BIG 3 Web Design & Development

destraynor

Disclaimer: I work with the team in Contrast.

I'd like to point to this article I wrote about design, agencies, and clients. http://contrast.ie/blog/three-to-tango with the hope of putting some things into perspective.

Regards,
Des

Sonnenblumen

destraynor wrote: »

Disclaimer: I work with the team in Contrast.

I'd like to point to this article I wrote about design, agencies, and clients. http://contrast.ie/blog/three-to-tango with the hope of putting some things into perspective.

Regards,
Des

Thanks for that Des. Thought provoking and perhaps a little philosophical but a useful perspective on the whole process. Mind you, I wonder how many companies would turn down a 6 or 7 figure sum contract?

tomED

Is this a serious thread?? LOL

I still don't get it - what is the criteria for selecting the top 3 companies? Is it size, turnover, quality of what?

Web Factory have been going years and can command nice tidy sums for the work they do - we could go on all day giving out about their website.

X Comm do some excellent work - but I don't think they're the largest in terms of staff numbers.

I do have my favourites, for the work they do - but I'm not sure if it counts to list them!?

Sonnenblumen

tomED wrote: »

Is this a serious thread?? LOL

I still don't get it - what is the criteria for selecting the top 3 companies? Is it size, turnover, quality of what?

Web Factory have been going years and can command nice tidy sums for the work they do - we could go on all day giving out about their website.

X Comm do some excellent work - but I don't think they're the largest in terms of staff numbers.

I do have my favourites, for the work they do - but I'm not sure if it counts to list them!?

Over 60 Posts in and you're unsure about the topic? Have you read much, staff nrs or turnover would be a narrow way of assessing 'BIG'. Creative output is probably closer to what I'm interested in, but I suppose the more creative, the more successful, the more resources ie the bigger the company?

Go on, what's holding you back form posting your favourites (and don't forget why)

tomED

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Over 60 Posts in and you're unsure about the topic? Have you read much, staff nrs or turnover would be a narrow way of assessing 'BIG'. Creative output is probably closer to what I'm interested in, but I suppose the more creative, the morye successful, the more resources ie the bigger the company?

Go on, what's holding you back form posting your favourites (and don't forget why)

Yes, there isn't any common criteria between anyone in most posts.

How exactly is turnover or staff numbers are a narrow way of assessing BIG? If they have a large turnover it means they're probably getting a lot of business, which would make them big.

Creativity doesn't have any bearing on how big or successful a company is. There are many small companies doing a lot more creative work than the more successful and cost demanding companies as it's already been pointed

My favourite companies in terms of design are:

www.cksk.com
Some excellent and innovative approaches to the web. They're not a web design agency per se, but have designed impressive sites, e.g www.strongbowgold.com

And work with some major household name brands.

www.pixelcraft.ie
Create beautiful interfaces that you could look at all day long!

www.webtogether.ie
These guys are targeting the same companies we work with and it's clear that they are delivering quality designs to the clients taste. I love their work and can see the constraints they face with some designs.

I could go on and on - but you'll never get a list of BIG 3 because the criteria isn't set.

shanno06

I'd just like to throw DaraCreative (http://www.daracreative.ie) and Continuum into the mix (http://www.continuum.ie).

They are both pretty big players also in the industry.
Dara Creative make some really nice stuff.

BarackPyjama

shanno06 wrote: »

I'd just like to throw DaraCreative (http://www.daracreative.ie) and Continuum into the mix (http://www.continuum.ie).

Not a fan of either to be honest.

MrPicante

It boils down to your objectives ....and taste. Depending where you are positioned in the market and the results you are trying to achieve will require not just design but an online strategy. The big guys offer these services and are not shy about charging either. You are after all paying not just for the commodity of development but the knowledge of expertise - this is why outsourcing to cheaper countries often falls down on the objecives

worc

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with any company and don't make any money off webdesign - do it for the craic for friends for free.

I'd agree with tomED - the more creative doesn't mean bigger, in fact creativity sometimes is not the way to go at all with a website so creativity is no measure of a "big" company. It's all about solving problems with a website - I think this is a difficult question to answer (probably impossible) because without being involved with the design of a website you probably don't know if the team behind it solved the problems that had to be solved.

And with some of the sites listed what's with so many missing favicons on their own / clients websites!? (pet peeve)

shanno06 wrote: »

I'd just like to throw DaraCreative (http://www.daracreative.ie) and Continuum into the mix (http://www.continuum.ie).

