customers need to know what you will sell.
- Stock imagery of molecules and circuits. Real photographs of your lab, even modest ones, are more credible.
- No date on anything. News without dates, or a team page that still lists a postdoc who left last year, makes the company look dormant.
- A contact page with only a generic email. Give partners and press a clear route, and make sure someone reads the inbox.
- Overlong home pages. One clear screen and a few links is better than a scrolling essay.
A short checklist
- Your own domain, with email on the same domain.
- A one-sentence description of the company used consistently on the site, LinkedIn and pitch materials.
- A technology page written in three layers.
- Real photographs of your team and lab, rather than stock images.
- A news page with at least a few entries.
- A careers page, even a simple one.
- Contact details, company registration number and registered office.
- Privacy policy and cookie notice that match what the site actually does.
- Fast loading on a phone, because many investors will first open your link on one.
None of this is expensive. It mostly takes a few hours of founder time to get the words right, which is time well spent before a round.
We build sites like this regularly for companies at Kidlington and Begbroke and around Didcot and Harwell. Our page on websites for spin-outs and labs explains the process in more detail, and the principles in writing website copy for expert readers apply directly to your technology page.