Ridiculous price-war and undercutting in Web Design

The Corinthian

maccored wrote: »

This thread makes me wonder if web design in itself, as a standalone business model, isn't really just dead.

Which business model? Both the market and how it's catered to has changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

In the 90's Web development was better known as Web design. The first to get into it were the desktop publishing outfits producing static HTML sites, using WYSIWYG packages such as PageMill or FrontPage. Back then you didn't have designers or developers, you had Webmasters, who spanned both diciplines.

Between 1998 and 2001, the landscape had changed; as technologies such as (classic) ASP, ColdFusion, Flash and PHP began to appear and clients began to demand dynamic and more attractive sites, the Jack-of-all-trades Webmaster didn't fit the bill any more in most cases and so you started seeing more sites built by designers and programmers working together.

Project managers and business analysts began appearing to deal with larger projects (at the start most were really just glorified account managers). And SEO specialists followed soon after.

Then blogging took off and with it you began to see 'out of the box' CMS systems. It was inevitable that CMS's were going to end up productised; even when we had to do each one as a bespoke project, it didn't take long before code started being reused in large chunks, and soon after would be modularized into SSI's or server objects.

The dotBomb also necessitated this; VC money had vanished and with it the start-ups that many Web design firms were overly reliant on. What remained had smaller budgets, so being able to roll a site out with fewer resources became a commercial necessity - I remember seeing quotes in 2002 that would have literally been ten times larger three years earlier.

Maintenance agreements also suddenly became sought after - during the dotcom, you avoided them as new projects were far more lucrative and maintenance agreements would only use up resourced you might need for them.

So the business model changed.

By 2008 these CMS's had matured - prior to that a small-time developer would still have little trouble selling a bespoke site to an SME, but since then your only chance of doing so is increasingly when the SME needed something that simply cannot be done 'out of the box'.

The SME market is such nowadays that it is possible to provide a pretty flexible range of designs and functionality in a Web site using such CMS's, and these are so easy to set up (most are click and install, and adding modules or customizations can be done entirely via a control panel) that a basic site can be knocked up in two hours at most and to become relatively competent at doing so requires only a free weekend.

This is also true for SME's because they're far less likely to seek anything that cannot be done with an 'out of the box' CMS and also tend to prioritize price over quality. Due diligence isn't even a factor.

So between easy of entry into the industry, ease of production and an SME market that favours cheap and functional, probably has killed the business model of a decade ago. And all that means is that the industry should thus adapt to find a new one. Or go after the big fish.

BostonB

Its like a restaurant. you can get food anywhere but you need to create something customers see as worth paying extra for.

There's no point competing on price. It has to be a sustainable income.

skimpydoo

IrishExpat wrote: »

Gumtree.ie, if I remember correctly.

I'll try to track it down, but here's another one, offering for €70. Not 'as' bad, but still far too low. Once again, I'd love to see their business model.

http://www.gumtree.ie/cp-media-design-creative-in-dublin/web-developer-designer-available-at-a-low-price-464284291

Yes I agree the prices of old - several thousand for simple HTML markup - were overblown and ultimately unsustainable, and I'm all for clients shopping around for the best ROI, but there has to be a line.

I now receive work on nearly 100% referrals, but I've had clients bring this up before - "oh we saw a student offering a website for €50." or "we're thinking of going with Wix."

The best I can do is count to 10 and give the analogy of IKEA vs. commissioning a carpenter for a long-lasting, unique item.

Time to get out of this game and focus on upskilling for pure marketing/branding?

He has 2 images of "so called work that he has done". He did in his hole design a site for the EBS.

pfurey101

Looks like he hasnt got €70 to make his own website. I googled his mobile also - but gave up on SERP #7.

B.A._Baracus

Probably a good place to ask
Whats the best way to learn how to create good, decent web sites these days? Any courses in Dublin?

I was told alot of web design stuff these days are self thought - but wouldnt you pick up bad habits with being self thought?

KonFusion

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Probably a good place to ask
Whats the best way to learn how to create good, decent web sites these days? Any courses in Dublin?

I was told alot of web design stuff these days are self thought - but wouldnt you pick up bad habits with being self thought?

That's pretty OT, and there's a whole other discussion in there. Better to start a new thread.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except for that 5%. That's where you get your rebounds, when they've realized that the bottom-feeder they've hired can't actually do the job, even at a substandard level. Where you actually need to code or design from scratch and understand what you're doing rather than cut 'n paste. But those projects tend to be with larger firms (who have special requirements) or the public sector (as they have to show they did due diligence when awarding the contract).

