I re-read that post this morning and have a few red flags to add.

7. Previous Web Developer Baggage
Once in a while I’ll be approached by someone with a project that has already been taken on by another developer and the project has failed.  In these situations the potential client always blames the previous developer for the failure, saying they had misrepresented themselves, or were over committed, or were just flat-out not able to do the work.  The potential client will then appeal to my ego with statements like “After reviewing your portfolio it’s obvious you would be a much better fit than the previous developer was.”

But - like stories of dating relationships and marriages gone awry -I’m only hearing one side of the story.  Might the issue really have been a client with unrealistic expectations, or who were unable to pay their bills on time?

I always feel like the only real way to seriously think about taking on a project with baggage would be to interview both sides of the failed project and see if I could determine what really happened.  But the time investment for doing that is such that it never makes sense because neither side is going to want to reimburse me for that time.

Additionally, if the site is sitting there half-baked and “just needs to be finished” then I’m faced with the prospect of it being started poorly and either having to rebuild it from the ground up or being responsible for issues with the site due to poor decisions being made at the foundational level by someone with less experience than I have.

8. Emergency 911
It’s amazing the number of contacts I get for projects where the timeline is “ASAP”.  Here’s an actual request: “We need a complete EE build with content and user migration from a Drupal install, the design is in Photoshop and needs to be converted to HTML, and looks like we either need some custom EE code or use of a 3rd party module.  Oh and the deadline is in 11 days”. 

Not 11 business days, just 11 days.

So after I’m done with the gut-reaction snide response that I won’t post here, the first question I have to ask is “How did the project get to be in this state?” And if the answer is “poor project management” then the follow-up question is “What other aspects of the project are suffering due to being managed poorly?” Is the design going to be right?  Has the proper functionality been identified?

I’m reluctant to take on projects that come with a red flashing light to wear on my head - I didn’t create the crisis situation so feel no urge to shoulder the responsibility of resolving it.  Although - I have toyed with the idea of proposing to take it on, but at 2 or 2.5 times my normal rate.  So far the stress potential hasn’t been worth the possible financial gain.

9. The Client Who Knew Too Much
Maybe the better title is “The Wanna-be Developer as Client”.  When I get communications from clients that include nonsensical statements like “we like the idea of separating content from presentation for SEO reasons”, or they want to talk about URL structure before the site design or IA is done the hair on the back of my neck goes up just a bit.  It’s not that I don’t appreciate technically-savvy clients, but when they have things just a bit “off” it makes me wonder how they got there, will they be open to and capable of being re-educated, or will it be a constant struggle to get them to understand how things actually work?

10. Hi, My Name Is Tom Sawyer
Once in a while I will be contacted to put a proposal together for an ExpressionEngine site, but the real reason for the proposal request is to determine if EE is actually well-suited for the project.  The challenge with these types of requests is that in order to do a quality needs assessment and (if EE is the right fit) a proposal it requires a lot of time - which is likely why the client hasn’t done it.

ExpressionEngine provides a pre-sales forum for answering questions like this - and I’ll often even pitch in on those threads.  But if the project needs an in-depth requirements analysis then that’s really outside of what I should have to provide at no charge in the form of a quote - that’s work that should be defined as it’s own project and I should get paid for as an internet consultant with specialized CMS knowledge and experience.

11. You Don’t Know Me
Boyink Interactive was a charter member of the ExpressionEngine Professional Network, and it’s been a valuable source of leads on new projects.

The downside is I’ll often be BCC’d in on emails along with multiple other members of the Pro Network.  I’ll have to be honest—if I’m elbows-deep in projects when these emails come in they do have less weight than email addressed to me specifically, or email that has come through Boyink.com instead.  I wonder if they’ve even reviewed my work at all, or are just blasting everyone on the Pro Network to see who responds.  I don’t immediately discount these emails, but if they have any other red flags (and they often do) then it’s not likely I’ll respond to them.

12. Can You Hear Me Now?
I’ve had a few interchanges with potential clients where they just couldn’t answer simple direct questions put to them via email.  And asked two or three times in different ways.  In one case after email exchanges hadn’t worked well I scheduled a phone call with the potential client instead.  When I called at the appointed time they answered with “Uh, hello?”.  This didn’t exactly instill confidence that they could communicate well enough to work with and that they were a marketing & communication firm was the deciding factor in passing on the work.

So there you have it - now the “dirty dozen” of client red flags. Will there be more?  Only time will tell…

First of all - I need to say; it’s hard to sit and write this kind of an article because:

• A - It wasn’t my idea to start Boyink Interactive
• B - I don’t feel like I’ve really done anything all that special.

Really most of what I have to say on this topic in general was covered in an interview I did with Nathan Smith on his SonSpring site.  It’s already two years old, but re-reading it the points I tried to make (and the Boyink Interactive history) are still valid. 

Essentially - if you’re thinking of pro-actively going on your own, freelancing, or starting up a business expecting to hire employees you are already taking more initiative than I did.  I’ve said all along - the reason I’m self employed is that God wanted me to be, pure and simple. I never thought about it and - with a depressed local IT market, a mortgage and a stay at home wife - would have immediately discounted the idea as being too risky even if I had thought of it. It took a layoff with no immediate job prospects to put me in the position of having nothing to lose by trying.

So the “unwilling entrepreneur” is still at it five years later.  How?

