web design question

[sunama]

Following on from this thread, I have decided to get some quotes from about 15 companies, to build a simple website with no Flash, animations or complicated graphics.

Its early days yet, as I only emailed them a few hours ago. But I have just recieved an email and he states that he will be used Dotnet programming and MSSQL server.

Consider that this will be a basic HTML website, with no e-commerce. The only thing of note is that there will be a form, for clients to fill out, which will get forwarded to the company email address. Now, bearing this in mind, would 'Dotnet programming and SQL' be required?

 

[tsinc80697]

ASP.Net and MSSQL is only needed in this case if you were storing peoples email details or message details in a database.

I've not read your previous thread but from what you say here you just want xHTML/CSS/jQuery, all front-end so this company might have the wrong end of the stick!

How did you find the companies details? Just googled and emailed a chosen 15?

 

[blade007]

no mate.

You don't need all the technology for a simple HTML site. Sometimes though companies use CMS straight-off these days and don't code plain HTML static sites.

What quotes have you had back?

 

[sunama]

I'm actually outsourcing to India.

I've only had 1 quote so far of US$550.

I'm still waiting on the other 15 companies to get back to me.

I'm wondering if some companies bs their clients by saying they will use SQL, Flash, Dreamweaver and everything under the Sun to make it look like they will be doing a lot of work, when in fact they will finish the job in 2 days, using a basic HTML editor for the coding and Photoshop for the graphics.

 

[ennogs]

When you do decide who to go with make sure you get a contract that states things like timescales, total cost of website etc

When I got my first website done the designer was always vey late with what he said he would do. I ended up binning him and going with another designer as he was about 4 weeks behind on the date he said he would have the full website ready.

By the sounds of it you only need a HTML website so if they start qouting things like SQL flash etc ask why it is needed. I personally would avoid flash.

I would also say you should say to the designer you will pay when the work is done or at most only pay half up front.

I don't know if you have done this but I would also ask to see examples of previous websites they have done. It will give you an idea of how good they are as a designer.

Another thing to note if you pay by paypal you are not covered by the paypal guarantee. The guarantee does not cover digital media. So before you pay make sure you are happy with what has been done.

 

[sunama]

After doing some research, it would appear that most developers stipulate the 50% upfront, 50% after the job is complete.

The problem is that if this is the case, how can you walk away if they are messing you around?

Personally though, because the website I want is dead simple, I honestly can't see them taking ages and ages.

Thanks for the advice though.

 

[sunama]

By the sounds of it you only need a HTML website so if they start qouting things like SQL flash etc ask why it is needed. I personally would avoid flash.

Its possible that they think that I have no idea of how websites are built and that the more names they drop, the more impressed I will be. I'm completely bemused as to why my simple website would require anything SQL related. There is no need for any database.

I don't know if you have done this but I would also ask to see examples of previous websites they have done. It will give you an idea of how good they are as a designer.

I've already looked at their portfolio and it looks decent.

Another thing to note if you pay by paypal you are not covered by the paypal guarantee. The guarantee does not cover digital media. So before you pay make sure you are happy with what has been done.

The problem here is that they ask for 50% up front. Which means, at best, I could end up losing 50% of the budget, should they mess up and force me to go elsewhere.

 

[simisker]

After doing some research, it would appear that most developers stipulate the 50% upfront, 50% after the job is complete.

The problem is that if this is the case, how can you walk away if they are messing you around?

How can the designer/developer walk away if the client's messing them around?

It's fairly standard; the result of too many designers [I can only speak from a designer's point of view] with burnt fingers who've had to deal with clients that see design as just another commodity, rather than the bespoke service it really should be.

The 50/50 split is actually beneficial to the client, anyway, as it encourages conversation between client and designer - something vital to good design.

Speaking of which, that's why I'd recommend someone more local. Websites aren't 'fire-and-forget' implementations; they need constant nurturing if they are to become a core element of one's business. This means frequently conversing with a designer/developer.