They are both pretty big players also in the industry.
Dara Creative make some really nice stuff.

On a side note - the "website scrappage deal" on daracreative say's their deal gives €3,000 worth of free features (pasted below). If they'd normally charge €3,000 for those features they must be getting a lot of business but holy crap I've done all that for people for nothing and even if I charged it seems colossal money. Maybe I should setup if that's what can be made - is that the going rate for those features??

Quoted from their site:

The €3,000 of free features include:

• MODx Content Management System
• Email Marketing System Set Up
• HTML Email Template Design & Build
• D.I.Y. 'On Page' SEO Tool
• Google Analytics Integration
• Google Webmaster Tools Set Up
• Google Map with Directions
• Social Media Links & Share Buttons
• Blog with commenting, sharing & RSS
• Image Galleries & Image Editor
• Animated menus and content areas
• Email Enquiry / Call Back Forms

BarackPyjama

The race to the bottom continues.

Fanny Cradock

worc wrote: »

On a side note - the "website scrappage deal" on daracreative say's their deal gives €3,000 worth of free features (pasted below). If they'd normally charge €3,000 for those features they must be getting a lot of business but holy crap I've done all that for people for nothing and even if I charged it seems colossal money. Maybe I should setup if that's what can be made - is that the going rate for those features??

That's rather like saying "I made a website for someone". It isn't so much about what you did. It's about how well you did it. If you are a big company looking for a digital package then it makes sense to go for a company that has staff members specialising in distinct areas. It's difficult enough to find a strong mix of design and development an individual. It becomes even more difficult when you are offering things like SEO and support.

worc

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's rather like saying "I made a website for someone". It isn't so much about what you did. It's about how well you did it.

I don't agree that's the same thing at all. I put up a clear list of feautres there, I wasn't as vague as saying "I made a website for someone" and then said "they're doing websites and getting €3,000! WTF!!".

I think if you look at the specific features there they don't require what I would say is €3,000's worth and the majority can't really be done badly - they are done or they are not done. You can't implement Google Analytics "well" - it's either implemented or it isn't. I know you can break down analytics into showing people how to create goals, understand how to identify trends etc. but that's not in the features listed.

• MODx Content Management System - could be replace CMS with Joomla/Wordpress nothing major here
• Email Marketing System Set Up - Mailchimp easy peasy
• HTML Email Template Design & Build - Mailchimp again
• D.I.Y. 'On Page' SEO Tool - will concede I have no idea about this one (could be SEOmoz / SEOBook Toolbars)
  
• Google Analytics Integration - couple of minutes
• Google Webmaster Tools Set Up - couple of minutes
• Google Map with Directions - couple of minutes
• Social Media Links & Share Buttons - AddThis
• Blog with commenting, sharing & RSS - Wordpress standard
• Image Galleries & Image Editor - nothing particularily difficult here though of course no idea what image editor they provide
• Animated menus and content areas - suppose time can be spent on this yeah maybe depedning on what is wanted by the client
  
• Email Enquiry / Call Back Forms - WuFoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are a big company looking for a digital package then it makes sense to go for a company that has staff members specialising in distinct areas. It's difficult enough to find a strong mix of design and development an individual. It becomes even more difficult when you are offering things like SEO and support.

Yeah that's fine - no arguement there. Not sure though what you mean in relation to what I said. Are you saying because they have got that mix of people that they can charge that price?

Fanny Cradock

I'm saying that you get what you pay for.

For example, you could replace Modx with Wordpress or Joomla (arguably at least one of those is just plain inferior, while the other is bloated) but then what? It's not like the site suddenly appears when you install the CMS of your choosing.

Larger web design companies aren't doing nixers for their mates and installing some free templates. They create everything from scratch. That means getting graphic designers to design the look of the website and developers to code this design and add all that tricky functionality to the site. The same applies to something like newsletters. These companies don't use a Mailchip template they bought for €30. They create their own according to a template a professional designer drew up for the client.

It's analogous to saying that the computer you bought for €300 is a better deal than the one your friend bought for €800. Well, price is only part of the equation. There are a number of other factors to take on board. The better buy depends on first determining what the need of each user is. If you are only sending emails then spending €300 on a computer makes sense. However, if you require more grunt for encoding then a €300 PC will end up costing you time.

p

You said you just do web stuff as a hobby. There's a massive gap between hobby web design and professional web design. Many people who work on an amateur or student level are surprised by the seemingly high prices people charge, but the difference in quality is hard to understand when you're not operating at that level. I know I took awhile to understand it too after university.