There be money there still.

AKA "If you think its expensive to hire a professional... wait until you hire an amateur"

SME web development (like SME desktop/application support) is a razor thin margin business that frankly is just not worth it, at any level. If you don't see this, its because you dont have enough experience.

(I'm using you in the general sense, not referring to Corinthian)

KonFusion

ChRoMe wrote: »

SME web development is a razor thin margin business that frankly is just not worth it, at any level. If you don't see this, its because you dont have enough experience.

That's not the case at all though?

What about those with plenty of experience working SME web design & dev that are, and have, been making plenty?

The Corinthian

KonFusion wrote: »

What about those with plenty of experience working SME web design & dev that are, and have, been making plenty?

Depends on the business model. If we're talking development, then I'd be hard pressed to see how anyone can be making 'plenty' in the current market, unless they are literally churning out multiple sites a day; if you're in a market where a site can cost as little as a few hundred, are paying tax, rent, for equipment, electricity and salaries, how many sites a day, week or month do you think you need to cover this? Even if you're a one man show, working from a home office, you're still going to want to pull in a few grand per month to cover your costs, taxes and be left with an income you can live on (and if all you're doing in that situation is getting an income 'you can live on' you should just go out and get a real job, FFS).

And once you get into the volume game, that adds additional costs and resources in terms of sales and marketing, which further complicates things.

From what I can see the SME Webdev business model has changed and the money isn't really in the development any more. Hosting 'lock-in' deals and SaaS set-ups are not uncommon. Ongoing SLA's and SEO contracts are another. Other's have given up on development altogether, instead acting as sales/PM consultants, running dozens of projects simultaneously and farming them out to the developing World. But 'development'? Not really.

As I said, you'll still get a small number of even SME's who will require functionality that they won't be able to get from the bottom feeders, and there is money there. But it's a very, very small market and can also be easily filled by full-time developers willing to do a nixer.

Larger organizations, some still technically SME's, albeit on the larger end of the scale, are where the market can still support Webdev houses. They're more amenable to due diligence and process (telling a small firm that you're going to charge them for the time to spec out and design a solution will often get you a stare like you're crazy) and less likely to compromise quality for cost, because you'll be dealing with a middle manager who's neck is on the line if it goes wrong - small firms you're dealing with a CEO who answers to no one, so they'll wing it.

They're also more likely to seek functionality that you can't get out of a box and thus requires actual development, rather than installing modules via a CMS control panel. Or will be more particular about branding. Or look for other Web technologies, such as extranets, intranets or mobile solutions.

They're much harder to land as clients though. You have to demonstrate, not only skill and experience in the creative and technological side of things, but also professionalism and business knowledge. But that's good, because it helps to keep the bottom feeders out.

Anyhow, that's how I'd see it.

KonFusion

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd be hard pressed to see how anyone can be making 'plenty' in the current market, unless they are literally churning out multiple sites a day.

I know, personally, three one man shows, both of which are the sole supporter of their family, both of which take on 1-3 sites a month, and live very nicely indeed. I also know two companies who've been making consistent supernormal profits over the past 3 years.

Naming how many I know making a nice living I guess is probably irrelevant though, as I guess it'd be just as easy to illustrate how many are failing.

But I just feel that saying SME web design/dev is worthless and you're inexperienced if you don't realise is simply not true.

I agree with most of you're other points, and yes there is little to no money in smaller SME's seeking brochureware as we've all established, but I thought we'd gone beond that discussion. These companies seeking functionality that you can't get out of a box, that's development. That's design. That's the industry we're in. Anything smaller than that isn't really design or dev.

I feel there's money money out there is being given credit for.

They're much harder to land as clients though. You have to demonstrate, not only skill and experience in the creative and technological side of things, but also professionalism and business knowledge. But that's good, because it helps to keep the bottom feeders out.

They are much harder to land, but also (perhaps paradoxically), much easier at times if you can get just get a toe in.

I've found the saturation of bottom feeders is quite handy in a pitch. It can help in easily distinguishing yourself in the market, and if you can close & consistently deliver on the quality you're charging at the higher end of the scale for, Ireland is small & word gets out there. As Trojan pointed out, the "Get me Mary Astor" effect.

I feel there's another discussion in here somewhere, particularly one unique to Ireland on building a brand and reputation, that Tojan mentioned somewhat in his post.

