re: How do you convince a client to a static website? VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

WordPress works because it already has a massive set of plugins that can be used without the help of a developer. As badly coded as the platform is, the plug-and-play model just works and is irresistible to clients. With WordPress, clients can also manage their content themselves. SEO and marketing plugins just work out of the box. As a business, one can have a website with contact form, opt-in system, etc., within minutes, which would take days to code.

Ay the end of the day, there's very little business value in static sites.

 

I would argue against the "clients can also manage their content themselves". As someone who has been a part of a group for 3 years. They are techno-phobic, yet willing to trust an outside vendor to manage their website including login credentials and personally identifiable information of their users.

If they could allow themselves to not have a login feature and just post their content publicly, a static website would serve their needs greatly and would reduce the cost of having someone "maintain" it.

 

Well, most of the time business requirements extend beyond posting content publicly. I'm aware of the pain WordPress brings, and in one my earlier projects I was supposed to build an e-commerce system, first in Java (yay!), but then they changed their mind to PHP (oops!). I got started and was about 25% done, when the SEO and marketing folks started crying about how long it was taking for "simple" things like double opt-in and Google Analytics ecommerce tracking, tracking the path a user took in a funnel before dropping off, etc., which could be set up and working in five minutes in WordPress. At that time, I couldn't argue with them. With WooCommerce they could be selling stuff the next day, and there was tremendous business value in that. For the record, I moved out soon afterwards (for some other reasons), and they ended up picking Magento. 😐

I can agree with Ankush. Wordpress just works. It's not perfect, but works. Bussinesses don't have years, they need it ASAP. Nothing can beat WP in that.

 

I would disagree. All those things could be done in SPG. It takes time and knowledge, but it is worth it if performance and security are a requirement.

 

Performance and security are poorly defined and definitely overrated. Are you telling me no WordPress installation is safe from hacking? Or that no static website can be hacked? And what about performance? I currently maintain a WordPress website that sees 2 million visitors a month, and it all works well on two load-balanced servers of 8GB each, with about half the RAM free most of the time. What more "performance" do you want from a website/blog?

The developer's enjoyment is not the only point of view. At the end of the day, those of us in consulting are paid to provide the most optimal solution for the least possible cost. I'm all for coding chops and intellectual amusements, but we should reserve these for personal projects. Just look at how you've phrased your question: How do you convince a client . . .

Really? If you've understood their use case, you can sell the right solution to them, provided you understand it too. Wasn't it a better way to start by describing their needs and then searching for a solution?

Fair point. But you forgot there are clients that need smaller websites with smaller budget for development. You cannot say SPG is not good choice for those clients, IMO.

smaller websites with smaller budget

I think you've really got it backwards.

Assume I'm a small client with a very tight budget. I want a fully responsive website with (or without) a blog management software and integration with a few analytics tools. This can be done within half an hour in WordPress, and there's a good chance I can find someone who can even do this for free.

How do static site generators even compete? I'll need a developer to add another page next time, and there's no way I can ever add any dynamic functionality if I ever need one later on.

Please explain how that delivers me the solution I need, faster and in a smaller budget?

Use this and you have a full funcional site in matter or minutes:
github.com/netlify-templates/one-c...

Let's stop here, because we are not on the same page. Let's agree that we don't agree.

Yes, we should definitely stop. Overexcitement is the bane of our industry.

Can I just hop on here to say that this is the most gloriously civil end to a discussion that I've ever seen on the internet.

I hope you were not being sarcastic. 😂 Anyway, there's no point in arguing beyond a point. We need people who refuse to tow the line and persist with new technologies and ideas, because ultimately they bring the change. Today this is happening with the Elixir community (and maybe even Serverless and NoSQL), and a decade down the line we'll all be thankful for it.

😇 Cool, because I was pretty damned worked up during that exchange. 😛

Today this is happening with the Elixir community
That Elixir is better than everything else? I do admit, it looks like a nice language but that probably because I like Ruby.

Again, "better than everything else" is a fallacy. Some techs are fundamentally better at some things than the others, but mass adoption is also important. Elixir is a near-perfect ecosystem for web development, and it's waiting for enough Ruby businesses to cross over.

