Duplicating website for American visitors...

medici

Hi there,

I'm a total Luddite re. web development and website hosting but I'd really appreciate any help with the following.

My boss has a business in Australia that gets good traffic to its website. Now the business has expanded into the U.S. and he wants a website presence that can cater for American visitors when they search for our products.

The Aussie website developer says a duplicate American site with a ".com" domain is the best bet. My gut says however that the price of $20k they've quoted for this [for essentially copying all the components of the Aussie site] is pretty steep.

My questions are:

1. Am I right in thinking this is a lot of money [esp. considering the Aussie site cost $50k to develop]?

2. Would bringing American visitors to a simple one- or two-page site [with .com domain name] - re-directing them to the Aussie page be a more viable alternative?

Am really eager to hear anybody's advice on this. Reckon I'm getting taken for a ride by our developers somehow...

Thanks in advance

mneylon

medici wrote: »

1. Am I right in thinking this is a lot of money [esp. considering the Aussie site cost $50k to develop]?

Get details of what's included. Simply assuming that it's overpriced is a dangerous assumption to make and you'll probably get a bunch of people agreeing with you, but without more details .. ..

medici wrote: »

2. Would bringing American visitors to a simple one- or two-page site [with .com domain name] - re-directing them to the Aussie page be a more viable alternative?

That *might* have worked a few years ago, but I doubt that it would work as well these days.


It sounds like you've got a site that's doing well in one market and you want to expand into another.

If you are trying to do that via "organic" traffic ie. SEO etc then you probably need to talk to someone who specialises in that area ie. seo or online marketing ..

ChRoMe

medici wrote: »

Hi there,




The Aussie website developer says a duplicate American site with a ".com" domain is the best bet. My gut says however that the price of $20k they've quoted for this [for essentially copying all the components of the Aussie site] is pretty steep.

?

We can't tell without seeing the site out getting a detailed description regarding its functionality

Procasinator

As others have said, you need to find out what this involves. A breakdown of what is good as-is, and what needs to be localised.
You would also want to check on how this process can be done again if it needs to be, such as additional new markets.

lemon_remon

You can just do a DNS forward if you want the same site just with a ".com" extension. This would be basically free to do.

BrokenArrows

As said its impossible to say without knowing the contents of the site and its functions.

If it was just an informational site then yes this seems like overkill and a redirect to a .com would be all that's necessary.

However if its a site where customers are looking at prices and can make purchases it gets more complicated.

Talisman

lemon_remon wrote: »

You can just do a DNS forward if you want the same site just with a ".com" extension. This would be basically free to do.

That is the most uninformed answer you could possibly give.

medici

Talisman wrote: »

That is the most uninformed answer you could possibly give.

My hear almost skipped a beat when I saw lemon_lemon's DNS forward - free response there..!

Thank you for all the responses though guys. Just to give some more info then:

The Aussie site has about 70 pages of content - the bulk of which is a product catalogue showing our range of door handles. Yes, door handles. Apart from the catalogue, there are some pages of content with details on finishes [e.g. brass, copper, chrome etc] and your standard Support/Contact Us/FAQs/Homepage/News etc etc.

In terms of functionality - visitors can spec out products they're interested in, save a "spec sheet" and request a quote for their selection through the website. Essentially [I think] it's like a configurator without the ability to see prices or actually make purchases.

NOW, the Aussie developer has just proposed a .com version that's "trimmed down" for American visitors - that is, containing all content except the bulky product catalogue. And the cost has dropped to $12k....which I STILL consider pretty steep...To see the product catalogue, Americans will be given a "Click here to browse our product range" button , or some similar redirect function.

My own thoughts were that some kind of copy and paste job involving the new .com domain would be possible, in order to replicate the Aussie site. AND, I hold my hands up by saying I'm not sure what's possible to do...without breaking the bank of course.