Again - some might call it luck, I call it God’s hand again proving His faithfulness, and doing it through crises.  One of the first sites I did as a formal business was a site for the church we were attending at the time.  As part of that project I came across a lesser-known piece of blogging software called pMachinePro.  It was cheap and flexible, and allowed us to build immediately parts of the site we had initially thought would be Phase 2 or 3 items due to cost.  While that project (and our relationship with the church) came to a less than ideal ending, I had started using pMPro to build websites on for my business clients. pMachine then came out with ExpressionEngine, and later invited me to be one of the first companies in the Professionals Network, which accounts for the majority of my business today.

In hindsight it’s obvious to me that God was again being faithful - bringing me to a place where leads for new work are plentiful, prospects are for the most part nicely qualified, and I don’t have to do much pavement-pounding sales work.  But what we had to get through to get to this place was really tough and painful.  The lessons I had to learn were endurance, faithfulness, prayer, and the courage to stand by my convictions in the face of (so-called) authority.  In both this case and others I’ve seen that it takes some things - projects, meetings, relationships - years to germinate into paying work, so have learned to bite my tongue and not always say the first things I want to say, as it’d be easy to kill a future project with a “witty at the moment” response.

However - I still don’t see myself as a “great” business person.  I haven’t brought any wildly innovative products or services to market.  I haven’t gotten rich beyond my wildest dreams.  I don’t get invited to speak at big industry conferences.  We still live paycheck to paycheck more than I’d like, but are constantly taking steps to improve that.  It’s not that I don’t see myself as successful - for me just the fact that I’m still plugging away in my basement, not punching a clock or enduring quarterly performance reviews is a success.  Being around my family all day most every day is a success.  Having happy clients is a success.  But if you’re looking for advice on tripling your income or being able to retire at 40, I’m not your guy.

So that’s the high-level stuff, what about day-to-day advice?

I can only tell you what’s important to me in my dealings with clients and projects.  I want to be:

• Reliable
  I’ll do what I said I would do, for the price I said I would do it for.  I’ve never been a big “mission statement” person, but if I had one it would probably boil down to simply “Be Reliable”.  This is what I want as a customer of other businesses, so this is what I want to offer my own clients.  This can be costly—I’ve put in dozens of non-billable hours during 18-hour work days in order to meet the deadline and budget I agreed to.  But when someone asks a past client of mine what it was like to work with me, I want them to be able to say that from the initial contact, to the proposal, to completing the project there were no surprises, no issues, that I just simply did what I said I would do and stayed within the quote that I provided.
• Responsive
  There’s two parts to this; First just plain respond.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen prospective clients complain that they contacted several web development companies and never heard back.  I simply don’t understand that.  For me the whole goal of putting my own website online, having business cards printed, spending time in business networking groups, being part of different online communities etc, is to be contacted.  Those inquiries are pure gold to me - five years later I still get a little thrill every time a new one comes in.  I don’t understand how other companies can just plain ignore what, to me, is the lifeblood of my business.  Second - respond quickly.  I don’t have a formal response time for myself—but it’s usually within the hour, and more often than not, immediately.  Even if the response is “Thanks for the email, sounds like a great project, but at the moment I can’t take it on”.  My goal is to have the person answer back with “thanks for getting back to us so quickly” in their email.  I use my inbox as a rolling to-do list, and my daily goal is to keep it empty.  Responding to inquiries from potential clients and issues from current clients helps me stay sane and on top of things while also letting others know that their emails are important enough that I take action on them as quickly as possible.
• Real
  I hate dealing with companies who only have a “corporate face” with no personality or “realness” to them.  I know this is often a result of growth, so since I’m small it’s easy for me to stay real.  My website, my blog, and my email interactions are intentionally casual and informal while staying professional and informed - because that’s who I am.  I want your “virtual interaction” with me to be as close as possible to working with me in person.
• Realistic
  I want to earn a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.  I’ve seen both ends of this spectrum - I’ve been contacted for $9/hr development work, and I’ve seen quotes for $40K on what should be a $10K site.  I’m not in this business to get rich, but I do - just like most of you - have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed.  If you come to visit you’d quickly confirm that there is no excess at Boyink Interactive - no big homes, no new cars, no photogenic offices.  My rates and project costs are fair based on the quality and functionality of the final product, and my costs of doing business.  I take a lot of time putting together quotes to ensure that the project is priced as fairly as I can.

Heh - I feel like a pastor.  4 points, and all starting with the same letter....

But there you have it - for what it’s worth.  I don’t claim this to be any special knowledge, or universal truths that will apply to any type of business.  It’s just what’s important to me as I sit here at the monitors, doing the work that I both greatly enjoy doing while providing for my family.

At any rate, since I couldn’t work I decided to try fishing.  I have to tell you—I know very little about fishing.  All I’ve ever really done is the hook, bobber and worm approach and I’m happy to keep the experience on that simplistic level.  There were some poles at the cottage, one was setup with the necessary tackle so my son and I went and dug up some worms. We spent an hour or so out on the dock, and managed to find a small “hot-spot” where we got nibbles and caught a couple of small sunfish (sunfish being 50% of the species I can identify on sight).