Such conversations give you a better idea as to whether they're good enough to forge a long-lasting successful relationship with, or just another of the squillion fly-by-night charlies after the short-term buck.


PS: Not following you, honest!

 

[tsinc80697]

The 50/50 payment is to benefit both client and designer/developer.

It ensures you don't lose 100% of your money if they do a runner, and they don't do 50hours of work and get paid £0.

You always run the risk of paying 50% upfront and getting nothing in return, if you use Joe Bloggs you found on google with no real contact details, past work/clients/recommendations.

That's why contracts are put in place which stipulate when the project shall be delivered, what parts will be completed at what date, real contact details, company details etc so you are both covered.

 

[sunama]

Speaking of which, that's why I'd recommend someone more local. Websites aren't 'fire-and-forget' implementations; they need constant nurturing if they are to become a core element of one's business. This means frequently conversing with a designer/developer.

Such conversations give you a better idea as to whether they're good enough to forge a long-lasting successful relationship with, or just another of the squillion fly-by-night charlies after the short-term buck.

Here's my thinking. I'm starting up a new company. After a few months, it could go bust. In fact, most start ups do go bust and shut down. So, what I want is a website that puts my new company on the map, but doesn't necessarily set the world on fire. Furthermore, as with most startups, money is tight.

My plan is to get the a basic website done on the cheap.
Get the business going.
Once it is pulling in a good revenue stream, I shall appoint a local web developer to update and maintain it. The simple updates, I can do myself. Any major updates will be done by the appointed local web developer.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to getting someone local (in London), from the get go, but this would not be financially viable as we are a startup and not a multi-national corporation.

 

[tsinc80697]

Just beware, you get what you pay for and to have a contract in place to stop anyone messing the other party around.

If you want something quick and cheap to help your business get off the ground, make sure it doesn't look cheap as it will only harm your business. But if you're looking to pay bottom price you will get something which will look bottom price and it will reflect badly on your business.

You don't have to be a mutl-national corporation to realise you need to pay upto £1000 to ensure your company/brand is being portrayed in the correct way and any possible clients see you as a professional company.

£1000 to be viewable online, by anyone, with a professional image as a new start-up doesn't seem expensive to me, but that's probably because I know how much big multi-national corporations pay for websites

 

[sunama]

£1000 to be viewable online, by anyone, with a professional image as a new start-up doesn't seem expensive to me, but that's probably because I know how much big multi-national corporations pay for websites

Hehehe.

I was actually reading a thread on this forum, regarding the rates that web developers charge. Some were talking about £100/hour and that a website will have a team of people working on it. The team costing many £100s/hour. I was quite shocked by this at the time, so now it doesnt surprise me that big organisations will pay £1000s/month.

 

[blade007]

tbh that's quite expensive for India.

you could get a similar price from someone in this country if you look around. It's a bit on the cheap side but am sure you can find someone to do it.

50% upfront is normal, like someone else mentioned.

 

[sunama]

In India though, it is quite normal to negotiate on the cost of an item/service. So perhaps, they expect me to negotiate the price to something closer to $450. Also, in India, they tend to rip foreigners off, as they seem to think foreigners have money trees growing in their back gardens.

 

[suarve]

Consider that this will be a basic HTML website, with no e-commerce. The only thing of note is that there will be a form, for clients to fill out, which will get forwarded to the company email address. Now, bearing this in mind, would 'Dotnet programming and SQL' be required?

If it's literally just a contat form storing emails/name etc. then I'd say go for a host that uses PHP ionstead of ASP.NET, as hosting for ASP.NET and MSSQL databases is generally more.

In India though, it is quite normal to negotiate on the cost of an item/service. So perhaps, they expect me to negotiate the price to something closer to $450. Also, in India, they tend to rip foreigners off, as they seem to think foreigners have money trees growing in their back gardens.