Knowing the names of a few bits of software doesn't mean much at all. Delivering a professional service, working with the client to address their needs, and delivering on-time, on budget to a high quality, rock solid standard takes a hell of a lot of work. If you just installed a bunch of software and gave it to a client they'd give you a slap in the face.

Maybe I can give you an analogy. If you went into a restaurant and ordered an item on the menu. What you're suggesting would be equivalent to the waiter bringing all the ingredients back to you uncooked. Sure it's the same building elements, but it's world apart from a finished meal.


Also, I think you're a bit confused about pricing. They're not doing websites for €3000, they're offering that much for free. I doubt they do websites for anything under 5 figures at a minimum.

worc

If you can show me where I said the entire website design is €3,000 then I actually would be confused - I've said it's the FEATURES I'm curious about, not the entire site.

I don't think my mind would change on this and I'm damn sure yours won't so I won't post the wall of text I just wrote.

I can forsee the thanks coming in for anyone against this arguement but while I do things as a hobby I was once quite involved with design - I did a degree in it, now while that means absolutely nothing you'll just have to believe I do grasp the time it can take to bring something from idea to concept to finished product - what I want to say to back up how I feel about this would probably be libelous so I'll leave it that you guys are right and I'm wrong.

jmcc

worc wrote: »

On a side note - the "website scrappage deal" on daracreative say's their deal gives €3,000 worth of free features (pasted below).

It is ironic that not only do some webdevs act like use car salesmen but that they are now using car trade terms.

I suppose that it makes people think they are getting a bargain when in reality they will not have a clue about what the analytics mean. Most Irish websites are brochureware sites and judging by the way they rarely change from month to month, the owners seem perfectly happy with their websites.

Regards...jmcc

MrPicante

I'm not here to defend anyone's prices - but the reality is people are open to shop around and find the right company for them. On another note, I am glad we now have digital companies who can offer an online marketing strategy to Irish businesses. Before this people had websites out of a feeling of not wanting to feel left out

worc

**** day so I just couldn't let it go.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm saying that you get what you pay for.

For example, you could replace Modx with Wordpress or Joomla (arguably at least one of those is just plain inferior, while the other is bloated) but then what? It's not like the site suddenly appears when you install the CMS of your choosing.

Where have I said anything that relates to this point? You're implying I've suggested that FEATURES list includes web design - which it doesn't.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Larger web design companies aren't doing nixers for their mates and installing some free templates.

I don't install free templates either if that's what you're saying as a counter argument. And there are free templates out there that are a 1,000 times better than the utter drivel I've seen people paying for a custom build.

A €35 template I customised has overtaken 11 other businesses to take No.1 spot on google for 6 major keywords for their local business - gotten them a really nice earner. Their competitors have been going for years and had "professionals" build their sites but their SEO / calls to action / navigation are plain ****. After we'd been top for a while I noticed their main competitor got a redesign and while it "looks" better, under the hood it's still as bad as it was. I bet they dropped a few G's on it too - shame.

Knowing code, knowing some design principals and registering a company name doesn't mean you're any better than a guy doing nixers.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They create everything from scratch. That means getting graphic designers to design the look of the website and developers to code this design and add all that tricky functionality to the site. The same applies to something like newsletters. These companies don't use a Mailchip template they bought for €30. They create their own according to a template a professional designer drew up for the client.

You actually believe that? If you're doing everything from scratch and charging by the hour while you do it then you're ripping off your clients.

I'm getting more and more respect for a guy like Paul Boag who'll come out and admit that re-using things is a very smart and clever thing to do.

A custom newsletter is unbelievably easy to put together in MailChimp so what ever the hell they use to create them it's no different than using MailChimp. Again you're on the verge of implying I'm doing something that I'm not - I've never bought a MailChimp template because it would be a complete waste of money.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's analogous to saying that the computer you bought for €300 is a better deal than the one your friend bought for €800. Well, price is only part of the equation. There are a number of other factors to take on board. The better buy depends on first determining what the need of each user is. If you are only sending emails then spending €300 on a computer makes sense. However, if you require more grunt for encoding then a €300 PC will end up costing you time.

It's not analogous at all - it's clear you're seeing what you want to from what I've posted. Your counter here is completely wrong.