I cast the pole back into the hot-spot, and again got a nibble.  I jerked the pole to set the hook, felt that I had a fish on, and handed the pole to my son as he had yet to reel one in.  I noted that the bobber went way under as he reeled, but sunfish seem to be able to put up quite a fight for a small fish so I didn’t think anything of it. When my son lifted the fish out of the water, however, we were both amazed to see what I’m pretty sure was a large mouth bass hanging there instead.  In a split second a couple of things happened - my son and I both started making some really excited sounds, I thought “boy we should get him back in the water and drag him to shore instead of hanging him there”, I went to grab for the pole, and then the fish was gone - taking our only tackle with it.  The line had indeed broken from the weight of the fish.

My first reaction was what you’d expect - great disappointment for both my son and I over losing out on such a nice catch.  But as I watched my son scramble off the dock towards the cottage to go tell my wife and daughter what had just happened, I had to smile as I realized we had caught something else that no brittle fishing line could take away - a great story.  In the day and a half since that moment the conversation has turned back to it several times - and I’m (almost) glad the fish got away as I think it makes the story even better.

Mulling over it since - this one small event has renewed my belief that, for all of our concerns over the technology of the internet, at the end of the day it’s a storytelling medium.  The great challenge - as people both with stories to tell and for those of us in business to build things that enable others to tell their stories, is to not lose focus on the end goal.  Sure - design, fonts, colors, content management and a score of other things are important.  But if at the end of a visit to a site a visitor hasn’t been the recipient of a fun, intriguing, engaging and memorable story then all of our efforts have been wasted.

Personally I’m going to try and do a better job of that here on Boyink.com.  What that means, exactly, I haven’t figured out yet - better project overviews, better blog posts, a revision of the About section - anything’s possible...but I need to work on being a better storyteller.

In the interest of overall length, I’m only going to focus on the elements of the document that seemed odd or downright silly.  I hate for this post to come off as totally negative, but there didn’t seem to be much value in reproducing parts of the document that weren’t note-worthy.

I should also note - this RFP was not from a large company, or national organization - it was from a non-profit located in an area of the state that isn’t considered “urban”.  Near as we could tell, the site was only moderately bigger than the average small business website. Some of the requests below might make sense if the project is either larger in scope or for a larger company.

Proposal Guidelines and Requirements

• If you wish to submit alternative solutions, please do so.
• The price you quote should be inclusive.  If your price excludes certain fees or charges, you must provide a detailed list of excluded fees with a complete explanation of the nature of those fees.
• If the execution of work to be performed by your company requires the hiring of sub-contractors you must clearly state this in your proposal.  Sub-contractors must be identified and the work they perform must be defined.  In your proposal provide the name, address and EIN of each sub-contractor.  The [Organization Name] will not refuse a proposal based upon sub-contractors; however we retain the right to refuse the sub-contractors you have selected.

OK - starting to see some questions here.

On #1 - this will become a bigger question later.  Can the alternative be outside of the guidelines in this document - essentially restructuring the whole project?

On #2 - This just gave me a bit of a chuckle - essentially saying “Your price should be inclusive.  If you have left any fees out, please include them.”

On #3 - This one caught me a bit off-guard.  Often—especially in smaller companies - subcontractor arrangements are quite critical to the proposal.  In other words, if you tell me I can’t work with a certain subcontractor then I can’t do the project as I’ve proposed it.  I just didn’t react well to being told that I didn’t have the ultimate say in who I could or couldn’t work with - especially so early in the document.  If this is a true requirement and not just a power-play, it should go in a footnote somewhere.  I’m also not sure why the sub contractor’s EIN is required, if the submitting entity is going to be handling all the invoicing.

Contract Terms

The [Organization Name] will negotiate final contract terms upon selection.  All contracts are subject to review of the [Organization Name]’s legal counsel, and a project will be awarded upon signing of an agreement or contract, which outlines terms, scope, budget and other necessary items.

Not a big deal here, but my first thought was - so they’re going to accept quotes but still try to negotiate the price?  Probably not - just other contract terms but it was my first reaction.

Purpose

The proposed site will serve as a hub for:

• Announcements, news releases and other communications concerning [organization’s purpose].
• The site will also serve the staff internally, supporting some operations.

OK - pretty general stuff here, very typical.  However we’re getting a bit vague:
On #1 - What are the “other communications”?
On #2 - what are these “operations”?

Description

The site must have the capacity to deliver large amounts of dynamic information to our key audiences.  Administration of web content should be based on roles that allow the control of access and workflow. 
In summary, our web site must be:

• Easy and intuitive to navigate
• Visually pleasing
• Informative
• Safe and secure
• Quick to load pages
• Convenient to maintain
• Flexible, programming should allow for additional functionality

Yes, well.  I guess when I see a part of a website RFP called “description” I just expected more detail This is filler, subjective stuff that’s impossible to quantify- (is content “dynamic” because the content is in and of itself exciting, or is it dynamic because it’s getting pulled from a database?).  Actually the document attempts to quantify some of these things later.

Oh - and that role-based workflow thing.  How many people/layers/steps will there be?  That one sentence alone could drastically affect the choice of tools and the amount of time to implement.

Timeline

• Phase 1 of the project must be complete and delivered by [date]
• All further deliverable date will be determined during Phase 1.

What-hey?  Phase 1?  One of how many?  Read on…

Budget

The budget must encompass all design, production and software acquisitions necessary for development and maintenance of the web site.
Costs and solutions for hosting should be separately addressed.

Provide pricing separately for:

• Phase 1: Discovery, Requirements Planning and Site Definition
• Phase 2: Site Development, Test and Deployment
• Phase 3: Hosting

Wait.  Go back and read that again.  Here’s where it gets really wonky.  The budget needs to be all-inclusive, yet the project has been split up into a Discovery Phase that’s separate from the Development.