On a side note; there are several people here who I always look forward to hearing (or more accurately; reading) their opinions on, and The Corinthian would most certainly be one of them, as I'm sure others would agree. Good thread.

sheesh

KonFusion wrote: »

I know, personally, three one man shows, both of which are the sole supporter of their family, both of which take on 1-3 sites a month, and live very nicely indeed. I also know two companies who've been making consistent supernormal profits over the past 3 years.

Naming how many I know making a nice living I guess is probably irrelevant though, as I guess it'd be just as easy to illustrate how many are failing.

But I just feel that saying SME web design/dev is worthless and you're inexperienced if you don't realise is simply not true.

I agree with most of you're other points, and yes there is little to no money in smaller SME's seeking brochureware as we've all established, but I thought we'd gone beond that discussion. These companies seeking functionality that you can't get out of a box, that's development is it not? That's design. That's the industry we're in. I feel there's money money out there is being given credit for.




They are much harder to land, but also (perhaps paradoxically), much easier at times if you can get just get a toe in.

I've found the saturation of bottom feeders is quite handy in a pitch. It can help in easily distinguishing yourself in the market, and if you can close & consistently deliver on the quality you're charging at the higher end of the scale for, Ireland is small & word gets out there. As Trojan pointed out, the "Get me Mary Astor" effect.

I feel there's another discussion in here somewhere, particularly one unique to Ireland on building a brand and reputation, that Tojan mentioned somewhat in his post.

On a side note; there are several people here who I always look forward to hearing (or more accurately; reading) there opinions on, and The Corinthian would most certainly be one of them, as I'm sure others would agree. Good thread.

Interesting (and good to hear) I suppose if you knew stuff and had a couple of contacts you could keep most of the opportunities that come your way as regular clients.

IrishExpat

I was very happy to see this discussion take off. And I should have made that distinction from the original post - between the cheap freelancers and actual high-end design and development outfits, who work with clients to find a solution to a business problem.

The reason I didn't belabor this point is, as was pointed out - that it's the potential clients that don't get it. And this highlights another issue of educating the client (in a professional manner) of the difference. And a perfect example the poster who lost a client as one of his employees showed him wordpress.com, which led to mistrust.

Thanks for all the points. Good to know I'm not alone in my frustration, but I also see these 'bottom-feeders' (thanks for that) are a selling point in itself if it's brought up in a pitch.

The Corinthian

KonFusion wrote: »

I know, personally, three one man shows, both of which are the sole supporter of their family, both of which take on 1-3 sites a month, and live very nicely indeed. I also know two companies who've been making consistent supernormal profits over the past 3 years.

Well yes, you can be a 'real' company, consultant or outfit and still make a decent living from SME business, but as I said, the business model has changed, just as it changed after the dotcom bubble burst and just as it will eventually change again.

My own feeling is that you can't survive unless you're leveraging something else other than development, as if that is all you have to offer, SME's will go for a cheap alternative unless they fall into that small minority who can't because they need something special.

They are much harder to land, but also (perhaps paradoxically), much easier at times if you can get just get a toe in.

It's a different mindset. It involves being much more formal and businesslike. Of approaching any project with due diligence - I've repeated this term a few times because it is so important in this market.

IrishExpat wrote: »

The reason I didn't belabor this point is, as was pointed out - that it's the potential clients that don't get it.

That's largely a small business mentality. As they tend to be managed by the owners, they are very direct (to the point of arrogance at times) and looking for the best possible deal at all times, because at heart, they're wheeler-dealers.

Larger organizations will have professional managers, who are less interested in how much they spend and more in what they get, which is the reverse of the above. They also, as I mentioned earlier, are not owners, so they answer to someone and thus have to be extra careful not to screw up when they take on a supplier.

In addition to this, there's the Irish factor, and regrettably in Ireland everyone's a horse trader - at least where it comes to small businesses. My experience is that the very ones who'll hammer out the best deal for themselves and go for the cheap option are the one's who'll not pay the last invoice. I've done business in a good few countries and Ireland's actually the worst in this regard; even Italy is better (although you still could literally be waiting 18 months to get paid).

And this highlights another issue of educating the client (in a professional manner) of the difference. And a perfect example the poster who lost a client as one of his employees showed him wordpress.com, which led to mistrust.

That's always been around - the old "but Ryanair got two students to do their site" line was already being used long before there was Wordpress. You can educate them, but it's often just easier to move onto another sales lead - they'll come back to you anyway in a year after the two students they employ don't work out, after all.