I've listed FEATURES not an entire site build. What I've asked is analogous to knowing it takes no more than 10 minutes to install new RAM in a computer and see someone is charged €400 for it while I know it can be done for a bucket load cheaper.

p

Ignore quality for a second, here's a question for you:

What costs does a company have to incur that someone doing the odd website from their home doesn't?

BarackPyjama

Bedroom web designers. You've got to love their naivety.

worc

p wrote: »

Ignore quality for a second, here's a question for you:

What costs does a company have to incur that someone doing the odd website from their home doesn't?

Look, I understand that setting up a business legit costs a fortune especially with a premises and that does then of course require a certain level of income to maintain that but I'm not talking about the entire website design - the sites daracreative have done look great (I love their colour choice on their own website - bar the grey text - it's clear they know what they are doing).

I am talking about those specific features - no matter what costs you incur from establishing a business, I cannot see how it costs 3k for what's being listed. I'm completely open to someone saying "X Y and Z would take a significant amoutn of time input" but nothing there I can see would. Even if they are charging say €100 an hour, it then takes them 30 hours (or €150 it's 20 hours work - one person spending two and half days at it) to get that list completed and then pile on the few grand at least for the actual website.

worc

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Bedroom web designers. You've got to love their naivety.

Dude if only I had the balls to say what I know about companys in this industry. Don't be so naive as to think just because I've set up some websites from my home (front office actually not bedroom) that I'm naive. The amount of complete an utter bull**** that designers talk amazes me - the arrogance from people who think they can justify the **** output because their self proclaimed l33t designers who do it all from scratch boggles my mind. I've spent years around those people and glad I got away from it.

Typically forum comment - pure ****e for the sake of trying to make a dig.

BarackPyjama

worc wrote: »

Dude if only I had the balls to say what I know about companys in this industry. Don't be so naive as to think just because I've set up some websites from my home (front office actually not bedroom) that I'm naive.

Typically forum comment - pure ****e for the sake of trying to make a dig.

Have you ever run your own business with overheads? Do you know the diversity of skills and disciplines required to produce a professional website, e-commerce site, application or digital campaign? More importantly, do you have any idea what it costs to deliver one?

There's a market out there for amateur digital work for small businesses who are testing the waters or simply don't want to spend too much. But for amateurs to tell professional agencies what to charge is a bit rich.

Admittedly many, many larger agencies are completely s**t but that's neither here nor there. In an ideal world you'd charge commensurate with your ability and the return you get for your clients - within the confines of a standard and fair rate of course.

€3,000? Pfffft. The last e-commerce project I worked on was cost the client the bones of €50,000. They turned over just over €1,000,000 inside the first year. It paid for itself in no time flat. We made marginal profit on the project.

That's the reality of business gentlemen. By coming on here and saying that charging €3,000 for a website is ripping people off them you're devaluing an industry you know nothing about, you're debasing my lifestyle and you're creating a big f**king clusterf**k of ignorance around an industry that's much more demanding and involved than you and your dodgy copy of Dreamweaver seem to think it is.

Now please sling your hooks and come back to me when you're producing work that isn't absolute crap.

worc

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Have you ever run your own business with overheads? Do you know the diversity of skills and disciplines required to produce a professional website, e-commerce site, application or digital campaign? More importantly, do you have any idea what it costs to deliver one?

There's a market out there for amateur digital work for small businesses who are testing the waters or simply don't want to spend too much. But for amateurs to tell professional agencies what to charge is a bit rich.

Admittedly many, many larger agencies are completely s**t but that's neither here nor there. In an ideal world you'd charge commensurate with your ability and the return you get for your clients - within the confines of a standard and fair rate of course.

€3,000? Pfffft. The last e-commerce project I worked on was cost the client the bones of €50,000. They turned over just over €1,000,000 inside the first year. It paid for itself in no time flat. We made marginal profit on the project.

That's the reality of business gentlemen. By coming on here and saying that charging €3,000 for a website is ripping people off them you're devaluing an industry you know nothing about, you're debasing my lifestyle and you're creating a big f**king clusterf**k of ignorance around an industry that's much more demanding and involved than you and your dodgy copy of Dreamweaver seem to think it is.

Now please sling your hooks and come back to me when you're producing work that isn't absolute crap.

Thank you - that's more like the good solid comeback answer I was after.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Have you ever run your own business with overheads? Do you know the diversity of skills and disciplines required to produce a professional website, e-commerce site, application or digital campaign? More importantly, do you have any idea what it costs to deliver one?

