RE: FN-FORUM: Hi all (new here)

date posted 7th March 2008 21:58

Ben Johnson (Neogic) F wrote:
> Dom wrote:
> > My point is that you can't really charge significantly *more* than =
some
> > other developer would just because of "lost earnings".
>
> Rubbish. Take photographers (digital, for ease of comparison) for =
example;
> if you want a copy of the digital negatives, you will be charged a =
premium
> that is beyond the cost of supplying the negatives. This is perfectly
> reasonable and compensates the photographer for loss of revenue from
> reprints.

Dom wrote:
> FIIK what digital negatives are but the analogy doesn't stand. Only =
one
> person can supply those images. In our world another developer can
> modify the site just as well. =20

In the situation where the client is requesting quotes for both static =
and
CMS options (which is what we were discussing), it is identical. When =
the
photographer presents their quote + T&Cs, the fee for obtaining the =
digital
negatives (max resolution RAW images) is presented up-front, including =
an
above-cost premium to compensate for loss of reprint revenue.

When presenting static and CMS options to a new client, it is perfectly
acceptable to weight the pricing of the options to reflect business
considerations (including discounting the static option to reflect =
potential
future MSA income). As with the photographer's quote, the client is in =
no
way bound to accept the quote - both options still need to be priced
competitively.

> If you charge them significantly more than you would if you did not=20
> have the existing relationship, it's a breach of that trust.

This is a completely different subject: that of over-charging an =
existing
client because they are obliged / compelled to use you. That I agree =
would
be unethical.

> I find *many* businesses and business practices "ethically =
challenging".

Fair enough - there's plenty of evil gotchas out there (the order in =
which
VISA payments are applied to different-rate balances springs to mind).
However, I completely disagree that there is anything unusual or unfair
about reflecting business considerations such as MSA income when pricing
static vs CMS options in an open tender.

I repeat my recommendation to other members that this should be borne in
mind (alongside technical considerations, etc) when quoting for a CMS. =
The
client is, of course, free to use another supplier if your quote is
unreasonable. But charging =A370 for a CMS that means the client will =
not need
your assistance with updates does not make sense from a business
perspective.

I suggest agreeing to disagree on this point! :)

Have a good weekend all - don't miss the superb 'Crash' at 10pm on =
Sunday!
My fave film: love Mark Isham's score during the 'magic cloak' and crash
rescue scenes.

Cheers, Ben

--
Ben Johnson, Neogic Web Solutions
// design =95 development =95 managed hosting

w | http://www.neogic.com
t | +44 (0)1242 808 262
e | [EMAIL REMOVED]