The problem with your own site
A client's site has a brief, which is a useful thing to have. It says who the site is for, what a visitor has to be able to do, and - most usefully - what is out of scope. Our own site had none of that, so for two years it was a page we kept meaning to fix.
What it had instead was a deadline that never arrived and a designer who could change his mind on a Tuesday. That is how a site ends up with four different ideas of what it is, and it is why some studio sites look like three portfolios stapled together.
What we did instead
We wrote the brief. Who this site is for, what a visitor should be able to do in the first ten seconds, and the one thing we would rather it did not do - which turned out to be "look like every other studio's site, but orange".
Everything after that was ordinary work: one type scale, three colours, sections that are pages rather than templates, and copy written as if a person were going to read it out loud. The interesting part was how much of it came from the brief rather than from taste.
What it means if you are hiring us
It means we will ask you for the same things we had to write down for ourselves, and it means we will say no to something we like if the brief does not want it. It also means we are unusually unsentimental about our own work: the version of this site you are reading is not the first one, and it will not be the last.