Dev Co & Hosting Co - what's the norm?

Ms Mustard

Hello - hope this is the right forum for my question.

I am involved in getting a new website up and running for a charity. The new development company wants us to move to a hosting company they work with a lot. Some of the charity's board members see no reason to move from the existing host.

What's the norm? Is there a norm? Would the hosting site typically remain independent of the development company? Or would it be more typical to change host as advised by the development company?

any advice welcome.

Many thanks

TsuDhoNimh

Ms Mustard wrote: »

What's the norm? Is there a norm? Would the hosting site typically remain independent of the development company? Or would it be more typical to change host as advised by the development company?

The big question here is what reasons are they giving for the proposed change in hosting company?

Many development companies will have deals in place with hosts where they act as resellers or are given referral fees for new business, so it may be simply financial reasons behind the proposed change rather than having your genuine best interests at heart.

Hosting companies have a variety of different offerings and functionality, so it's possible that it is for logistical reasons or performance reasons that they are proposing the change. It's also possible that your dev company are simply suggesting the change as they're familiar with the hosts in question and value the quality of service and level of customer service of the host they're suggesting.

It's impossible for any of us to say for sure given the information we have available, so all we can say is to query your dev company on why they wish you to change and dig into the specifics between the current host and the new host in terms of what's on offer for the price quoted.

There's no real 'norm' in a situation like this (anyone who works on sites will have hosts that they like to deal with, some they dislike dealing with and others that simply don't allow the required services they need so will require a change), so it's tough to speak in general. I've often suggested changes to gain performance improvements or simply to provide a better service at a lower price, but in doing so I'd always outline the specific reasons for the suggestion, the negatives of not doing so if they exist and outline the various options that are available while leaving the end decision completely in the hands of the end user.

If your dev company haven't already done this, I'd make a request for them to do so and then, if still in doubt, seek an external opinion based on the specifics of the case. As the work is being done for a charity organisation, I'm sure you'd find a 3rd party more than willing to weigh in their views free of charge.

Ms Mustard

Many thanks TsuDhoNimh,
We have asked the Dev Co to outline why we should change and below is their response...
I'm inclined to think these are good enough reasons - my problem is convincing the other board members. Then again perhaps their reservations are well founded...

... We would strongly recommend that you would move the hosting over to us - especially as you are considering the Support Management option. There are several reasons for this:
1) We would be sure that the server would have the technical specifications needed to run the site, which would lead to a smoother transition from old site to new. Your current server might be too old - we will have to investigate this.
2) If a problem were to arise with the site, we would be able to fix it much quicker if it was on our hosting as we have a very good relationship with our hosting company.
3) If we need to get into the server to fix something we may have to contact the hosting company - they probably will not help us without a specific letter or email of authorisation from the committee member administrating the account.
4) If any problems arise with website when it is live which, upon investigation, turn out to be with the server, you may have to pay your hosting company extra to fix this.
5) You would only be making 1 payment to get your hosting administrated and supported rather than paying two companies.

TsuDhoNimh

1) A valid concern, but there's nothing to suggest that the existing hosting wouldn't be up to scratch... so it's a bit wishy washy to warrant a suggested change.
2) and 3) are basically the same thing and both are subjective at best. If your existing hosting is with a business that has a high level of customer service it's basically a moot point.
4) If there's a 'problem' with the server then that's the hosts problem and not yours. You'd demand to be moved to a different server and would more than likely receive compensation (discount on future payments) for any downtime/problems you encounter. That's getting very wishy washy.
5) If the 'convenience' of only having a single payment comes with a significant overhead, I know which of the two I'd choose.

There's nothing in there that even begins to suggest that you 'need' to make the change or that it would actually be of any benefit. It's all generic information that looks as if they simply try and upsell their hosting offer (which will more than likely give them a tidy recurring margin) to every client for financial gain for themselves and to make their own lives easier (knowing that they won't encounter any issues with hosting by using their default hosts does help them slightly).

You'll be migrating to a new site (potentially with a new site architecture/URL structure), so migrating hosting at the same time wouldn't be a major impact. There are a few technical points that might be of relevance (e.g. the impact of changing the host country IP for example), but given that it's for a charity site that more than likely isn't investing into SEO and digital marketing (or hasn't been in the past) these would be fairly minor concerns.

With all that in mind, it really then does come down to a question of cost. Have the dev company provided you with the technical details of the hosting plan they're proposing? How does it compare to the existing plan you have, both in terms of the technical details and the cost?