 

I don't know much about SPG admittedly, but I know a lot about wordpress websites and specifically how to optimize them.

There is virtually no performance difference with the core platform. Performance is only sacrificed by unnecessary plugins for one function, bloated themes with built-in page builders, and poor image/code optimization by the designer/developer. What you save in milliseconds by building a site statically is instantly wasted by longer development times.

In terms of security, every site is at risk. Wordpress, when managed properly, is just as safe as a static website. With plugins like WordFence you could even argue it's safer because I can easily blacklist suspicious IP's.

With all of that being said, if I ever want to do things a specific way I have simply just said this is the best way. I'm the developer, I'm the one building it, my clients pay me for my expertise and knowledge. It's literally that simple.

Well, static sites, like microservices and single page applications, are the cool new thing. Who wants to deal with "boring", age-old stuff like WordPress?! The other day there was a post about using a nothis package to remove the need for this from JavaScript. I can only shake my head . . .

My first boss said it best, "I use the language and platform that makes me the most money."

Yes, and I wish more developers took off their kool-aid glasses before making technology decisions. Ongoing support, ecosystem and availability of talent are major, major factors.

 

I'd argue against there being "little business value" in static sites.

  • They're 10000x more efficient than their server-rendered counterparts since they can be purely served off a CDN. You get less bandwidth costs and immense scalability with static.
  • Your site is 10000x more secure because it's run off a CDN, not a server, so there's no much malicious code that can run. And even if there was some scrupulous client-side script, it'd be difficult to slip through, since content is controlled (Markdown only basically). No issues with a client installing a rogue plugin that runs mining operations or bloats the DB.
  • Since most deployments are through Git, your site is version controlled, allowing you to step backwards to a previous state, easier than a Wordpress backup.
  • You can still serve your static content from Wordpress as an API, and benefit from the flexibility of it's content structure (like using ACF).
  • Your SEO can be handled completely, like Yoast in WP. It's simply setup by the develop when they optimize the website (often using react-helmet and Markdown metadata).

It really depends on the client. If your client is looking for a product they can iteratively develop themselves, sure, Wordpress and a slew of plugins will work. But those clients probably aren't dealing with scaling issues, or honestly, they don't know what they want and the site's quality will suffer regardless.

At that point, they're not looking for a website, as much as a theme builder. Those are the clients I could recommend Squarespace or Wix and they'd probably be more satisfied with the greater degree of control. and honestly, being cheapos who want to install a plugin for a contact form instead of paying a dev to do it

 

It really depends on the client.

Yes, sir. And that's my main beef with this article. The OP is asking how to convince the client that static websites are best for them, whereas this decision should be based on a rational and far-sighted analysis of their requirements.

being cheapos who want to install a plugin for a contact form instead of paying a dev to do it

Really? Is that your stand?

I'm all for empowering clients. But when you've worked as long as I have, you've probably come across some clients that will nickel and dime you for services.

The kind of client that gets upset over charges for "updating the website" when you have to spend time swapping text and images they're indecisive over (and wanted moved around 3-4x). The same client that'll often insist to do work themselves, or in some other cases, outsource labor to cheaper places, and in even worse cases -- come back with broken code from that cheaper dev and ask you to fix it.

I'm not saying every client is like this, but I will say that these are the clients who prefer "simpler" plug and play solutions like Wordpress. It's the kind of client that doesn't respect your time as a professional. The same kind of client that'll pervade any service industry (like plumbing, car detailing, etc).

Again, we have to put things into perspective. Maybe the client is a WordPress user and knows that a simple plugin can solve the problem for the time being. And maybe they aren't a WordPress user, but a simple plugin does cover the use case.

I agree about the existence of such clients, and I personally make a run when I smell bullshit on the table, but the point here is not the ethics of clients but making the right decision.

Yes, sometimes static site generators make sense, but you have to be sane about your decision making.

 

This is wildly inaccurate and unrepresentative of the JAMstack ecosystem. I'd consider it downright naive to say there's "very little business value" in static sites.

Consider Gatsby, for example. This is an open source static site generator for React that recently raised $3.8M in funding and formed a business around static site development.

