How much would you charge to build a web site?

[Dragwyr]

Mann,

I do what you are thinking of doing. I currently have 4 regular customers and have done about 9 different web sites for people. I took a completely different approach to pricing. When I start a site up from scratch, I charge by the page. This does 2 things: It makes pricing the initial site easier for me, and it makes it more affordable for the customer. I charge $50.00 per page. After that, I charge by the hour. This is usually for additions and general maintenance. Again, I charge $50.00 per hour and it includes any programming (CGI, PERL, etc). It works for me. You should look at what your skills are and the time involved in creating the site and figure out a price from there.

[Blackclaw]

I’m a Senior Lotus Notes Developer and I charge $75 to $85 an hour. Of course that goes to the company I work for not directly to me… If I was doing something for a friend I wouldn’t charge them more than $400 total.

Whoohoo! My first post!

[Kyberneticist]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**If you’re a pro, you don’t just ‘slap html’ together, no matter how simple the page is.

Show us some of your work, and we’ll tell you what it’s worth. There are a LOT of ‘web designers’ out there that I wouldn’t pay minimum wage. On the other hand, a company like Siegel and Gale can charge you $5000 for a single HTML page.

It all depends on your talent. As you implied, any kid with an ‘HTML for Dummies’ book can slap together a ‘web site’. But very few can actually do a professional job.

This is not a slam on you - for all I know, you’re a Super-Genius of web design. The point is - how much you are worth depends on what you’re capable of doing.

**

That is quite possible. I have never ever claimed to have any sense of style!
right now I’m doing this site for free, design input being submitted by Austin n crew. Somehow though, I feel that most web designers take a lot of their inspiration from the content given them.
http://www.campusfreethought.org

As for style - http://www.chevychasebank.com has a lovely looking front page, but I want to strangle them every time I go to check my account. My modem just churns away filling in that mosaic.

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by Mann Slaughter *
**

And I have put together a site of an adult nature, but I’m afraid that if I post a link to it for critique, I may be banned. :eek: **

Naw, we’re not that tough. But I probably would have edited it out and yelled at you a little. Thank you for having the consideration not to post it.

[Ad_Noctum]

I get paid 50bucks an hr for freelance, but for large companies, we charge 145 dollars for a 1page website, and we do everything, give us the images, and text, and we update it 1ce a week.

[Ad_Noctum]

P.S.
this is my site

Brainerd Baxter Minnesota news and weather | Brainerd Dispatch

[Sam_Stone]

So far, I haven’t seen a bad website from any of the links posted here. Although I have to admit that I really don’t like white text on a black background, especially in that font. It’s not very easy to read.

As for Siegal charging $5000 for a page - they can probably charge a lot more than that for the right job. When you get into the stratosphere of graphic design, the sky’s the limit. NBC paid several million dollars for their little cube logo.

The high-end designers specialize in ‘branding’, or building a memorable online ‘image’. At this conceptual level, building web pages consists of much more than just good typography and aesthetics. And frankly, it’s way beyond my level of expertise. But I have seen quotes for 12-page web sites that came close to $100,000.

Some design firms go too far on the graphic side. Razorfish shot themselves in the foot by going so crazy with the ‘cool’ graphics that they designed bloated sites that took forever to load and were impossible to navigate. They made the news a couple of months ago because a client actually sued them for damages because they built a bleeding-edge web site that their client’s customers couldn’t use.

The real money in web design (other than the stratosphere mentioned about) is on the server side. The guys making the real big money are the architects who can build E-commerce sites. If you can build E-commerce sites in Java, say to connect a company’s SAP system to an Oracle database, you’ll be a rich person. The national average salary for E-Commerce specialists is about $112,000.