Due us being very very busy at work we've just outsourced a cms based site to India. Overall the hopurly rate worked out at around £4.40 per hour! However, the site and how it was coded was very 'meh' and I'll probably redo bits of it myself.

 

[sunama]

Due us being very very busy at work we've just outsourced a cms based site to India. Overall the hopurly rate worked out at around £4.40 per hour!

Thats impressively low. Do you know what the name of the Indian company was?

More quotes are coming through. I've had one as high as US$1200. Perhaps this Indian company think I was born yesterday.

Ive had a quote of around US$430 and their portfolio looks the most impressive out of all the companies I've had quotes from so far.
http://www.india-designers.com/websites.html

 

[sunama]

If it's literally just a contact form storing emails/name etc. then I'd say go for a host that uses PHP ionstead of ASP.NET, as hosting for ASP.NET and MSSQL databases is generally more.

Noted.

 

[simon567]

Thats impressively low. Do you know what the name of the Indian company was?

More quotes are coming through. I've had one as high as US$1200. Perhaps this Indian company think I was born yesterday.

Ive had a quote of around US$430 and their portfolio looks the most impressive out of all the companies I've had quotes from so far.
http://www.india-designers.com/websites.html

I've read previous posts higher up about your reasons for getting this done on the cheap, but I still can't help thinking that no matter how cheap it SEEMS, you're wasting your money here.

Their websites are basic and very dated. Aside from the out of date look, they're put together very amateurishly. If you view the source, you'll see lots of td and tr tags, this means the site is built using tables, rather than CSS. If you do a search on tables versus CSS, you'll find thousands of pages on the downsides to that (to me, it's also the first sign of someone who doesn't know what they're doing). There's also no use of things like header tags and the like that would help with SEO, even their title tags (the most basic of SEO features!) are poorly done.

Building a site on the cheap and uploading it somewhere just doesn't work. For a start, without SEO work no-one will ever find it! When we work with clients we visit them, see what they're about, then its an ongoing process to keep the site up to date and continue to modify it to target their customers (and the search engines!). I'm not just looking for business here as you're too far away for my company, I would recommend someone local who you can meet wth.

If you don't want to spend much initially, I'm almost thinking you'd be better getting a domain and hosting, then have a simple holding page built with a logo, very brief introduction to what you do an some contact details. you'd probably find a freelancer who would knock something up for you for next to nothing (make sure it looks professional though!). It would probably be as effective as a site like the ones on that portfolio. Then, if things are going well, look at working with a local company further down the line. Again, don't just go for the cheapest though, you wouldn't need to pay thousands, but you want someone who is geared towards making your website work and is not just going to dump it online, then let it sit there. As has been said previously, a thousand pounds for a professional website isn't a bad price.

 

[sunama]

I hear what you are saying Simon, but sometimes in business you simply cannot afford to fork out the sums of money needed to get British company to do the job (properly). Hence, you have to settle for 2nd, 3rd or 4th best. As a startup, this is quite common, where finances end up compromising the quality of products being used to market the company.

My plan is get a website up, on the cheap, then start trading. (Take note that the website will only form a small part of the company's advertising). Once we have a consistent revenue stream, we can look at improving/upgrading/re-designing the website. My aim is to look at upgrades (in all areas of the company), in approximately 12 months.

Its obvious you work in web design and obviously you feel passionate about websites and their design, but as someone who is starting up a company, the website represents only a fraction of things that I need to think about as part of the running of the company.

One thing you did say is that the websites shown here are dated. Can you give examples of websites that are not dated?

Thanks.

 

[blade007]

have to agree with sunama ... you don't expect a beautifully constructed, w3c valid, website. However, some of those websites look OK, and good looking for the price.

Some are built in dreamweaver, but so what. They are built to a price.

I guess sunama isn't looking for a mutts nutts website, what he's looking for is something to help get a business off the ground and establish a web presence, for a tight budget.