Or perhaps consider Contentful, a headless CMS popular in the JAMstack ecosystem. They just raised $28M in funding late last year.

If your clients are happy with WordPress, that's excellent. By all means stick to WordPress! Where I work, though, are clients are constantly demanding more modern toolsets and pushing the limits of what a website can be. For these clients, WordPress is not a solution in which they are interested. We work with Contentful, Gatsby, React, Serverless and more on a regular basis for some very high profile clients. I can assure you that these clients find substantial business value in these "static" websites.

We've come a long way from the previous generation of static site generators. With the ability to deploy highly dynamic, browser-based JavaScript applications to CDN's, the line between a static and a dynamic site has become increasingly blurred. Gatsby, for example, has started to move away from the term "static site generator" to avoid confusion here.

The clients with which we work are designing and requesting functionality that would not be maintainable were it implemented in a few hours with a suite of WordPress plugins, so reaching for these modern tools is much more feasible in my day-to-day work.

I strongly suggest reading up on some literature and case studies on jamstack.org/ or check out some of Gatsby's showcase to see just how much you can accomplish with these tools. You'll find sites with full login workflows, ecommerce, and more.

 

By "business value" I don't mean investors, but businesses themselves. I don't doubt the capabilities of JAMstack, but it remains a loosely defined term. WordPress follows a predictable architecture, and other than for any custom-made plugins, it takes no time to figure out how it works. This is important for the next guy who gets to maintain the system, as opposed to some stack that is built from MongoDB, React, and what not.

The clients with which we work are designing and requesting functionality that would not be maintainable were it implemented in a few hours with a suite of WordPress plugins, so reaching for these modern tools is much more feasible in my day-to-day work.

Believe me I'm happy to hear that. I'm not an evangelist for WordPress. It is poorly designed, and becomes a maintenance nightmare over time. But, for most of the business cases out there, it "just works", the talent is in overwhelming availability, and you can get started within minutes.

Now, that is business value, and no matter how passionate we developers are about the next big thing, it makes no difference to the business owners.

I feel compelled to repeat myself, since people seem to be getting the impression that I'm putting WordPress above everything else: Simplicity and speed are real, massive advantages that are hard to argue against. Sites like Disney run happily on WordPress. If you understand the client's use case or can tell them truthfully about talent availability down the road, then by all means use the JAMstack or even go full custom. But for God's sake, don't go about asking how to convince them to use your favorite tech.

I"m going to argue a different way in favour of the 'JAMstack'; I hate marketing buzz, but whatevs.

This is the business value from what I can see; I'm newer to SPGs, so I could be wrong, but it's my current opinion.

Static sites do the following:

  1. They are very very fast. Most WP sites that are setup on a budget are not fast and actually require hiring the right developer, not just 'any' developer to get it to serve quickly. Not the case with SPGs, if you can write HTML, CSS and JS then you are booming; it's very hard to make a slowly served site I'd wager.

  2. Clients think they can just slap in a plugin and get a rocking; this is why wordpress is slow and they don't know who to call or what to do and they are channelling money into SEM and SEO and losing money there hand over fist; this is a huge value.

  3. The code tends to be more easily read. This means if they call me up and say 'hey Roger can you create an xyz or do xyz', often I can do it in an hour or so and it's still fast and it's still easily read by the next guy.

  4. Backups are built into the system al a github/git.

  5. Security issues are basically null. In comparison to any surface like WP, effectively using Hexo, et all is a zero risk scenario.

  6. Price. Outside of tools like Contentful and their type, the pricing is as close to $0 as you can get, which means I'm getting the lions share and that is good for me and good for my investment in good customer service.

Important caveats:

  • With Netlify and CloudCannon content management is included and no longer an issue of paying some over charging headless CMS provider extortion rates to just serve content.

  • Most SPGs come with Let's Encrypt and CDN built in and not as a value add either.

Honestly I'm very happy to have finally sold a client on a SPG and while down the road they may need to include a more diverse solution; today it'll be a great launch site for them handling so many potential scenarios without additional work on my or their part.

PS. This doesn't at all dismiss wordpress; that would be silly to say one over the other, just simply that SPGs have a ton of value and are very valid from a business use case.

code of conduct - report abuse