Why would you trust your website to be built by ... um ... people who don't build websites? ??

I don't know about you, but I don't call a plumber to do electrical work.

... or an attorney to do surgery ... or a tailor to cut my hair ... you get the point.

As traditional marketing and P.R. firms work to evolve in an effort to support their clients in the digital world, clients often find themselves struggling to choose the best partner for each component of their marketing strategy.

The client understands the magnitude of their website(s) - their most visible face to the world, open 24/7/365, usually a stranger's first impression of the company, needed to be found (and liked) by Google, designed beautifully while adhering to usability standards, easily used on all devices, and technically stable and secure.

But more often than not, the client's traditional marketing or P.R. firm downplays the complexity and intricacies of properly building and supporting a website and they write it off as just "one piece of the puzzle" to their client.

Here's a very common scenario ...

The client has a need for a website - whether a corporate site, product launch, educational, etc.

The client has almost definitely struggled in the past with digital projects - whether they chose the wrong partner, fought through it internally, lacked bandwidth to get it done, or launched with sub-par results. In 80%+ of cases, the project took 3-6 months longer than expected and in 50%+, it went over budget.

With the past challenges in mind, the client doesn't want to minimize the magnitude of the job. It has to be done right, on time and within a budget. They then set out to choose the best partner for the job ...

They'll often talk to a variety of agencies: web firms, hybrids, big, small ... some very technical, some very design-focused ... some very scientific in their approach, some very philosophical, etc. And naturally, their incumbent marketing/P.R. partner will be in the mix.

And here's where it usually goes wrong.

Despite the great number of components to consider and despite the challenges the client has had with previous digital projects, the incumbent marketing partner convinces the client that it makes the most sense for them to handle the website "to ensure brand cohesiveness and continuity." (to keep all marketing under "one roof")

I mean, that sounds pretty logical ... until you realize that the firm doesn't do websites.

Perhaps they have a "web person" in-house, but in most cases your website is being outsourced to the lowest bidder.

So basically these firms are convincing their clients to "keep it all under one roof" so that they can turn around and outsource it to the lowest bidder. ?????♂?

I love my P.R. and Communications friends. They're amazing at what they do. And they're also pretty forthcoming that they value website development at "about $15,000 - $25,000." I mean, I understand why they want to believe in that number; if a client has a $100,000 budget, a $20k web development allocation reserves $80k for content.

This is a great disservice to the client. I know this because we inherit the shoddy work that gets done - all the time.

When the complexity of building a website is downplayed or ignored, the negative impact goes beyond a delayed project and a less-than-impressive finished product.

The client is left with a site loaded with bugs, impossible to manage, completely unfriendly to Google's algorithms, and practically more costly to fix and maintain than to rebuild it entirely. emagine inherits these websites all the time. In the interest of getting a site up rapidly and inexpensively, a firm will either turn to a templated solution or they'll cut corners (usually without even being aware of the corners they're cutting)

As an agency who's built more websites than any other firm we've come across, we know the intricacies (and yes, the costs) that come with doing it right.

Even if you leave out the amount of effort that gets invested in many of the branding/communication components - messaging, persona/journey development, copywriting, etc. - you'd probably be astounded at how much effort goes into building an effective, airtight website.

Let's just run through a pretty basic list of the essential components to building a website:

• High-level strategy, branding, messaging, etc.*
• Persona and user journey development*
• User Experience Strategy - interviews, wireframes, etc.
• Creative Direction and custom design
• Web Development/CMS implementation
• Vetting of and installation of various plugins
• Integration with 3rd party systems (CRMs, etc.)
• SEO (keyword research, technical SEO, content optimization)
• Content Development (copywriting, video, infographics, photography/image treatment, etc.)*
• Proper implementation of all of the above content
• QA (minimum of 1-2 weeks, even on fairly small sites)
• Installation of proper analytics based on site's goals and KPIs
• Launch/Deployment
• Post-launch maintenance and performance/security optimization*

Again, the above is a basic list and applies to even smaller, simple websites. Cutting corners on any one of these items will directly increase costs (and frustration) post-launch.

To apply a real number to this, we typically see a smaller project (say a website under 50 pages) taking a minimum of 1,000 hours (excluding the items with the * above.) What that translates into from a price perspective depends largely on the expertise of a given firm's team, their overhead, etc.

The salient point is this ...

The next time your P.R. or Communications partner wants to take on your website project, ask them for a breakdown of the costs. How much of the budget is going to strategy and content vs. the items above? (those without the *)

If the website portion seems inordinately low - or the schedule inordinately compressed - ask a lot of questions:

• Ask who is actually doing the web work and then analyze that firm as though you were hiring them directly.
• Which corners are being cut?
• Are they even promising to do everything listed here?
• If not, how can they expect success?
• Can they provide an in-depth description of their process for each component in this list?
• Are they using a templated solution?
• In their contract are they warranting the website's stability with a promise to repair any mistakes and bugs?

It might feel good to contract everything with one firm. It might give a client a sense of comfort ... "cohesion", "continuity", etc. (and other synonyms your agency will use)

But that doesn't mean it's the right solution.