So you establish a relationship with a web design company, and you give them free reign over a project, say a design of your web site. You agree on the hourly terms, what needs to be done, and that's it.

Two weeks later, you check up on the work, and find that the web designer is billing you unimaginable hours, providing you with a log that clearly wreaks of exaggerated time spent on work that could have been done in a fewer number of hours. Say they bill you with 30 hours worth of work, and you feel the work could have been done in 10 hours or less.

Now you're stuck with an overpriced bill, and the web designer is demanding you to pay.

What do you do?


JP

I lot of time in web design comes from planning and setup. Websites always take longer to design than they seem based on appearance.

In terms of web design, it's always best to get an estimate before you start. Have them come up with a rough idea of how long it would take and go from there.

JP,

It all depends on the terms of your work. If you have a loose arrangement, then you can walk away. If your arrangement is based on your acceptance of the product, then you can also walk away if you do not agree with the deliverables.

As a designer this is a risk you take. The customer is always right. I try to get some money up front so that both parties are committed to the development / design effort. Otherwise, it is too easy to adandon the effort and be left with nothing but wasted time.

Originally posted by ITWeb LLC
The customer is always right.

The customer isn't right if it goes to collections or court. If there's a contract in place, it has to be paid for assuming they've met their terms and conditions.

Thanks for your insight, ITWeb.

From a legal perspective, even though nothing was signed, and there was no verbal agreement to the amount, can this company or individual take me to court?


JP

Amdac -- if I take the deliverables, but do not agree to the hours, and the other party remains insistent on the number of hours spent and is not willing to negotiate under those terms, what action is left for me to consider?

*** Me not agree to the hours AFTER an extended period of receiving the receivables, i.e. "oh, by the way, here's the bill" -- not expecting it to be so much due to miscommunication or lack thereof. ***


JP

Originally posted by johnder
Amdac -- if I take the deliverables, but do not agree to the hours, and the other party remains insistent on the number of hours spent and is not willing to negotiate under those terms, what action is left for me to consider?


JP

You'd have to check their terms as well as any contracts in place. You should always obtain estimates before making such arrangements.

They're the only ones that know how many hours were actually spent on it. Depending how much money is involved, they may be willing to take you to court. Web design can be quite expensive if you're dealing with a professional company.

Is the site they designed for you at par with their existing portfolio?

They have a web site, but do not have a portfolio. Looking at the log, there are points where it is blatantly obvious that hours are not being spent effectively, i.e. half an hour updating pages and checking links on a five page web site, or one hour spent browsing through stock photos to choose the right one.


JP

And to top it all off -- no, we did not have a formal contract in place. It was all verbal, and the only thing agreed upon was the per hour rate.


JP

Originally posted by johnder
They have a web site, but do not have a portfolio. Looking at the log, there are points where it is blatantly obvious that hours are not being spent effectively, i.e. half an hour updating pages and checking links on a five page web site, or one hour spent browsing through stock photos to choose the right one.


JP

I actually spent about 3 hours choosing the stock photo on my site. :(

Web design is similar to lawyer fees, they'll bill you for everything right down to the stamp used to mail the invoice.

Can you PM me the URL of the company? I'm curious to see theirs terms, etc.

BTW, it's amazing how many companies I've found here within 10 mins of me. ;)

Their web site has no terms -- it's not even completed. It's one of those slapped together things that's under construction, launching in xx but is still publicly available.

To top it all off, this person was, in a sense, a colleague of mine who I felt I was doing a favour for in giving them work for their newly started company.


JP

If they have no terms, no contracts, no logged agreements of any kind, I'd consider you fairly safe.

I guess now it's a matter of dodging bullets. =) Thanks for your advice.


JP

Originally posted by johnder
one hour spent browsing through stock photos to choose the right one.


Wow, now theres a line item I've never seen.

Did they include 15 minutes thinking about the design while they were in the shower?

Originally posted by Primal Blue
Wow, now theres a line item I've never seen.