ChRoMe

Your developer just wants to pad their margins, tell them to piss off.

Trojan

TsuDhoNimh is on the money with his (her?) posts there. The reasons given by your developer are good, but generic. Ask for specifics. I rarely ask clients to move hosting companies, but when I do so it's for a very specific reason.

The main reason for my requesting a move is usually a software limitation, e.g. there's a hosting company that refuses to upgrade MySQL or PHP to a version that supports the scripts we need to run the site. There's another that uses Zeus web server which is notoriously difficult to setup 301 redirects with. Both of these issues are hard requirements, i.e. I could not do the job if the client refuses to move (no one has ever refused).

Another issue is a hardware resource limitation. This is not usually a hard requirement, i.e. we could "get away with it" without moving. These kinds of issues are e.g. oversold shared hosting or hosting with low threshold CPU throttling where all the sites on that host are performing poorly. Another example is attempting to run resource-heavy scripts or CMS's like Magento on basic shared hosting packages - this damages site performance, but doesn't stop it completely. I'd always recommend the site owners to move in this case as poor performance creates a bad user experience for visitors, and causes the site to lose position in search engines that use performance as a ranking factor (i.e. Google).

Other reasons I might suggest to a client that they might need new a hosting company is if there's poor customer service, or other "soft" factors that indicate a future problem might arise with them, or if they have an upcoming spike in traffic that I believe the current server can't handle (i.e. Dragon's Den appearance, etc).

When asking a client to move, I'd suggest a number of different hosting companies and specific packages. I also look to ensure that the move is smooth, handling it myself if necessary. One of the performance shared hosting companies that I like to recommend actually has a transfer service where they move the site for free (they need ssh access). An extreme example: they moved 30+ domains (files and databases) from a reseller account for me, for no extra cost on top of the hosting fee - that's pretty top notch service in my book.

was.deevey

Depending on the Cost - the pro's may well outweigh the Cons,

Here's a recent story of a job I've worked on.

So I'm doing some work with a partner at the moment on a site. The client outright refused to part with his current host (the biggest and "best" in their country) which "appears" to meet all the specifications of the site he's trying to run, on the face of it. Normally I refuse outright to work on certain hosting services and ones that I know nothing about, but this was a big deal with my partner who has other business with him - after checking the specs / control panels etc I bit the bullet and said "OK" I'd stick it up there BUT.. if any issues made sure my time would be paid for.

Only after finally uploading to the server and attempted to unzip all the files (basic function eh , make some changes it turns out theres faults with uncompressing files on their servers - so I had to wait for them to do it. Insufficient post allocations, insufficient memory allocations etc etc ...

So a simple upload and go-live which I did onto my own virtual server in an hour has now overflowed into about 2 weeks extra waiting time for them to go live and another 10 hours of my time spent between phone calls, failed attempts etc etc ..

Now while I have access to the server control panel and can submit tickets they all take time to resolve, and seeing as the client is blind to anything technically involved I now need to spend time explaining though a fecking ticket system whats the matter, only to be met with insufficient support.

This isnt the first time its happened - I had an 8 hour long conversation/multiple mails etc with Godaddy for another client.

And yes they will be paying for any time I spent to sort it out rather than going with my initial advice of a large hosting company that I have a good relationship with, has the necessary functions I need with and can sort out problems over the phone or in live chat in minutes rather than days. By good relationship I dont mean they know me by name everytime I call, but they have top notch staff that can actually solve issues rather than just escalate them to a higher power who remains locked in a dungeon somewhere.

Bottom line if you expect fast support from your developer in the future, with no excuses for delays, no extra cost outlay on possible time spent troubleshooting server issues on a service that may or may not have the necessary features, and assuming they are not charging a small fortune, then it may be in your interests to move host.

The things I'd be carefully watching for if you do decide to move is:
a) Is the IP address shared or Individual
b) Where is that IP address located - has it been used before and by who ?
c) Are they a small reseller outfit or reputable hosting company
d) Call their Support helpline YOURSELF and have a chat with them regarding their "actual" packages and pricing - if they only have an email based support STAY AWAY.

If you do the above, there is no reason why you cannot yourself sign up for the package the developer is asking for so that everything remains in your control should things go badly at any point in the future between you and the developer.

Normally I just point my clients in the direction of the host and give them the link to sign up for the package thats best suited to them, saves me a headache sorting out billing etc..