Yes, Websites Cost More Than Fifty Bucks | Hacker News Reader

Yes, Websites Cost More Than Fifty Bucks

fogofeternity.com

16 pointsandrewbadera18 comments

Hmm, are the Nazi color themes a free extra?

Yes, websites are not free, but it's low hanging fruit, you see? There is very little barrier to entry, a lot of people know about them, and info on how to make them is readily available.

As a developer, I would not want to invest my entire future in websites.

I agree with him to a point; that point is probably about the $60 an hour charge limit.

We charge $55 - $70 per hour for custom work; I think that is a reasonable expense. I've seen quotes from competitors that work out at anything from (assuming they took the same number of hrs) $120 to $300 an hour.

That's silly; I really cant imagine they can give a small or medium business any extra value or quality we could.

(once branding comes into it, and really big companies etc. I agree prices do climb; and rightly so, but I get the impression that's not really what he's talking about)

That sounds like the right range for hiring an independent contractor directly for working on a website.

Of course if you need someone with specialized skills (like me), you'll have to pay more. And if you're going to someone who has to hire and manage multiple contractors, you're going to pay overhead.

Also your competitors may be assuming that they will need more hours than you do. If that is happening consistently, then you should increase how well you're paid. :-)

It depends though... If you're a brand name like say, Jason Santa Maria (http://jasonsantamaria.com/) you can sure charge the premium. His experience alone warrants the extra charge.

that's the different class I was talking about; 90% of companies don't want nor need such experience

As a consultant, I avoid pure "web design" type work, (though that's where I started, back in 1996) but do a fair amount of web app work backed by heavy workflow, middle tier, backend. That work runs $105-$140/hour in the NYC and Albany, NY markets. I find that I'm less likely to encounter tire kickers in this space and/or at this price point.

I just left a company (College, actually) with this problem. They had no idea what a great website would cost, so they constantly balked at the prices. Unfortunately, they have a very poor website (as does most of higher education) due to their unwillingness to spend.

Having been in on the bid process, I can tell you that the prices were not at all unreasonable. The major problem in the cost being too high was that the College has no willingness to maintain the site themselves. Those hours of maintenance and updating are the expensive part, and add up fast.

This may be me, but I can't see any company needing a website that costs "tens of thousands of dollars or more" not being better off hiring someone for in house work. At the rates people are talking about in this thread, say a $15,000 website design should be taking around 250 hours, or around 2 months of work for a single employee. If you're going to invest a quarter of the yearly salary for a web designer in your site, its probably going to be in your best interest to just hire one so they you don't have to keep contracting out every time you need a change made.

Mind you, I can see the preference towards just doing a one off contract to have it made, but only if your site is going to remain relatively static. Each time you want to make a change to it though, you'll have to re-hire someone to do the work, or try to hack it together in house. If you're going to be actively developing the site though, (I would prefer to) have the designer in house, so he can weigh in during the design meetings for other things too.

Because the 250 hours aren't spend by one employee working fulltime for two months, but by different AD, IA, UX and PM people working together asynchronously. At the client, he'll be on his own, sharing an office with the bookkeeper and the support/sysadm guy who'll mock him for using a Mac.

Because at the agency the web-designer can work on 5-15 $15.000 projects a year, and spar with a bunch of similarly creative people continuously during the day. At the client, he'll work on everydays chores like putting press releases on the blog and updating the Facebook page, waiting for the few times a year when there's something that needs fancy layout.

Also, it's much easier to plan when you pay for a project, rather than having a guy on a monthly salary. And most agencies have nice retainer-deals so you can actually have a designer when you need him.

I think hiring a web designer is an awful idea. It will cost you 4x what the website should cost to design. And then you have to keep them busy once they're finished with the design.

I would imagine for $15k, you could have some sort of CMS for changes.

Hiring an employee costs the business a lot more than what they the salary (think benefits, insurance, office space etc....). Where I work, the cost per day of a 'resource' is at least 4x their salary. Plus, if they're full-time you can't just use them when you need to, when you have cash etc - you're committing to paying them for a long time.

I am a freelance web developer, so maybe I can show the other side of the coin to you.

For $15k from me, you would receive: 1) a complete website built to your specs (including advice on how to best design your site if desired) 2) a period of support and bug fixes after the site is finished and 3) a site built using readable, commented code with actual error handling. I charge by the hour, so you can keep me around as long as needed and make as many changes as you like.

It's lower risk to bring in a contractor than to hire a full-time employee. I don't require an office, a computer, health insurance, or a period of time to learn your company and its politics. If you don't like me or my work, you can generally terminate the contract without any legal problems as long as you pay your outstanding bill. I don't have to play office politics so I can do the things that an in-house developer wouldn't be allowed to do.

I come to the table with several sites under my belt and a library of code that I can draw from. Once you have a website built by a skilled contractor (note, there are lots of unskilled ones out there), you can bring in a less-skilled developer to maintain the site or enter into a reduced-fee maintenance contract.

Really, it comes down to what you plan on doing with the site. If your business is a website, you're probably better off developing it in-house.

If your business involves a website/web app but it isn't core to your business (or if you don't plan on continued maintenance), it makes sense to hire it out and use the money saved on other business expenses. eCommerce and CMS sites are a perfect example.

If you want a website to announce you exist, hire it out to the cheapest contractor or flat rate developer you can find. Just don't expect to be able to easily maintain it.

You tend to get what you pay for. I've worked on several sites where they hired out cheaper developers only to bring me in to clean up the mess and make the site work.

I agree with the basic premise of this article, but saying "99% of the time that quote will be a reasonable price" is disingenuous. While some customers that do not know the value web development expect to pay too little, they are just as likely to get overcharged by opportunistic developers.

It is much like getting car repairs. If you go in informed, you are likely to get a fair price, whereas if you don't you may be taken advantage of.

It also helps to shop around.

This is a hold over from the last few people who Just Don't Get It. (It being the Internet)

They'll be gone soon.

Websites (crappy ones) could cost $50 initially if all they are is static content or generated in some uniform way without human involvement. They won't be web applications, they won't look novel or unique, but it will be a web site, a meager web presence. Obviously many people don't come in asking for this option, but it is an option. If the client only has $50 they're going to have to lower their expectations.

We can all get together and complain that there shouldn't be $50 web sites but if a client is asking for one and knows what it means then yes, there should be $50 web sites.

These people will not be gone soon. There are many people still starting their online presence, still understanding the online world, and there will continue to be as more and more people are exposed to the ability to connect to the internet.

Actually more people want that than you'd think.

There are people who buy thousands of domains, and then park them with some company like Oversee.net. Sure, the websites they get are crap. But each one makes a few dollars per month for zero effort. Multiply that by a lot of domains and soon you're talking about real money. And besides, sometimes someone will want to make a real site with one of those domains and will buy it from you.

If you don't like them you call them domain squatters. If you do you call them domainers. But for better or worse they are part of the Internet ecosystem.

"A gifted amateur might do a decent job for a friend’s site. It’s rarely a good business option. You can also get great design for cheap prices by choosing templated options. Some of them are excellent. The Twicet template on ThemeForest costs $35. That price is economical for the designers because they’ve sold nearly 1,000 copies. That’s cool, but it means there are 1,000 websites out there that all look pretty much the same. That’s your choice for dirt cheap web design – amateur, or a template." Great stuff!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com