Did they include 15 minutes thinking about the design while they were in the shower?

Web design from a professional company usually includes all time spent on the site, whether it's preperation for the site or the actual code/image development itself. It's very common to be billed for selection of images used on the site, as well as layout planning, etc. When I design my own sites, I spend up to 10 hours planning the appearance and back-end structure of the site before I start producing a thing. Out of my 18 sites, development time has ranged from 20 - 150 hours per site (not including 2 unsold turnkey sites).

30 hours for a site isn't a lot.

30 hours for a site isn't a lot. [/B]

Did I say otherwise?

Please try and remember that it is not easy to come up with ideas. I myself am a designer and I spent over 50 hours on a template and sold it for $35 since that is what it was worth. I would next time check on them every day to see how many hours they put in and the work completed. If you don't like it tell them, and end the contract.

Bottom line: never hire a web designer per hour :) Get a contract for the entire job with the total costs involved up front.

Originally posted by johnder
i.e. half an hour updating pages and checking links on a five page web site, or one hour spent browsing through stock photos to choose the right one.

You obviosuly have no experience with web design, that's much quicker than one would expect, finding the "right" images takes plenty of time, so does mundane updating/maintenance.

Originally posted by Primal Blue
Wow, now theres a line item I've never seen.

Did they include 15 minutes thinking about the design while they were in the shower?

What? Are you trying to say that because it wasn't "hard" for them to spend an hour looking for images, that they shouldn't bill that hour?

If it takes time, then you gotta bill for it, doesn't matter what it is you are doing, I'm a programmer, my time is (well, should be) reltively expensive, I don't care wether I'm copy-pasting from your word doc or writing some artificial intelligence system, it takes my time, you get billed.

Originally posted by gogocode
You obviosuly have no experience with web design, that's much quicker than one would expect, finding the "right" images takes plenty of time, so does mundane updating/maintenance.


I've managed a web design company for five years, so I guess I get the job done more efficiently. (This post was about outsourced work.)


JP

When I did some work for a web-design company, we had to update the time-sheet for that company on the intranet whenever we did anything, even just browsing the website, receiving an e-mail, changing one or two words. It soon builds up!

I've managed a web design company for five years, so I guess I get the job done more efficiently. (This post was about outsourced work.)
johndr -- Here is my 2 cents. If you managed a web design company, I will assume that you give your clients estimates, so I don't see why you wouldn't ask for one when you outsource. Your perception about being overcharged is based on a fee that you were expecting to pay and the actual time and work the designer gave. My assumption is that he put his best abilities to work (seeing this could be his first client) and unfortunately, the time he spent is beyond the dollar amount you had in your mind.

At this point, it is not about his time being spent efficiently. This is just a perception on your part and you can't control how he spends his time -- this is why you ask for an estimate first. Look at the solution. Ask yourself -- is the website done? Do you like it? Does it meet your business needs? Start there. Professional designers, if used correctly, CAN become part of your business solutions and can conceivably bring you more business with your website and then, worth the money spent. (Ah-ha, another perspective.) Good luck, this is a business problem that needs to be solved between you and the designer.

PS The intranet time-sheet is a great idea for you.

Thanks for your input Racing Catche.

I must humble myself and agree with you. For the record, I am being stubborn and I did make a mistake on my part by not specifying my budget. So allow me to step down for a bit and acknowledge my mistake.

Thank you to everyone for their input, and it is definitely a learning experience on my part.


JP

Originally posted by Jay Suds
Bottom line: never hire a web designer per hour :) Get a contract for the entire job with the total costs involved up front.

Yes and no.

No, being there must be some extra room for overages. Like in home construction, always plan for those little "extras" (for instance, a customer who changes his mind right in the middle of the design project). When there's changes in the design, overages apply.

That said, I personally wouldn't bill a person for looking over a photo catalogue. Bad taste. I careless if a Top 5 design firm does it, customers get turned off by such billing ("$50 for looking at pictures??!! What a ripoff!!").