By coming on here and saying that charging €3,000 for a website is ripping people off them you're devaluing an industry you know nothing about

No I haven't but again though, I'm not talking about the website!!! I'm not talking about the cost of establishing a big ass company. How many times do I have to say this! It's those FEATURES - jesus christ.

No where did I say that creating a site for 3k is ripping people off either! Again you just read what you wanted - I referred to doing everything from scratch is ripping people off if you charge clients for the time you put into this.

And notepad++ is my friend not Dreamweaver BTW but again you're presuming I don't know anything and that's just fine if it makes you feel better about your profession and that you've got one over me as I sit in my wee little house, congratulations.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

come back to me when you're producing work that isn't absolute crap.

How do you know my work is absolute crap? I'll take the dig though again, cheers.

irishdude11

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Have you ever run your own business with overheads? Do you know the diversity of skills and disciplines required to produce a professional website, e-commerce site, application or digital campaign? More importantly, do you have any idea what it costs to deliver one?

There's a market out there for amateur digital work for small businesses who are testing the waters or simply don't want to spend too much. But for amateurs to tell professional agencies what to charge is a bit rich.

Admittedly many, many larger agencies are completely s**t but that's neither here nor there. In an ideal world you'd charge commensurate with your ability and the return you get for your clients - within the confines of a standard and fair rate of course.

€3,000? Pfffft. The last e-commerce project I worked on was cost the client the bones of €50,000. They turned over just over €1,000,000 inside the first year. It paid for itself in no time flat. We made marginal profit on the project.

That's the reality of business gentlemen. By coming on here and saying that charging €3,000 for a website is ripping people off them you're devaluing an industry you know nothing about, you're debasing my lifestyle and you're creating a big f**king clusterf**k of ignorance around an industry that's much more demanding and involved than you and your dodgy copy of Dreamweaver seem to think it is.

Now please sling your hooks and come back to me when you're producing work that isn't absolute crap.

What are you on about...you just went on a complete rant that had absolutely nothing to do with the point worc has been making. And you are making a complete show of yourself with your condescending and ignorant attitude when you seem to be lacking the intelligence to pick up the basic point he has been making (and he has made it multiple times).

Are any of you guys actually reading what he is saying? He is not giving out about professionals charging 3K or whatever for a site. He is giving out about a particular company advertising a particular list of features that they are 'including for free' as being worth €3K.

And he is dead right in that that list of features doesn't come close to costing 3K whether they are being implemented by an amateur or a professional outfit. Its like buying a custom pc off dell and them saying that they will put it together 'for free', a service which they say is worth €1K. It plainly doesn't cost 1K to put a pc together just like those simple features dont cost anywhere near 3K to implement. Saying those features are worth 3K is taking advantage of naive customers imo.

worc

irishdude11 wrote: »

What are you on about...you just went on a complete rant that had absolutely nothing to do with the point worc has been making. And you are making a complete show of yourself with your condescending and ignorant attitude when you seem to be lacking the intelligence to pick up the basic point he has been making (and he has made it multiple times).

Are any of you guys actually reading what he is saying? He is not giving out about professionals charging 3K or whatever for a site. He is giving out about a particular company advertising a particular list of features that they are 'including for free' as being worth €3K.

And he is dead right in that that list of features doesn't come close to costing 3K whether they are being implemented by an amateur or a professional outfit. Its like buying a custom pc off dell and them saying that they will put it together 'for free', a service which they say is worth €1K. It plainly doesn't cost 1K to put a pc together just like those simple features dont cost anywhere near 3K to implement. Saying those features are worth 3K is taking advantage of naive customers imo.

Wow - one person actually gets what I'm asking and isn't on the hump and getting pissy over something that wasn't even said. Thank god.

Trojan

I'll throw out an example of total cost of ownership, which may put other things in perspective.

I have a client* who had a custom webapp built 4 years ago, from a fairly reputable company who charged an incredibly small amount of money for it. From my back-of-napkin calculations, the provider should have charged 2-3 times the price that they did. I looked at the code - it's got minimal documentation, and poor coding practices - neither of which surprise me given how much the charged.

Fast forward 4 years later - the provider are now out of business, having made their staff redundant. My client now needs significant changes made to what is a complex system with no documentation. The provider can't do it. The ex-staff of the company can't be located.

My client will have to either re-factor the code, a time consuming job at great expense, or get a new system built from the ground up (at either more expense and time). It's a business critical app, so they have little choice here.