Cianos

My own view is that as CMSs advance and become easier to use, and the development side of things in general becomes easier to manage, the value of design will go up and the distinction between those who invest in good design and those who don't will be very obvious.

The average bottom feeder isn't going to spend ages getting the layer effects for your buttons just right, or choosing the best typeface for your brand, or giving sound advice on the user process etc.

So with all other things being equal, a site built by someone who cares about good design and a site built by someone who doesn't will be worlds apart.

And the good thing is, you can't really learn design, you either have it or you don't. It's the design that sells the site, that makes the first impression and that communicates to the audience as well as future clients.

There'll always be a market for dirt cheap, but the types of businesses that will only hire someone based on price aren't the types of businesses most here would want to work with anyway. Further, they aren't the types of businesses likely to do well in their field; their sites won't rank, their brand will look ****, and their market will choose their competitor whose site looks the part. Meanwhile those who had the sense to actually invest in their site will be around longer to rehire and refer.

Also, look at it this way...if someone isn't impressed by a site they aren't going to ask "who did your site, can you give me their number". Referrals only come from good quality and professionalism where the referrer is proud to stand behind their recommendation. If a significant % of your business isn't coming from referrals, then you've got a big problem.

So bottom line, provide quality and you'll be grand.

Trojan

IrishExpat wrote: »

And this highlights another issue of educating the client (in a professional manner) of the difference. And a perfect example the poster who lost a client as one of his employees showed him wordpress.com, which led to mistrust.

That potential client may not have been a good fit for their services. If the client has that little trust for them to begin with, then they either need to work harder to build the trust, or they let the client find a solution elsewhere. The client could be back to them in a month or two, with a new appreciation for quality of service.

I much rather work with referred customers who I have established a two-way trust with, and who see me as a partner on their projects, not a provider.

This is not how business works

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's always been around - the old "but Ryanair got two students to do their site" line was already being used long before there was Wordpress. You can educate them, but it's often just easier to move onto another sales lead - they'll come back to you anyway in a year after the two students they employ don't work out, after all.

This is a core point relating to my previous post, the cost of customer acquisition is disproportionately high in the part of the industry we are discussing.

The Corinthian

Cianos wrote: »

Also, look at it this way...if someone isn't impressed by a site they aren't going to ask "who did your site, can you give me their number". Referrals only come from good quality and professionalism where the referrer is proud to stand behind their recommendation.

You'd be surprised; getting something done dirt cheap is a major point of pride in a lot of small Irish businesses - I've heard phone numbers being asked for after someone mentioned that they got their site done for €200. The buttons being 'just right' is nice, but a distant second in consideration - presuming they can even tell the difference.

ChRoMe wrote: »

This is a core point relating to my previous post, the cost of customer acquisition is disproportionately high in the part of the industry we are discussing.

Small firms? I agree, they're too much trouble, which is why I generally avoid them. Private banks in Lichtenstein are more fun; no horse trading once they've decided you're the supplier and absolutely no concept of budget

KonFusion

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd be surprised; getting something done dirt cheap is a major point of pride in a lot of small Irish businesses - I've heard phone numbers being asked for after someone mentioned that they got their site done for €200. The buttons being 'just right' is nice, but a distant second in consideration - presuming they can even tell the difference.

It's true alight.

At a recent networking thing, I was talking to a guy who, after telling him what I did, kept pushing me to check out his website as he wanted me to give him a price on how much I would have done it for. Whipped out the phone and opened up the site (it was completely broken until I zoomed way out).

He stood there grinning, asking me to guess how much he got it for.

20 quid.

He was so happy. The website was deplorable.

The guy in question sold machinery, which if you've ever been in the airport you will have probably walked by countless times.

I asked how he took orders, presumably not through the website as it didn't have a contact form or email listed etc.

He said people just rang him. There was no phone number on the website either.

Boggles the mind :pac:

The Corinthian

KonFusion wrote: »

He stood there grinning, asking me to guess how much he got it for.

20 quid.

I had a very similar experience, years ago, although he paid more.

I told him, with a deadpan face, he'd been robbed. He stopped grinning.

Cianos

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd be surprised; getting something done dirt cheap is a major point of pride in a lot of small Irish businesses - I've heard phone numbers being asked for after someone mentioned that they got their site done for €200. The buttons being 'just right' is nice, but a distant second in consideration - presuming they can even tell the difference.

