In our business we sometimes find ourselves in the following dialogue with a prospect as they explain to us why they went with a different web developer:
“Yes, we’ve elected to go with someone else.”
“Okay, not a problem. We would have loved to work on your business, but please keep us in mind should anything change in the future. Can you tell us why you went the direction you did vs. going with us—did we do something wrong?”
“No, no—you guys were great. You see the CEO’s nephew just graduated from college with some sort of IT or computer degree and he wants to give the kid the opportunity to build the new site. It will be a nice summer job for him, plus he’s going to do it for like $1,000.”
Sound familiar? Do you know a company or someone who has done this? Candidly, we can see the temptation, especially if it’s for a small company or a start-up. However, we don’t recommend it because we have also answered enough phone calls 3-6 months later with the prospect on the other end of the line saying, “Can you help us?”
When this does happen, we typically oblige and agree to help out, but we generally find one or more of the following on the “nephew” website that we now inherit. More often than not, the best thing to do is scrap the original website and start over, but the prospect—or now our client—doesn’t want to walk away from the $10,000 they already have invested in it. Remember it was only suppose to cost $1,000, but the nephew under estimated the hours it would take him and consequently there was a little cost overrun.
Amateur Features
The website has design features that scream amateur. This can include items like the use of a suboptimal color palette, or improper use of images/graphics. Either can result in difficult readability. Or there’s an awkward balance between the use of images and text and as a result, the website takes especially long to load. Or maybe there’s even a hit counter on the website. Or maybe the graphic elements are outdated. Or the website has ecommerce functionality, but a secure transaction can’t be made. The list can go on and on. Even the layperson can discern amateur looking websites from professional ones. Think of some you seen recently. You can probably picture a website that you’ve visited recently that fits this scenario.
Lack of Foresight
Either the nephew or company personnel (through no fault of their own, but while working with the nephew) mis-organized the structure of the website and subsequently developed a less than optimal information architecture. Let’s say the company is now looking to add new sections or new features to the website because they have a new division or something like that. The problem is no one thought about the potential for adding new sections/features back when the website was originally designed, thus expansion was not planned for and now things may have to be force fit. Unfortunately this can be a tough fix absent of re-architecting the entire website—i.e. scrapping the website and starting over.
Wrong Application Platform
We’ve seen instances where we learn that a company wants to integrate several internal systems on the back-end of their website in order to generate revenue or deliver more functionality to their customers, only to investigate and inform them that the application in which the website was originally developed cannot be integrated with one or more of the systems. It’s ultimately another foresight issue, just like the architectural issues mentioned above. It wasn’t uncovered or discussed upfront that the website would need to integrate with other internal systems at a later date and thus, the nephew built it in an application that can’t accommodate them.
Sloppy Code
Assuming the website was built in the right application to begin with, sloppy code can essentially be invisible to not only the client, but any visitors to the website. However, much like the foundation of a house, the original code for a website acts as the foundation to the site. If a house doesn’t have a good foundation it will affect the entire house, both now and in the future. The same is true for a website relative to its original code. Sloppy code will have implications when the company wants to expand the functionality and looks beyond the nephew—probably because he’s no longer around. Whoever the company brings in next is going to inherent the sloppy code and it’s going to take that much longer to 1) determine what the nephew was intending to do; and 2) clean up the code before beginning to build the new functionality.
No Guarantees or Warrantees
In the 3-6 months since the nephew finished the website, he has taken another job, moved to another city, gotten married—all exciting things for him, except he’s not around to trouble shoot any problems with the website. Websites are pretty durable once developed. However, like anything problems can arise. When they do, who better to tend to them than those who built it? They know the website and won’t have to spend anytime familiarizing themselves. Depending on the problem, they’ll likely even fix it for no charge. It’s kind of like taking your car to the dealership where you bought it vs. taking it to the mechanic on the street corner. There’s a comfort level with the dealership. They know your car. And, the problem might be covered under the warranty.
