2 ms·
Not sure which you meant, but they're both low. $2000!=£2000 My experience is that fussiness is inversely proportionate to price sensitivity. Now if a prospect
by jambo 16y ago
Not sure which you meant, but they're both low. $2000!=£2000
My experience is that fussiness is inversely proportionate to price sensitivity. Now if a prospect tries to dicker over hundreds or tell me they "have a nephew who does this kind of stuff," I end the conversation as quickly as possible.
[edit: I say this as someone who, in the early days of the web, was one of those kids making websites by hand or with pagemill for $2000 a pop. I don't begrudge anyone doing this today.]
- notahacker 16y agoFor a $2000 flat site with minimal graphic work and minimal iteration of the end product you'd probably be looking at an hourly rate of $250 plus, which unless you're investing huge amounts of time into acquiring these customers is good whatever currency you're mistakenly converting into using the wrong ratio... I agree about customers that try to use the boss' nephew as a bargaining chip generally being the ones that also expect the website to rapidly delivered and perfect, but there's plenty of money to be made from small businesses that don't need or want anything complicated.
- jambo 16y agoI meant that you were mixing currencies, and 2000 quid is a lot more than 2000 bucks. I agree on the rate being high if you can do it in a day, but my personal experience is that clients like that are hard to find. Long-term clients who need one-off sites are different because there's established trust and empowerment to make decisions.