Cheap is always attractive in and of itself. But my point was more that not many people would hit a cheapo site and think "Hmm, wonder can I get in touch with whoever did this." Thankfully the bottom feeders haven't slapped "This site was built for €200!" badges in the footer although I shouldn't be giving them ideas

gargargar

My 2 cents from a web development perspective. I work with some guys in a small web development firm in Dublin, and we have found it hard to make a profit. The problem is that if you start out you won't get bigger clients as these have staff who want to cover their a*se. So they go with an established name in the industry. That leaves new entrants to work with startups/small businesses. In the main most of these have price as the main criteria. Quality is a distant second.

We have come to the conclusion that we don't even want to engage with the price conscious guys. No point putting in a quote as you (read we) won't get it. The question becomes how do you identify the guys who value quality over price? Someone mentioned Eoghan McCabe, if I remember correctly they had something prominent on their contrast site which said 'minimum project is €10K'. I think that was great because it told the €200 budget people to not waste their time. To be fair, you can only do this when you have proved your chops. That leads on to a thread suggested by KonFusion about how you build a name for yourself, which I might start.

I think it is also interesting that two of the good agencies that worked with startups/small business, contrast & echolibre, converted to product companies. Must be something there.

The Corinthian

gargargar wrote: »

The problem is that if you start out you won't get bigger clients as these have staff who want to cover their a*se. So they go with an established name in the industry.

It's not that they want an established name as much as they want a professional firm. So become one.

A lot of Webdev and IT start-ups are set up by a core group of people who can do the necessary technical or design work involved. Many don't have anyone with any real business background. That's the big problem - all creative, no business.

You see it immediately when you interact with them. Their tender responses are amateurish, they turn up to meetings either in grubby casual-wear or in suits that look like they were last worn for their confirmation. If you ask them about project management processes, they'll either give you a blank stare or fumble some response, using all the wrong buzzwords.

Learn how to do enterprise quality documentation. Separate creative and development from business functions. Send someone off to a PRINCE2 or ITIL course. Have business resources who are over 35 (like it or not people are ageist). Learn the language of the big consultancy.

After that, it's a question of marketing, sales and, TBH, lying. The lying part I realized, years ago while working for one of the "established name" firms is a regrettably big part of it. When we had 30 employees, we'd tell people we had 60. When we had 100, we'd tell them we had 200. But we packaged it well and had the talent in-house to pull it off.

End of the day, everyone started small in this business, but they made the transition. So are you going to moan that you can't, or are you going to try to do so?

The question becomes how do you identify the guys who value quality over price?

Experience. It's also not as easy as only differentiating those who are willing to put their hands in their pockets, against the horse traders.

You also get the tire-kickers, who will pump you for free consultancy and/or quotes when they have no intention of hiring you - a certain budget airline, I've had the misfortune to deal with, comes to mind and you get lots of tire-kickers on Boards all the time.

I think it is also interesting that two of the good agencies that worked with startups/small business, contrast & echolibre, converted to product companies. Must be something there.

Economies of scale and changing business models in the current market.

KonFusion

I often recommend this book to anyone I know thats new/starting out in web design. It's really excellent and touches on, and delves into, some of the points The Corinthian raised above, and more. I'd highly recommend it.

gargargar

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not that they want an established name as much as they want a professional firm. So become one.

A lot of Webdev and IT start-ups are set up by a core group of people who can do the necessary technical or design work involved. Many don't have anyone with any real business background. That's the big problem - all creative, no business.

You see it immediately when you interact with them. Their tender responses are amateurish, they turn up to meetings either in grubby casual-wear or in suits that look like they were last worn for their confirmation. If you ask them about project management processes, they'll either give you a blank stare or fumble some response, using all the wrong buzzwords.

Learn how to do enterprise quality documentation. Separate creative and development from business functions. Send someone off to a PRINCE2 or ITIL course. Have business resources who are over 35 (like it or not people are ageist). Learn the language of the big consultancy.

After that, it's a question of marketing, sales and, TBH, lying. The lying part I realized, years ago while working for one of the "established name" firms is a regrettably big part of it. When we had 30 employees, we'd tell people we had 60. When we had 100, we'd tell them we had 200. But we packaged it well and had the talent in-house to pull it off.

End of the day, everyone started small in this business, but they made the transition. So are you going to moan that you can't, or are you going to try to do so?

That presupposes that you are getting in front of the larger clients. When you start you will be servicing much smaller clients and have to compete on price. I would agree that if you do an excellent job in a professional manner you will eventually show up on the radar of larger clients. At that point the factors you mention will matter.