Would reallly appreciate any further suggestions/help anyone could offer guys. Thanks again

The Corinthian

I think it quite difficult to gauge if the prices being quoted are realistic or not, as we can't see the site and thus are not able to assess what would be required. On the face of it, it could well be a bloated quote, if ultimately we're talking about little more than some text changes and simple removal of parts of the old site, but then again perhaps there is a good reason why it would cost so much.

Ultimately, the developers will charge T&M - time and materials - that is, an hourly rate plus expenses, if applicable. So they need to be able to justify the quote, in terms of some expense (such as a licence fee that has to be paid to a third party) and/or the time that will be required to do the work.

Secondly, you have to find out what rate they're charging, as naturally the amount of time spent is only half of the final quote.

If once you have that information the amount of time or the rate quoted seem excessive, then this should start ringing warning bells. As should any reticence on their part to supply such details, as typically this would indicate a need to obfuscate on their part.

If so, you might want to open the work up for tender elsewhere.

Tow

Just a catalogue, no prices and no ecart? Do you already have all dimensions in inches, feet and yards?

BrokenArrows

Surely the product database can just me modified to contain a key against the product catalogue which states what country that product is available in.
The website just needs to be modified to display or hide this product!!

Rather than just a quote id be asking for a breakdown of the costs involved and how they came up with the 12/20k?

Talisman

medici wrote: »

In terms of functionality - visitors can spec out products they're interested in, save a "spec sheet" and request a quote for their selection through the website. Essentially [I think] it's like a configurator without the ability to see prices or actually make purchases.

Do you know what technology stack was used to develop the original site? Nothing you have described sounds particularly complex to warrant the price quoted - the functionality outlined above is a custom shopping cart without the purchase facility.

Based upon what you have said - if the new website is to be content only then it could be developed in WordPress and both websites would need to be tagged appropriately and the various Webmaster Tools configured so that they don't compete against each other in the search results.

See this link for some details: A Simple Guide to Using rel="alternate" hreflang="x"

This advice is based on the assumption that your company owns all the content on the original website and the developers have no claim on anything including design elements.

ChRoMe

medici wrote: »

In terms of functionality - visitors can spec out products they're interested in, save a "spec sheet" and request a quote for their selection through the website. Essentially [I think] it's like a configurator without the ability to see prices or actually make purchases.

NOW, the Aussie developer has just proposed a .com version that's "trimmed down" for American visitors - that is, containing all content except the bulky product catalogue. And the cost has dropped to $12k....which I STILL consider pretty steep...To see the product catalogue, Americans will be given a "Click here to browse our product range" button , or some similar redirect function.

From that information 12k is starting to sound pretty reasonable.

medici

Thank a million for your insights everyone...there's much food for thought coming through here.

I'm convinced that there's an option out there that shouldn't break the bank - and there seem to be a couple of suggested ways to do that.

I also note a few posters emphasising the need to get a cost breakdown too from the developer and I think this is a really necessary step as well.

I'm going to catch up with a manager next week about it and table some of the points mentioned by you guys here. Very grateful for everyone's contributions and I'll post details of the outcome once I know more.

Cheers,
M

Beano

Depending on their hourly rate $12K might only be 8-10 days work so not probably not as bloated as you think.

The Corinthian

Beano wrote: »

Depending on their hourly rate $12K might only be 8-10 days work so not probably not as bloated as you think.

Actually it would be. As you're discussing 8-10 days work, I presume you mean man-days - approx. 8 hours work by a single resource. I also presume your figures are in AUD.

On that basis this comes to an hourly rate of between €105 and €130 p.hr. Given, after a quick Google, Australian contractor (not permanent) rates for a developer are around €55 p.hr. and this would indicate some price gauging is likely taking place.

Ultimately all this is speculative. Of course the price could be fair or it could be bloated, but it comes down to what is involved, what hours are estimated and finally what the rate is. It is for the OP to request clarification on this from the developers, before one could assess which is more likely.