In other words, “We don’t know exactly what we want, we want you to help us figure that out, but you need to tell us what the whole thing is going to cost to build in advance.”

Yes - us web people.  Nothing short of Carnac the Magnificent with laptops.

Only two outcomes are possible by structuring a project like this—either you are going to pay too much for the site (because we guessed way high to cover ourselves), or we’re not going to get paid enough to develop it (because we guessed low).  The odds of delivering a quality site at a fair market rate are minimal.

Oh - and the discovery phase due date was set in the RFP - so even though they aren’t web experts, or do they know what exactly the discovery process will involve or what the deliverables will be, they know how long it should take.  One month, as it turns out.  Oh, and by the way, the organization is new and not all the board members have been selected or elected yet.

Development Guidelines
(Inappropriately named, these actually specific features desired in the solution)

Once the site is completed and accepted, the [Organization] would like to be able to easily update the infrastructure, such as adding an additional main link (tabs, main menu item, etc.)

I’m sure this differs by CMS, but I’ve yet to work on a CMS-driven site of any scope where main navigation could be easily changed by the end user.  And adding a link is one thing, the bigger question is what are you linking to, and who is building that?

Easy to navigate - Information should be grouped and presented in a logical manner and generally require no more than a few clicks to find the desired information

Uh oh - someone’s been reading usability research.  Danger!  Rather than focus on the number of clicks, how about we organize it the best it can be organized?

Ability to deliver and change mini-tours via the site.

Sure.  Oh wait.  What’s a “mini-tour”?  Video, images?  VR?  Don’t make up things and then not define them.

Strategy for optimizing the site’s search position.

How about we wait for the discovery to tell us whether a good search position is necessary, given the site’s purpose, audience, and other marketing/promotional methods?

Secure section where documents can be shared and accessed.

OK, an extranet as well.  How many people will need access?  What types of documents?  How many?

Gather email, name, business/organization information and other demographics from web site visitors in a format that permits the [Organization Name] to maintain a single database of contact information.

Our question here was around expectations.  Is the intent to use a fill-in-the-blank form to collect this, or is the expectation that the server can magically gather all this automatically?

Site Specifications

Site must be compatible with IE and Netscape browsers.  Compatible browser versions must be specified in the proposal.

Netscape?  What’s that?

Site should be developed with the intent to meet ADA requirements - Federally-mandated access requirements adopted by the Federal Access Board under section 508 subsection 1194.22 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Fuzzy langauge here - should or shouldn’t the site meet the ADA requirements?

Site should be built with the considerations of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 provided by the W3C and should also be accessible to the novice as well as the experienced internet user.

Again, fuzzy language here - should or shouldn’t the site meet the Accessibility Guidelines, and to what level?

Web pages should load quickly.  The site should be designed with a balance of text and graphics such that each page loads in 6 seconds or less on the average computer.

Um, yea.  First question - what’s the “average computer”?  What about connection speeds?  Why 6 seconds?  Real red flag here - if the site happens to take longer than 6 seconds to load on some remote person’s 28.8 dialup connection and they complain, do we still get paid?

Testing

Testing of the site should occur on all applicable platforms to ensure web site works as promised.  Test plan and testing process should be explained in detail in the proposal.

I’m curious around what people do for test plans.  In former jobs we had these really detailed step by step test plans that outlined every link you had to click on.  Essentially, though, it seems like most web testing can be boiled down to “does it look right” and “do any plug-ins used work cross-browser”?  This statement had me wondering if someone was coming from a more involved software application development background, and concerned around test-plan expectations.

Delivery

Delivery and uploading of the site to the hosting entity is required and should be specifically addressed in the proposal.

Addressed how?  Just saying that we’ll do it?

Qualifications

Briefly describe your firm’s organizational capacity to produce our web site (e.g. staff, equipment, software, physical space, office location, etc.).

Huh?  My equipment?  Space?  Location?  What in the world do these have to do with our ability to produce a website?  I’m guessing they don’t want to hear “My laptop, sitting at the local coffee shop”...yet that’s how many sites get developed these days.

What also concerns me here is the idea that they as an organization somehow know or can determine the best equipment and software necessary for developing a site.  Just feels egotistical.

Briefly describe the percentage of your web staff that would work on this project relative to your entire staff.  For example, if you would use five staff on the project and you have ten web designers and developers, the percentage would be 50%.

Well, sure.  100% of the staff, 100% of the time… Again, the feeling I get from this is they feel they know the proper percentages required to complete the project on time.  From my perspective this is my business - all you as a client need to know is that the site will be on time, on budget, and meet the requirements.  Let me make the sausage.

Briefly describe the type of team that will be assigned to this project.  What will each person’s role be?  Include a background summary for each key staff member that will be assigned to this project.

Uh, a web development project team SIR!  Are you getting a feel for the sheer amount of data required in this RFP?  But wait, there’s more....

Briefly describe your firm’s project management process.

Again, I wonder what their expectations are.  At smaller web firms the process can be “We figure out what to build, then build it.”.  I’ve had jobs where the project management process was much more involved with numerous documents (project charters, etc) had to be filled out, then a bunch of MSProject templates employed. 

Provide a description in percentages as to the total revenue derived from site development and other business ventures.