Low Priority
Sometimes the nephew doesn’t even get the website completed before getting another job or moving to another city as referenced above. Honorably, he still wants to see the project through to completion, but what priority do you think it is to him to finish? He’s trying to make a good first impression at a new job. Or he’s not only trying to make a good first impression, but he’s doing so in a new city and is now working long distance to finish the website? In this event, the project ultimately gets abandoned, or it gets completed—but extremely late.
Over-promising and Under-delivery
When we inherit projects like this, we hear comments like, “The website was suppose to do this, or suppose to do that but we aren’t sure if he really knew how to make it happen.” It’s the classic case of over-promising and under-delivering. The nephew told his CEO Uncle that he could do it all knowing that some of it he would be doing for the first time. It’s like if you needed heart surgery and the Doctor assigned to you was going to be doing the surgery for the first time. Do you think he’d want to volunteer that statistic? You would probably request a different Doctor if he did. You would want the Doctor who had done it hundreds of times. The same can be true with websites—you want the guy or firm who’s built hundreds of websites.
Landscaping Analogy
We have a friend who recently fell into the amateur trap in hiring landscapers to re-landscape his yard. For the front yard, he hired a professional landscaper who was a certified arborist, experienced, the whole nine yards. The landscaper tended to every detail, anticipated things like drainage problems—ensuring positive grades away from the house, or recognizing that plants wouldn’t grow in certain areas due to their lack of southern exposure, etc. The professional took a little longer to complete the project and cost a little more, but he was meticulous. One plant didn’t make it after the project was complete and he came out and replaced it with a new one—no questions asked. Thus, he did things right the first time, had great foresight and even guaranteed his work.
By contrast, when our friend went to have the backyard done, he approached it solely on cost. He went with a landscaper who could do it for half the price of the first guy and who claimed he could have the backyard project complete in 2 days—sound a little bit like “the nephew”? Since the project has been theoretically complete, the weeds from the old back yard are exposing themselves through the new sod and the home has taken on moisture due to a resulting negative grade that was built into the new yard. By the time our friend gets all the problems fixed he will likely pay more on the backyard than he would have had he hired the proven professional from the beginning.
The moral of the story, whether developing a website, landscaping your yard, or anything, it’s tempting to gravitate to the low cost provider, but resist the temptation because ultimately, you’ll get what you pay for.
“Yes, we’ve elected to go with someone else.”
“Okay, not a problem. We would have loved to work on your business, but please keep us in mind should anything change in the future. Can you tell us why you went the direction you did vs. going with us—did we do something wrong?”
“No, no—you guys were great. You see the CEO’s nephew just graduated from college with some sort of IT or computer degree and he wants to give the kid the opportunity to build the new site. It will be a nice summer job for him, plus he’s going to do it for like $1,000.”
Sound familiar? Do you know a company or someone who has done this? Candidly, we can see the temptation, especially if it’s for a small company or a start-up. However, we don’t recommend it because we have also answered enough phone calls 3-6 months later with the prospect on the other end of the line saying, “Can you help us?”
When this does happen, we typically oblige and agree to help out, but we generally find one or more of the following on the “nephew” website that we now inherit. More often than not, the best thing to do is scrap the original website and start over, but the prospect—or now our client—doesn’t want to walk away from the $10,000 they already have invested in it. Remember it was only suppose to cost $1,000, but the nephew under estimated the hours it would take him and consequently there was a little cost overrun.
Amateur Features
The website has design features that scream amateur. This can include items like the use of a suboptimal color palette, or improper use of images/graphics. Either can result in difficult readability. Or there’s an awkward balance between the use of images and text and as a result, the website takes especially long to load. Or maybe there’s even a hit counter on the website. Or maybe the graphic elements are outdated. Or the website has ecommerce functionality, but a secure transaction can’t be made. The list can go on and on. Even the layperson can discern amateur looking websites from professional ones. Think of some you seen recently. You can probably picture a website that you’ve visited recently that fits this scenario.
Lack of Foresight
Either the nephew or company personnel (through no fault of their own, but while working with the nephew) mis-organized the structure of the website and subsequently developed a less than optimal information architecture. Let’s say the company is now looking to add new sections or new features to the website because they have a new division or something like that. The problem is no one thought about the potential for adding new sections/features back when the website was originally designed, thus expansion was not planned for and now things may have to be force fit. Unfortunately this can be a tough fix absent of re-architecting the entire website—i.e. scrapping the website and starting over.