There's a couple of lessons in that for me - the provider should have charged more so they could afford to spend more time on things like code quality and documentation. My client should have been more reticent to go with a significantly lower bid than others they received, particularly considering how critical the system is. But it's hard to pass up on what seems like a great deal. I'd also get to know the actual developers of a system as well as humanly possible so I can get in touch with them if circumstances of their employer changes.

Relevance to this thread? A business has a responsibility to it's customers to charge enough to be sustainable. If it doesn't do that, it's not providing a good service. And the customer has a responsibility to their future selves and/or shareholders to consider the total cost of ownership, not just the best bargain on the table at the time.

* This is not the only time I've seen this - I've actually dealt with 3 different companies with variations of this story since January this year - one ecommerce company, one 60 year old company, and a startup - can happen to anyone.

worc

Trojan wrote: »

I'll throw out an example of total cost of ownership, which may put other things in perspective.

I have a client* who had a custom webapp built 4 years ago, from a fairly reputable company who charged an incredibly small amount of money for it. From my back-of-napkin calculations, the provider should have charged 2-3 times the price that they did. I looked at the code - it's got minimal documentation, and poor coding practices - neither of which surprise me given how much the charged.

Fast forward 4 years later - the provider are now out of business, having made their staff redundant. My client now needs significant changes made to what is a complex system with no documentation. The provider can't do it. The ex-staff of the company can't be located.

My client will have to either re-factor the code, a time consuming job at great expense, or get a new system built from the ground up (at either more expense and time). It's a business critical app, so they have little choice here.

There's a couple of lessons in that for me - the provider should have charged more so they could afford to spend more time on things like code quality and documentation. My client should have been more reticent to go with a significantly lower bid than others they received, particularly considering how critical the system is. But it's hard to pass up on what seems like a great deal. I'd also get to know the actual developers of a system as well as humanly possible so I can get in touch with them if circumstances of their employer changes.

Relevance to this thread? A business has a responsibility to it's customers to charge enough to be sustainable. If it doesn't do that, it's not providing a good service. And the customer has a responsibility to their future selves and/or shareholders to consider the total cost of ownership, not just the best bargain on the table at the time.

* This is not the only time I've seen this - I've actually dealt with 3 different companies with variations of this story since January this year - one ecommerce company, one 60 year old company, and a startup - can happen to anyone.

Thanks for a great reasoned response.

I have no issue with a company charging a lot of money to build an app or a website - I've been involved with a project (and since money is getting tossed around, this entire project cost almost €800,000 so it wasn't some little pissy thing) and we hired a graphic design company to put a crucial part of the project together for us and I was cringing because of the small tweeks to the design that the group were sending back to the designers to make - I stepped in to tell them to stop making so many minor changes that the designers had done a brilliant job (which they had - it was f*cking awesome work) and had to give them some basics in design principles to get them to stop. The company were smart enough to be charging for these changes so at least they weren't getting screwed for it.

I'm on a few different designer forums and this is something I've seen come up before - choosing the price to stay afloat. I've seen a lot of people being advised to make sure they have water tight contracts so everything is up front and not to take **** from clients bringing creep into the project.

I completely get your point Trojan but at the same time I think businesses need to make sure their client contracts are set out so they don't get burned by the clients and aren't charging for features above a price that IMHO is above the cost of implementing them. The contracts they set should protect them from losing money and for me anyway I don't think they should be increasing prices on smaller areas to cover themselves - but that said I suppose both methods are valid business plans.

Trojan

worc wrote: »

I completely get your point Trojan but at the same time I think businesses need to make sure their client contracts are set out so they don't get burned by the clients and aren't charging for features above a price that IMHO is above the cost of implementing them.

I think the problem here is that I'm reading that as "charge cost price".

Where's your profit margin? What happens when you lose 1 project out of 10 and you go bust because you have no margins?

worc

Trojan wrote: »

I think the problem here is that I'm reading that as "charge cost price".

Where's your profit margin? What happens when you lose 1 project out of 10 and you go bust because you have no margins?

Maybe it's the way I've worded it but I'm not saying charge cost price at all - no chance! I'm just saying charge what it's worth to make a profit but not a fortune because those features don't deserve a fortune; and at the same time make sure the other work you do is protected by a solid contract.

I just don't see how that work would cost 3k - that's my only point. I don't think it's fair to lump the cost of a lost client onto other clients for those features to protect yourself. If it was €500 or €1000 or something I probably wouldn't have posted - but €3,000 of someones money for those features I just don't see it.