I’ve never had this question asked of me before. I guess I can see the logic of it - that a firm that does a higher percentage of web work would be better at it, but I don’t see where that precludes a quality offering coming from a company whose income is only 25% related to web development.  Still, I’m a bit hesitant to discuss my revenue - either in numbers or percentages - in an RFP.

Explain your business model.

I build websites and people pay me for it. 

Discuss any planned IPOs, mergers or acquisitions your firm is considering.

Yes, I notice that companies planning these sorts of things are willing to discuss them with anyone who asks. 

Discuss your testing and support plans.

A detailed testing plan has already been requested, so not sure what this is after.

Explain your service level agreement (SLA) structure.

Well, it has a beginning, middle, and end.  I’m curious if other web developers have formal SLA’s in place, obviously the expectation with this RFP is that they do. 

Communicate any terms and conditions your organization use in contract agreements.

I’m certainly not a lawyer, but my contracts are full of terms and conditions.  Why discuss them outside of the contract itself?  Why not just provide the contract?

Project Plan

Value/Pricing Structure and Pricing Levels - The price is commensurate with the value offered by the candidate.  As a non-profit institution, the [Organization Name] is able to accept pro bono service and recognize the provider to the full extent allowed by the Internal Revenue Service, including naming the provider within the web site and other collateral as an [Organization Name] supporter and partner.

I referenced this one before, but still get a chuckle from it—“Give us a free website and we’ll let you put your name on it and speak really highly of you.  I’ll bet we could send more free-website-seeking people your way”.

Depth and Breadth of Staff - The candidate firm has appropriate staff to develop the site in the time frame needed.

Because, being not in the web development business, they know exactly what the appropriate staff is required to develop the site in the time frame needed.

Hosting

• How often do they upgrade software/hardware?
• Describe their technical support.
• Describe their security.
• Describe their technical speed capabilities.
• Describe their methodology and service level agreements.What are their pricing, terms and conditions?

Upgrades - as often as makes sense?
Tech support—Good?  Or...they’re middle aged and a bit thick around the middle?
Security—Good?  (How do you describe web-host security to someone who likely doesn’t know the lingo?)
Methodology?  Uh, They have computers hooked to the internet, you put your website on them, they charge you for it.
Pricing, terms and conditions....good grief - how about I just link you to their website where all of these questions are probably answered?

In Conclusion

Maximum proposal length including title page, cover letter, proposal, qualifications and budget should not exceed 25 pages (not including Hosting proposal and information).

In other words, “We’ve asked you for 50 pages of data and would like to watch you squirm in order to fit it into 25.  Then we can rule you out based on it being incomplete”.

So there you have it (and those are just the highlights). 

What this specific RFP did was virtually guarantee a non-response by:

• Asking for so much data that it would take days to put it together
• Structuring the project such that it puts too much risk on the part of the responder by having to quote a fixed price on a site that is undefined.

The end result is that in order to respond at all you have to spend 20-30 non-billable hours just putting a response together with already little hope of being selected and making up for that time—all for a project that’s doomed to fail in one way or another, and not incredibly profitable to begin with.

If you’re reading this because you’ve Googled for input on Website RFQ’s - please, hire a competent web developer and have them help you put together the RFP in a way that ensure a better response for you, and makes the project more enticing for other web developers.  I can do that for you - please contact me.

We’re interested in a content management system like Expression Engine. Please advise as to cost and timing. Our URL is ________.  Thank you.

Simply put - I can only quote a project to the same level of detail as it’s been specified.  In the case of the above—which is a slightly edited version of an inquiry email I recently received, I can’t even begin to put numbers or timing on the project as it’s simply too vague.

I always think of websites as being a bit like a custom-built house.  I don’t think people would approach a home-builder and say, “Hi - I’d like a house.  How much would that cost and when can you have it done?” The potential customer would know that in order to estimate the cost of building a house there are many decisions that have to be made that further define the project - the overall square footage, the number of bedrooms vs. the number of bathrooms, the location, the finish materials (brick or vinyl siding, etc). 

I know the comparison falls apart a bit under heavy scrutiny - as in most areas there is a rough “cost per square foot” number that people use.  But you get the idea - vague definitions can only get vague answers. 

Same thing with a website - in order to quote prices, I need requirements.

Iif you don’t feel comfortable defining your own requirements, I can develop those for you as a consulting service.  We would agree to a certain number of hours (typically 15-20), and I would spend those hours interviewing your staff and customers, analyzing your current content, finding out more about your current business and future goals, etc.  The deliverables for this engagement are an internet strategy document that summarizes my findings and plots out a build approach, a sitemap, and a set of wireframes that begin to map out the structure of the site (like an architect’s blueprints).  At this point you could take those deliverables and use them to get estimates from any number of web developers.

If you want to develop your own requirements, this Project Survey (MSWord format) provided by the folks at ExpressionEngine is a good start.  You likely won’t be able to answer all the questions, but answering what ones you can will help me start to determine what your project will cost.

Please understand - I don’t intend this to come off as a rant.  As a small business owner I appreciate each and every inquiry for work that I receive.  I just want to be able to provide estimates that are as accurate as possible - and I’m sure as a potential client that’s what you want as well. 

In order to do that I just plain need more detail about the proposed project.

I’ve seen it happen in every online community I’ve been part of. The owner of a business related to the topic at hand stumbles across the discussion, and seeing an opportunity to gain some new business, jumps in headfirst - offering their products or services as the solution.

