Website in a box, anyone?

“I can get someone to make me a website for $120 a month”, says the builder working on my kitchen.  “Good for you”, I thought.

Isn’t it great that the web industry has progressed to the point where traditional tradesmen are now thinking about the web as an important part of business?  More to the point, accepting ‘pay for use’ licensing rather than ‘build from scratch’.

What’s interesting is the level of sophistication you now get from pre-packaged web deals all over the place.

Every man and his dog, or should I say every willing designer working from home, can now offer pretty comprehensive solutions almost turn-key.  Others out in web-land are ready to take care of your hosting, your content management structure, support, and even customer relations issues.  Wow!

So what is this doing to the web market?  As richer core functionality becomes expected rather than a bonus it’s logical that the baseline has changed for web development.  What once was written from scratch is becoming modular and a commodity.  As we’ve adopted the internet, and value it so much, we expect a lot more from it.

Package sites have put real pressure on the price point of custom solutions.  Custom work is now vastly more expensive and the customer benefits aren’t as clear anymore.

So is a package template website going to work for you?  Well maybe.  Think of it this way – is your business unique?  Do you believe you have a unique offering that has to be communicated in a unique way?  If not, then a package is just fine for you. 

If you don’t want to be forced into a mould then you’re going to have to think smarter.  I know most marketing people worth their salt will be standing up right now and saying that they want their client to have a unique offering. 

So it stands to reason that if you’re really serious about the web then you need a custom built site.  Right?  Well maybe not.  Find a supplier that has a strong base of technology at an affordable price yet also focuses on identifying your ‘real’ needs and then customising to suit.  That’s a smart compromise.

I fear that as the web industry matures all prospective website owners will fall into the trap of judging solutions on features. 

It’s not unusual for this to happen.  Look at Plasma and LCD TV’s.  A few years ago you’d be stoked just to have one – but now, how many HDMI inputs, what res., what refresh rate, contrast ratio…. etc. etc. 

The market for those goods has matured and hence consumers think they need to know all this techno-stuff.  They’re buying on features under the guise that this equals quality.  That’s just not so in my opinion. 

It’s also like the crazy remodelling of cheap sound systems back in the late 90’s.  Gosh!  They started making them look like something out of Aliens, sticking lights and blinking garbage all over them, and to top it off ghastly numbers to tell you how POWERFUL they were.  None of this made them sound any better.  The more discerning customers turned away and went back to proper component HIFI with as few knobs and whistles as possible.  And why?  Because those items did exactly what they wanted and exceptionally well.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So when it comes to effective web design, less ‘is’ more.  But there’s a disclaimer around that.  Doing less has to be done better (which is harder) and that means proper strategic architecture to suit users and not the confines of some package.  Buying for features at the back end doesn’t equal a better user experience even if it costs less.

So you’re bound to get a great package website now if you look carefully.  My advice is to focus on what your users need.  This will pay dividends early.

I’m reminded of a dilemma that one of our clients faces now.  A six figure investment in a custom solution that plays to the hearts and minds of his target audience as effectively as it can.  Or, one quarter of the cost for an out-of-the-box solution that ticks all the features he wants.

I ask, if it doesn’t look the part and isn’t tuned to users specific issues, how much damage will it do?  What long-term value should you place on the reputation of your brand?