Beano

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it would be. As you're discussing 8-10 days work, I presume you mean man-days - approx. 8 hours work by a single resource. I also presume your figures are in AUD.

On that basis this comes to an hourly rate of between €105 and €130 p.hr. Given, after a quick Google, Australian contractor (not permanent) rates for a developer are around €55 p.hr. and this would indicate some price gauging is likely taking place.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

$12K is approx €8000. Which is what the company i work for would charge for 10 days custom work (at a minimum). That doesnt mean we pay our contractors that amount.

zig

Do you know what the site was built on? Even €8000 sounds unreasonable based on what's been written so far. I did this for a UK site where there were quite a few different changes (symbols, some content, prices, the nav bar, phone numbers on the site and some more bits) to the site depending on what country you came from and it took about 2.5/3 days, and this had eCommerce elements to it. It detected whether you were coming to the site from the UK VS anywhere else in the world.

That amount of money just seems crazy.

There is another very cheap option, but not very recommended , which is to simply do a total duplicate of the site and give it a different domain name (the .com idea) .

This isnt recommended due to double the maintenance, and SEO issues. If its a total duplicate then it would be up to manage the content for the new site and change whatever is necessary.

The Corinthian

Beano wrote: »

You're comparing apples with oranges.

You mean like comparing how much your, Irish, company charges against how much the OP's, Australian, developers have quoted?

I live in neither country. Where I am, you'd be very lucky to get 10 days custom work for only €8000, and as such we'll often outsource to countries where the same will cost us €200. Different countries have different rates, what I quoted was based on what appeared to be the going rate for a contractor there and so it looked like over a 100% mark-up (or closer to 200% if permanent employees are used), based on your time estimate, which is a bit steep.

Then again maybe Web consultancies in Ireland can get away with over 100% mark-up on contractor rates again, and we're back to the good-old days of the dotcom. Or you're working for a blue chip consultancy, as they have their own price gauging strategies.

Atomico

OP, you don't mention anything about a marketing strategy or plan for the US site? An extremely common mistake is for a business to go and build a website without even thinking of how they plan to market it, or what their strategy might be around targeting the new customer base.

If the thinking is simply along the lines of 'ok we need a .com version of the current site because we're moving into the States now', then I would step back and think about the above, because it sounds like you will just have a duplicate website and therefore duplicate content - never a good idea.

The new site (if you actually need it at all), should be customised strongly to a US audience, rather than a duplicate site for a new target market.

Beano

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean like comparing how much your, Irish, company charges against how much the OP's, Australian, developers have quoted?

I live in neither country. Where I am, you'd be very lucky to get 10 days custom work for only €8000, and as such we'll often outsource to countries where the same will cost us €200. Different countries have different rates, what I quoted was based on what appeared to be the going rate for a contractor there and so it looked like over a 100% mark-up (or closer to 200% if permanent employees are used), based on your time estimate, which is a bit steep.

Then again maybe Web consultancies in Ireland can get away with over 100% mark-up on contractor rates again, and we're back to the good-old days of the dotcom. Or you're working for a blue chip consultancy, as they have their own price gauging strategies.

You missed my point. The rate you quoted is what the website owners would pay if they directly employed a developer to do the work for them. A contractor that they would have to project manage themselves. Unless they have experience managing contractors directly it could turn out disastrously. That is not what they are doing. They are getting their existing consultants to do the work. Consultants who already know what the system involves. Who would be available to do any support required after the work has been done. Who they already have a relationship with. One thing is not like the other.

The Corinthian

Beano wrote: »

You missed my point. The rate you quoted is what the website owners would pay if they directly employed a developer to do the work for them. A contractor that they would have to project manage themselves. Unless they have experience managing contractors directly it could turn out disastrously. That is not what they are doing. They are getting their existing consultants to do the work. Consultants who already know what the system involves. Who would be available to do any support required after the work has been done. Who they already have a relationship with. One thing is not like the other.