An internet faux paux has just been committed.

Why?

Because to the community, you just interrupted their normally scheduled program with an advertisement. “But wait you say-- “I have a passion for this! I have the answer! I’m doing them a favor!”

That might all be true, but as a vendor interacting with on-line communities is a careful dance that you need to approach with some forethought lest you get pushed out by the chaperone. I couldn’t quickly find a guide for businesses interacting with online communities, so began one:

Learn the Lingo:
Spend enough time on the list or forum to know what a thread is. To know what a post is. To know what trolls and flames are.

Ask First:
Spend some time on the list or at the discussion boards lurking. Identify who the owner or moderators are, and send them a note off-line (just one of them, they probably have a hidden way of communicating between themselves). Outline who you are, what your business can offer to the community, and ask for their advice on how to best do that. They will appreciate your thoughtfulness - and might become your biggest customers.

Look for the Right Spot:
Often online communities will have established areas for vendors to use. Look for them first.

Be Low Key:
TV, radio, and the internet are filled with ads that shout and hype. Go against that grain, and be low-key. Don’t be the first to respond to a question - wait to see where threads develop. Someone else might recommend your business - which is better than you doing it. If you see a thread has a few responses that really aren’t that helpful, then jump in. But even then be modest, self-deprecating, and genuine. If you know your competitor has a better or cheaper solution recommend it. Don’t consider it a lost sale, consider it an investment in a relationship with a future customer. The community will appreciate the approach. Use text links when linking to your business site - don’t use your business logo.

Don’t Bash Competitors or Past Customers:
The community is not the place to air your dirty laundry, or resolve customer service issues. Take those off-line. Talk up your competitors strengths, not their weaknesses.

Be Open to Feedback:
If someone from the community buys your product, be open to feedback about it. This is free market research and usability testing for you. If someone posts a complaint about your product, publicly thank them for taking the time and request an off-line way to follow up. Keep in mind everyone is watching how you handle yourself - taking the high road is the only way to guarantee future sales here. Keep in mind this community is already connected, and word will get around regardless.

Offer Group Discounts:
Any large web community will likely have common needs. Offer a discount on products or services if the community can arrange a group buy.

Offer to Support the Community:
Most email lists or discussion forums have usually have costs associated with them that either one person is paying for, or the community is paying for. Before they get mad at you for making money off of their efforts, offer to help pay for those costs - sponsor a month’s worth of hosting, or donate a product to be auctioned off. Other advertising channels will cost you money, don’t assume this is a free ride.

Be Involved:
All too often communities see businesses post once then never return. Don’t do that. If you’re serious about helping this community out, become part of it. Take part in the off-topic threads. Give advice that doesn’t include a pitch for your products or services. Get to know the people that make up this community on a personal level - don’t just view them as your “target market”.

The Cluetrain Manifesto seeks to tell traditional businesses how the internet is changing the markets they play in. 

In the midst of launching a website for a church that seems to be striking some of the same chords, I was curious to see how the Cluetrain’s 95 Thesis would read if I substituted “Church” (as in the “business” side of a Church, the staff, etc - not in the sense that the congregation is the Church) in place of “company”, and “congregation” for “market”.  It’s a thought-provoker - not a straight carryover in all cases but some of the translated thesis do give pause.

So with apologies to the creators of the original Cluetrain, here’s the “Church Cluetrain”:

Online Congregations...

Networked congregations are beginning to self-organize faster than the Churches that have traditionally served them. Thanks to the web, congregations are becoming better informed, smarter, and more demanding of qualities missing from most Churches.

95 Theses

1. Congregations are conversations.

2. Congregations consist of human beings, not butts in seats.

3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.

4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.

5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.

6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media.

7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.

8. In both internetworked congregations and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.

9. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge.

10. As a result, congregations are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked congregation changes people fundamentally.

11. People in networked congregations have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from church staff and leaders. So much for Church rhetoric about community.

12. There are no secrets. The networked congregation knows more than Churches do about their own communities. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

13. What’s happening to congregations is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called “The Church” is the only thing standing between the two.

14. Churches do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, Churches sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.

15. In just a few more years, the current homogenized “voice” of church�the sound of mission statements and brochures�will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court.

16. Already, Churches that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone.

17. Churches that assume online congregations are the same congregations that used to sit in the pew on Sunday are kidding themselves.

18. Churches that don’t realize their congregations are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.

19. Churches can now communicate with their congregations directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.

20. Churches need to realize their congregations are often laughing. At them.

21. Churches need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a sense of humor.

22. Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the church web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view.

23. Churches attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their congregation actually cares about.

24. Bombastic boasts�"We are positioned to become the preeminent provider of XYZ"�do not constitute a position.

25. Churches need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.

26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Churches are deeply afraid of their congregations.

27. By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep congregations at bay.

28. Most outreach programs are based on the fear that the the “unsaved” might see what’s really going on inside the church.

29. Elvis said it best: “We can’t go on together with suspicious minds.”

30. Church loyalty is the denomination’s version of going steady, but the breakup is inevitable�and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart congregations are able to renegotiate relationships with blinding speed.

31. Networked congregations can change churches overnight. Networked knowledge workers can change employers over lunch. Your own “downsizing initiatives” taught us to ask the question: “Loyalty? What’s that?”

32. Smart congregations will find churches who speak their own language.

33. Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can’t be “picked up” at some tony conference.