To be accepted at that level, you need some serious skills. Not only do you have to have a strong computing science background, but you have to have functional skills in a whole bunch of widely disparate technologies. You have to have the database skills of a Database Administrator, while being able to program middle tier objects in Java or COM. Then you need the web page skills, and a solid knowledge of the architecture of at least one or two operating systems, at the component level. Understanding of routers, IP addressing, firewalls, tunneling protocols, and all the rest of the infrastructure technologies are required too. It’s a lot to learn, and a ton of work to stay current, which is why these guys haul the big bucks.

[handy]

Why would a doctor want a web site? Who would choose a doctor from the web with the type of integrity the web has?

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**Wow. You know, I get the feeling I should really pay more attention to market prices. I’ve been charging people $15 dollars an hour to do interactive stuff with PHP and Perl.
$25 dollars an hour for actual java or more complex coding.

$45 bucks an hour just to slap some HTML and pictures together? I’d almost feel guilty charging minimum wage for that! Is that still a skilled occupation? **

You charge less for server-side stuff? That’s interesting, I’m the exact opposite. I charge more for REAL programming (heh, PERL rules!) than I do for scripting and stuff like that. Server-side stuff like CGI or PHP always costs more with me.

[dietrologia]

For two examples of the coolest looking, well-designed cutting edge websites, you might want to look at:

Heavy

http://www.x-pressive.com

Now that’s multimedia, boys 'n girls.

Don’t bother looking unless you’ve got broadband access, it just isn’t going to work all that well otherwise.

[Kyberneticist]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**

*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**Wow. You know, I get the feeling I should really pay more attention to market prices. I’ve been charging people $15 dollars an hour to do interactive stuff with PHP and Perl.
$25 dollars an hour for actual java or more complex coding.

$45 bucks an hour just to slap some HTML and pictures together? I’d almost feel guilty charging minimum wage for that! Is that still a skilled occupation? **

You charge less for server-side stuff? That’s interesting, I’m the exact opposite. I charge more for REAL programming (heh, PERL rules!) than I do for scripting and stuff like that. Server-side stuff like CGI or PHP always costs more with me. **

Um. Java is real coding. Generally server side scripting in perl is less complex then say a java chat applet.

[Sam_Stone]

Actually, the two sites mentioned (xPressive and Heavy.com) are what I consider to be classic examples of BAD design. They both suffer from the same faults:

[ul]
[li]They are way too large. Any site that requires broadband access for an acceptable user experience has its design priorities screwed up. The vast majority of web users do not have broadband.[/li]
[li]The continuous animation is distracting and confusing. When I loaded Heavy.Com, I saw all these changing headlines and photos, and thought I was looking at a splash screen. I kept waiting for it to stop and show me the REAL page. Only after it repeated did I realize that this WAS the real page, and that the little menu bar across the bottom was the UI.[/li]
[li]Heavy use of non-textual icons. This is a big no-no in user interface design. I shouldn’t have to pay mouse-hunt to figure out what a user interface does! It’s not acceptable to force users to roll their mouse pointer over every UI element and wait for a tooltip before they can figure out what to do with it.[/li]
[li]Bad use of Metaphor. The Xpressive.com has a television wiht a channel changer. There’s a meaningless, continual animation running on the screen. If you click the screen, it says, “change the channel”. If you change the channel, the graphic stays the same, but now it says, “Channel 2”.[/li]
This TV metaphor has been used before, and it’s always lousy. Hell, it’s even lousy on TV, which is why so many companies are spending big bucks for online channel guides and interactive menus. A number like “Channel 2” tells me nothing.

[li]Confusing Navigation. Figuring out how to get around on either of these sites is confusing at best. This is the most important aspect of large web site design, and should never be sacrificed so you can have a ‘cool’ interface.[/li][/ul]

This is exactly the kind of thing that got Razorfish sued and may ultimately put them out of business.

[Crusoe]

Damn right, Sam Stone, well said. Do you read Jakob Nielsen’s columns much?

[sub](I would post my own site, but deep-down I know that fixed-size fonts are a no-no)[/sub]