I didn't miss your point. I'm aware that they are going through a consultancy who will manage development resources - be they permanent or contract. I'm aware that this naturally involves a mark-up by the consultancy for their management of said resources, etc.

I questioned what appears, according to my admittedly quickly Googled Australian rates (so as to get an idea of the price levels), to involve a mark-up of 100% to 200%. That, to me, appears excessive, especially when I've seen such mark-ups to be as low as 15% - 20%.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't miss your point. I'm aware that they are going through a consultancy who will manage development resources - be they permanent or contract. I'm aware that this naturally involves a mark-up by the consultancy for their management of said resources, etc.

I questioned what appears, according to my admittedly quickly Googled Australian rates (so as to get an idea of the price levels), to involve a mark-up of 100% to 200%. That, to me, appears excessive, especially when I've seen such mark-ups to be as low as 15% - 20%.

100% is standard in London fwiw.

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

100% is standard in London fwiw.

It would be 100% only if the company was using contractors. If they have permanent staff doing the work, it works out closer to 200% and you'll have to admit that this would be excessive.

Even at 100% though, the OP can do better - not that we actually know what it is as this is ultimately a wildly speculative discussion. We don't actually know why the 12k figure was quoted.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

200% and you'll have to admit that this would be excessive.

.

No I wouldn't, and you seem to be very confused about pricing strategies.

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

No I wouldn't, and you seem to be very confused about pricing strategies.

Care to explain that comment?

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

Care to explain that comment?

The % mark up on a resource's billable hours are not based on their cost to the company, assuming you are not operating at a loss with them.

The cost structures employed are based around the value that it delivers to the customer, not the cost of producing it. So for example if I have a developer that I pay 50 an hour to, and they produce 200 worth of chargeable work there is not some arbitrary percentage when you suddenly stop pricing to maximise profits.

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

The % mark up on a resource's billable hours are not based on their cost to the company, assuming you are not operating at a loss with them.

Where did I say they were?

The cost structures employed are based around the value that it delivers to the customer, not the cost of producing it. So for example if I have a developer that I pay 50 an hour to, and they produce 200 worth of chargeable work there is not some arbitrary percentage when you suddenly stop pricing to maximise profits.

Yes, I understand the notion of the price is whatever you can charge and enough customers are willing to pay. Again, nothing to do with anything I said. Perhaps you're more confused than I.

I said that that I believe that a 100%, and certainly 200%, markup is high (if the market will swallow this fine, but it's still high) and that if this is the case in the OP's case, he is very likely to be able to find a better deal, despite what you believe is the 'standard' markup.

UCDVet

Without a lot more details, it's really hard to say. If you don't trust the quote - best to get more quotes and compare.

I will say that some things that seem like they should be easy aren't. I remember what a pain it was to move my stove 1 meter to the left. It was an electric stove, so I had to relocate the outlet. But, the house was built a while ago and had different building codes. In order to do this legally, I would need to meet the current codes - which meant I would need run a new electric cable from the circuit breaker box (through walls and floors) to get to the kitchen. Where I was living, this was illegal for me to do, I wasn't a licensed professional. I had to get a building permit, have the professional electrician come, run a new cable through the entire house, install/wire the new outlet, then have an inspector come out and verify the work.

But on the surface, I just wanted to move my stove a bit to the left.

Depending on the complexity of the site, and what exactly they intend to do - it could be a lot of legitimate work. Sometimes, you can save a lot of time by cutting corners (I could have just spliced in a longer cord, run it under the floor, and been done in 2-3 hours, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do). You could buy a new .com name and point it to the same site you have now and be done in no time at all.

medici

Hi everyone. Some insights from this thread were added to the debate on our potential US site duplication.

In the interim, more strategic issues closer to home [than America] have sprung up - including the addition of a configurator to allow shopping on the site and also what we need to do about mobile-responsive/-adaptive work too.

So for now at least it looks like we need to tackle those two projects first. Thanks again to all for your input - no doubt I might hit you guys up for same in future.