34. To speak with a human voice, churches must share the concerns of their communities.

35. But first, they must belong to a community.

36. Churches must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end.

37. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no congregation.

38. Human communities are based on discourse�on human speech about human concerns.

39. The community of discourse is the congregation.

40. Churches that do not belong to a community of discourse will die.

41. Churches make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own congregation and staff.

42. As with networked congregations, people are also talking to each other directly inside the Church�and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.

43. Such conversations are taking place today on church intranets. But only when the conditions are right.

44. Churches typically install intranets top-down to distribute HR policies and other corporate information that workers are doing their best to ignore.

45. Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranetworked church-wide conversation.

46. A healthy intranet organizes workers in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more radical than the agenda of any union.

47. While this scares Churches witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to “improve” or control these networked conversations.

48. When Church intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked marketplace.

49. Org charts worked in an older economy where plans could be fully understood from atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down from on high.

50. Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.

51. Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.

52. Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills Churches.

53. There are two conversations going on. One inside the Church. One with the congregation.

54. In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.

55. As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked congregations.

56. These two conversations want to talk to each other. They are speaking the same language. They recognize each other’s voices.

57. Smart Churches will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.

58. If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few Churches have yet wised up.

59. However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive Churches as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these conversations from intersecting.

60. This is suicidal. Congregations want to talk to Churches.

61. Sadly, the part of the Church a networked market wants to talk to is usually hidden behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false�and often is.

62. Congregations do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the conversations going on behind the church firewall.

63. De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those congregations. We want to talk to you.

64. We want access to your church information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance.

65. We’re also the workers who make your churches go. We want to talk to seekers directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script.

66. As congregations, as workers, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by remote control. Why do we need faceless bulletins and newsletters to introduce us to each other?

67. As congregations, as workers, we wonder why you’re not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language.

68. The inflated self-important jargon you sling around�in the meetings, at your services�what’s that got to do with us?

69. Maybe you’re impressing your big givers. Maybe you’re impressing other church leaders. You’re not impressing us.

70. If you don’t impress us, your staff and programs are going to take a bath. Don’t they understand this? If they did, they wouldn’t let you talk that way.

71. Your tired notions of “the congregations” make our eyes glaze over. We don’t recognize ourselves in your projections�perhaps because we know we’re already elsewhere.

72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.

73. You’re invited, but it’s our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!

74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

75. If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a change.

76. We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we’d be willing to volunteer for. Got a minute?

77. You’re too busy “doing church” to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we’ll come back later. Maybe.

78. You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention.

79. We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.

80. Don’t worry, you can still pass the collection plate. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing on your mind.

81. Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about?

82. Your product broke. Why? We’d like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate strategy makes no sense. We’d like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you mean she’s not in?

83. We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from Christianity Today.

84. We know some people from your church. They’re pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you’re hiding? Can they come out and play?

85. When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn’t have such a tight rein on “your people” maybe they’d be among the people we’d turn to.

86. When we’re not busy being your “target market,” many of us are your people. We’d rather be talking to friends online than watching the service. That would get your name around better than your entire mission strategy. But you tell us speaking to the congregation is the Pastor’s job.

87. We’d like it if you got what’s going on here. That’d be real nice. But it would be a big mistake to think we’re holding our breath.

88. We have better things to do than worry about whether you’ll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?

89. We have real power and we know it. If you don’t quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that’s more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with.

90. Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most services, more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true-to-life than the church web sites we’ve been seeing.

91. Our allegiance is to ourselves�our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Churches that have no part in this world, also have no future.

92. Churches are spending billions of dollars on Y2K. Why can’t they hear this market timebomb ticking? The stakes are even higher.

93. We’re both inside Churches and outside them. The boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they’re really just an annoyance. We know they’re coming down. We’re going to work from both sides to take them down.

94. To traditional churches, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.

95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting. 

Miriam Webster’s definition of “interactive”:

1 : mutually or reciprocally active
2 : of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication
system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer)
that involves a user’s orders (as for information or merchandise)
or responses (as to a poll).

So what, exactly, does “more interactive” mean for a website?  And what’s better about it?  More clicks isn’t necessarily better.  Advanced media types like Flash movies or streaming video can actually be less interactive - as they’re often designed as something to watch passively, television-like.  Interaction based on technology alone falls flat.

Valuable interaction is person to person.  Client to company representative.  Church member to seeker.  But raise the idea of adding a bulletin board, or blog-style commenting, or a two-way email list, and suddenly that same client who desires a “more interactive site” gets spooked about what people “might say”, or concerned about the amount of time responding to users might take.  True interaction , however, comes with responsibility - see that “mutual” word in the definition? 

Business people think they want automated interaction - interaction they don’t need to take the time for, but want all the benefits of.  Often what they mean when they say “more interactive” is “less boring” but don’t understand that most site visitors aren’t seeking entertainment.  Just some answers to some questions (or “orders - as for information").  Their questions - not necessarily the “Most Frequently Asked” ones.

So instead of thinking about “interactivity”, let’s think about “usefulness”.  It might not be as sexy to you, but your users will appreciate it.

Blog-based sites have a number of advantages over a traditional static site or a site driven by page-based content management systems.

Blog-based Sites:

Build Credibility:
Research shows that business build credibility on the web by showing that there is a real company and real people behind the website.