Wrong Application Platform
We’ve seen instances where we learn that a company wants to integrate several internal systems on the back-end of their website in order to generate revenue or deliver more functionality to their customers, only to investigate and inform them that the application in which the website was originally developed cannot be integrated with one or more of the systems. It’s ultimately another foresight issue, just like the architectural issues mentioned above. It wasn’t uncovered or discussed upfront that the website would need to integrate with other internal systems at a later date and thus, the nephew built it in an application that can’t accommodate them.
Sloppy Code
Assuming the website was built in the right application to begin with, sloppy code can essentially be invisible to not only the client, but any visitors to the website. However, much like the foundation of a house, the original code for a website acts as the foundation to the site. If a house doesn’t have a good foundation it will affect the entire house, both now and in the future. The same is true for a website relative to its original code. Sloppy code will have implications when the company wants to expand the functionality and looks beyond the nephew—probably because he’s no longer around. Whoever the company brings in next is going to inherent the sloppy code and it’s going to take that much longer to 1) determine what the nephew was intending to do; and 2) clean up the code before beginning to build the new functionality.
No Guarantees or Warrantees
In the 3-6 months since the nephew finished the website, he has taken another job, moved to another city, gotten married—all exciting things for him, except he’s not around to trouble shoot any problems with the website. Websites are pretty durable once developed. However, like anything problems can arise. When they do, who better to tend to them than those who built it? They know the website and won’t have to spend anytime familiarizing themselves. Depending on the problem, they’ll likely even fix it for no charge. It’s kind of like taking your car to the dealership where you bought it vs. taking it to the mechanic on the street corner. There’s a comfort level with the dealership. They know your car. And, the problem might be covered under the warranty.
Low Priority
Sometimes the nephew doesn’t even get the website completed before getting another job or moving to another city as referenced above. Honorably, he still wants to see the project through to completion, but what priority do you think it is to him to finish? He’s trying to make a good first impression at a new job. Or he’s not only trying to make a good first impression, but he’s doing so in a new city and is now working long distance to finish the website? In this event, the project ultimately gets abandoned, or it gets completed—but extremely late.
Over-promising and Under-delivery
When we inherit projects like this, we hear comments like, “The website was suppose to do this, or suppose to do that but we aren’t sure if he really knew how to make it happen.” It’s the classic case of over-promising and under-delivering. The nephew told his CEO Uncle that he could do it all knowing that some of it he would be doing for the first time. It’s like if you needed heart surgery and the Doctor assigned to you was going to be doing the surgery for the first time. Do you think he’d want to volunteer that statistic? You would probably request a different Doctor if he did. You would want the Doctor who had done it hundreds of times. The same can be true with websites—you want the guy or firm who’s built hundreds of websites.
Landscaping Analogy
We have a friend who recently fell into the amateur trap in hiring landscapers to re-landscape his yard. For the front yard, he hired a professional landscaper who was a certified arborist, experienced, the whole nine yards. The landscaper tended to every detail, anticipated things like drainage problems—ensuring positive grades away from the house, or recognizing that plants wouldn’t grow in certain areas due to their lack of southern exposure, etc. The professional took a little longer to complete the project and cost a little more, but he was meticulous. One plant didn’t make it after the project was complete and he came out and replaced it with a new one—no questions asked. Thus, he did things right the first time, had great foresight and even guaranteed his work.
By contrast, when our friend went to have the backyard done, he approached it solely on cost. He went with a landscaper who could do it for half the price of the first guy and who claimed he could have the backyard project complete in 2 days—sound a little bit like “the nephew”? Since the project has been theoretically complete, the weeds from the old back yard are exposing themselves through the new sod and the home has taken on moisture due to a resulting negative grade that was built into the new yard. By the time our friend gets all the problems fixed he will likely pay more on the backyard than he would have had he hired the proven professional from the beginning.
The moral of the story, whether developing a website, landscaping your yard, or anything, it’s tempting to gravitate to the low cost provider, but resist the temptation because ultimately, you’ll get what you pay for.