The Corinthian

gargargar wrote: »

That presupposes that you are getting in front of the larger clients. When you start you will be servicing much smaller clients and have to compete on price. I would agree that if you do an excellent job in a professional manner you will eventually show up on the radar of larger clients. At that point the factors you mention will matter.

If that is your sales strategy, then I suggest you give up now. Or hire a decent IT sales manager.

You put yourself on their radar. You go to government tendering sites, you call up the outsourcing departments of large firms and get on their mailing lists. You go to networking events, better still you speak at them. You start sending out press releases whenever you so much as bring in a baby-sitting contract. Organize publicity stunts. You knock on doors, offer to do presentations for companies, buy them lunch.

Be passive when you're a monopoly. Until then be aggressive.

KonFusion

The Corinthian wrote: »

Be passive when you're a monopoly. Until then be aggressive.

QFT! :pac:

IMO, networking is completely key. Govt tenders I find you need to play a whole different way. There are some good folks out there offering some mentoring/business strategy advice for targeting public sector RFT's specifically.

As for networking, we're lucky in a way that Ireland is so small. Get to some networking events. Not the "here take my business card" and then move on kind (or 'speed networking' you may here them referred to). The kind that will allow you to establish a relationship. Also remember not all networking events are marketed as "Networking events".

You'll find if you can establish a good relationship with a few key people ('the right people' as they say), you'll almost be able to get in front of every CEO in the country.

Approaching someone, when you've already been introduced to them as being an expert in your field by someone they trust & respect, makes closing over 9000% easier. Fact

Sonnenblumen

A good portfolio will clearly illustrate the creative design and ability to present good business propositions. Without these assets, all the networking and precious perspectives will count for nothing.

Some luck is involved but ultimately the only way and possibly smarter approach is to earn your stripes through experience which demonstrates creative problem solving and an ability for some critical analytical thinking. Working the way up the food chain whilst doing a wider range of projects of varying complexities and budgets.

Min fees of € 10k might sound grand but proving the worth is something else.

No shortage of experts eh?:mad:

uck51js9zml2yt

The Corinthian wrote: »

You also get the tire-kickers, who will pump you for free consultancy and/or quotes when they have no intention of hiring you - a certain budget airline, I've had the misfortune to deal with, comes to mind and you get lots of tire-kickers on Boards all the time.

A good way to get rid of the tyre kickers is to ask their budget. You'll soon know if they are serious and if not then you're not the right fit for them.
Keeps it professional and saves time.

The Corinthian

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

A good portfolio will clearly illustrate the creative design and ability to present good business propositions. Without these assets, all the networking and precious perspectives will count for nothing.

Naturally, but as with any business, how you market that portfolio is as important, if not more so.

And where it comes to transitioning to smaller clients to larger one, the most impressive portfolio in the World won't do it any more as client expectations change. For example, as a client yourself, I would doubt that you would weight professional certificates over demonstrable ability. Or that you would be happy to allot half of your budget to project management, documentation or formalized process - that's what larger organizations tend to look for.

Trojan

gargargar wrote: »

I think it is also interesting that two of the good agencies that worked with startups/small business, contrast & echolibre, converted to product companies. Must be something there.

There's a bunch of different factors in those decisions, particularly goals and interests of the founders and the scalability that a product offers, as well as simply not wanting to deal with client issues.

Paul Boag wrote:

In the last few years I’ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of web designers abandoning client work to develop their own web applications. There are many more who would like to make this move, but fear losing the income of client work.

This tells me a lot about the current state of web design. Although some are developing web applications to create an ongoing revenue stream, many simply cannot stand working with clients.

What has gone wrong? Are clients really all idiots, intent on nothing more than undermining our work? Or does the problem lie with us as a community?

I wrote this allegory based on John Andrews' super blog post on SEO but there are many parallels with web design at the low end of the market:

Average Joe visits Abe’s dealership to buy a secondhand car from Abe. Joe cannot truly judge whether the car Abe showed him was in poor, average or even excellent condition.

Therefore Joe buys based on his perceived value of the car – his best guess being that it is in average condition.

Abe isn’t making much margin on his good cars any more, so he decides to create high perceived value by forgetting about selling good cars at average price – instead he raises the price of his low quality cars – the lemons – up to the price of an average car. Nobody knows the difference anyway.

Mike wants to sell his pristine, showroom condition car. But everyone he talks to says he wants too much for it – “Look at the price of cars at Abe’s”, they say – but Mike knows Abe is selling lemons.

Mike decides to keep his pristine car, it’s not worth selling – buyers would only pay the price of an average car and it’s worth far more than that.