Blogs make it easier to be more personable. No, there’s no “be personable” button or checkbox in a blogging interface that would force you to abandon third-person corporate speak, come out from behind the curtain, and be personable on your web site.  Many businesses are simply using blogging tools to power their press or news room area on a traditional website, taking advantage of blogs low costs, highly usable interface, RSS feeds, built-in archiving, etc. 

But blogging does encourage a first-person, more “business-casual” style than a traditional website, mostly due to bloggings roots as a personal online journal.  The Cluetrain Manifesto’s main point was that with the advent of the Internet, markets are now conversations.  Blogs are perfect tools for allowing and encouraging businesses to be part of that conversation.

Businesses that use blogs to reveal themselves as real people with names, faces, opinions, interests—and yes, some flaws —will ultimately be more successful online that those who choose to remain faceless, nameless, and third-person.

Are Able to Handle Smaller Chunks of Content:
This is a tough one to get your head around.  Typically we think of websites as a collection of “pages”, linked together by a navigation bar.  Many CMS systems support this paradigm - you log in, find your “page” and edit the content that exists on that page.  Pages become the “unit of measure” for a site - if someone asked you how big your site is, you’d answer with the number of pages it contains.

The unit of measure for blog content is a “post”.  Each new entry is a post, and usually contains (at the minimum) a title and a body.  Sometimes there is also an “extended entry”, which is used when you see a “Read More” link. 

Typically the home page for a blog is a collection of the most recent posts.  Each post might also have it’s own unique page - otherwise known as a permalink.  Posts often get assigned to a category, and a category might have it’s own “page” that contains links to all the posts in that category.

But a post might also be a product in an online catalog, a single link in a list of favorite sites, one event in a historical timeline, or contain an image that gets randomized in the site header.  A single web “page” may contain posts or lists of posts from one or multiple weblogs.  Sidebar content chunks may come from a seperate weblog than the main site content.  One post might contain your site copyright date that gets used on every page in the site.

By breaking the traditional “page model” of websites, blogging tools offer the capability of serving up a variety of content types, entered and maintained through a single interface.  Adding a product to the online catalog can use the same interface and process as a new image header or a new chunk of content.

Smaller chunks of content are also more resuable.  A single product might get pulled from a product catalog and featured in the sidebar of another page.  One event of a corporate timeline might get randomized into a “related information” section on a products or services page.

Are More Likely To Be Updated:
Well, maybe.  With a blog-based site there is really no excuse for not having up to date content - all you need to do is put a title and some body text into some fields, and click “Update”.  The site will handle all the navigation changes, page additions, archiving, categorizing, etc.  Posts can be smaller than typical web pages, so it doesn’t matter how small your update or news item is, stick it on the site.

Are More Affordable:
Depending on what blogging tool you choose, $300 can buy you a software license and a year of hosting.  And no, that’s not limited by users or seats or CPU’s.  And yes, that includes email and server traffic reporting tools, etc.  Try to beat that deal with any halfway capable commercial content management system.

Are More Search Engine Friendly:
The blog development community keeps a closer eye on search engine optimization than the page-based CMS developers.  When Google announced their new sitemap program, there were add-ins for Moveable Type and ExpressionEngine available that day.  URL structures, semantic markup, permalinks, RSS Feeds, other blogs linking to you...these all drive search engine positioning.

Blogging also offers the advantage of building a site with a larger footprint.  Imagine how large your site would be if you updated it weekly or daily with something new about your area of expertise?  Google sees over 800 “pages” of content here on Boyink.com, a distinct competitive advantage over a similar company who puts a 12 page site online and never adds to it.

Are More Scalable:
What would happen to your website if you actually started to add content daily?  How long would the current navigational model hold up?  Would your menu bars be able to accomodate a new chunk of content every day?

Blog sites are designed, by nature to hold an ever-increasing amount of content.  Many blogs add new content weekly or even daily.  Blogs use date and category archives as scalable containers for this content.

Are More Likely to be Standards-Based:
Blogging tools have appeared on the scene in the last 3-4 years, so don’t have the table-based legacy that older CMS systems have to work through.  Blog designers also wanted their sites to be easily “skinnable” or personalized, and being based on CSS makes that easier to do.

Are History-Builders:
By not deleting “old” content, blogs can build a corporate history.  For some companies this is a requirement—a corporate lawyer might need to know what was on your site two years ago as part of litigation.  Do you have backups of your current site?

A searchable corporate history might also prove useful to new employees - giving them a sense for how the company came to be where it is today.

How much time do you spend complaining when a web site, HTML email, or other internet based tool confuses you or just doesn’t work?  And not just muttering under your breath, or over your shoulder to your cube-mate, but actually sending email to or calling the person responsible for the issue?

I’m guessing not much.  I mean really - in today’s busy world who has the time?  And technical glitches happen all the time, and with so many layers of technology between you and a website the problem you just noticed was probably your computer, your internet connection, or your company firewall, right?.  So why bother sending an email to the site owner?  They’re just going to ask you a bunch of questions and take up more of your precious time.  And you, being the resourceful user you are, figured out another way to get the answers you were seeking.

So why is it, in conversations with site owners and email newsletter admins, I so often hear (fill in the blank technology) “must be working OK, because no one has ever complained”?  If you aren’t complaining to other sites, what makes you think your users are going to complain to you?

It’s a lame argument, and will never take the place of rigorous testing - both to see if people can figure out how to use what you’re putting out there, and Q/A testing to assure that it works on all the different technologies it’s supposed to.