What's important is getting a ballpark figure (say a frontpage design is quoted to range from $100 to $200). That gives the customer and idea of the cost, and also gives the designer some room in case his client is stubborn (folks don't know how often customers change their minds, which can destroy all the work in seconds.....extremely frustrating for a designer). For run-of-the-mill projects make sure the range price is between a couple hundred dollars though. No wide margins, as that is a ripoff waiting to happen.

Artists are like teenagers in a way. They need firm discipline to stay on track (their creativeness is a mixed blessing, they created beautiful things, but with that creativity the downside is their mind wonders....eternal dreamers).

Programming and Art require two different mindsets. It's not a concrete world for artists as exactness would kill the "flow". Something for hosts and programmers need remember....allow them to create, yet also remind them to keep on track. ;)

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
Yes and no.

No, being there must be some extra room for overages. Like in home construction, always plan for those little "extras" (for instance, a customer who changes his mind right in the middle of the design project). When there's changes in the design, overages apply.

That said, I personally wouldn't bill a person for looking over a photo catalogue. Bad taste. I careless if a Top 5 design firm does it, customers get turned off by such billing ("$50 for looking at pictures??!! What a ripoff!!").

What's important is getting a ballpark figure (say a frontpage design is quoted to range from $100 to $200). That gives the customer and idea of the cost, and also gives the designer some room in case his client is stubborn (folks don't know how often customers change their minds, which can destroy all the work in seconds.....extremely frustrating for a designer). For run-of-the-mill projects make sure the range price is between a couple hundred dollars though. No wide margins, as that is a ripoff waiting to happen.

Artists are like teenagers in a way. They need firm discipline to stay on track (their creativeness is a mixed blessing, they created beautiful things, but with that creativity the downside is their mind wonders....eternal dreamers).

Programming and Art require two different mindsets. It's not a concrete world for artists as exactness would kill the "flow". Something for hosts and programmers need remember....allow them to create, yet also remind them to keep on track. ;)

Chris

I'm assuming you aren't in the web design industry? Professional web design can cost up to $80/hour, I've seen rates over $100/hour.

If you're referring to WHT standards, sure $10/hour may add up to a couple hundred, but in the real world this isn't the case.

I received a quote from one of the better known web design companies for $15,000 - $20,000 for an html/flash package. Like most companies, their estimate is based on the amount of time they expect it to take, not the final product. Web designers sell their time.

Originally posted by Amdac
[B]I'm assuming you aren't in the web design industry? Professional web design can cost up to $80/hour, I've seen rates over $100/hour.

Been a commercial artist from the days of diazo projector art, and pica rulers were an illustrator's best friend (for those who don't know, since the 1970's). ;)

[Originally posted by Amdac]If you're referring to WHT standards, sure $10/hour may add up to a couple hundred, but in the real world this isn't the case.

Let's face it, folks charging $80 to $100/hr here would be a ripoff (someone off of cgtalk.com MAY charge that rate, but they also invested in $$$$$$ worth of tools, hardware and software. They are true pros seeking CGI work in the big movie studios). Sorry, but just because a top designer can make that rate doesn't mean a Photoshopper with some *nix experience could. That's overinflating the pay rates, and turning apprentices into starbucks...it's the same as a 15 year-old with some *nix experience charging those rates.

Even artists resent the inequality of that!

[Originally posted by Amdac]I received a quote from one of the better known web design companies for $15,000 - $20,000 for an html/flash package. Like most companies, their estimate is based on the amount of time they expect it to take, not the final product. Web designers sell their time.

For that rate it better be a major corporate site like IBM or Cisco that requires advanced backend work. With things so automated now I simply can't *see* the justification for what used to take us dinosaurs weeks to design an illustration by hand (heck, "stock" photos were what we made with 35mm cameras). Just look at this thread, spent hours looking over photo stock. No one cares to make Art Art anymore. :(

Most designers around here could justify $10 to maybe $20/hr tops, considering their tool investment is limited. When folks buy the major apps (and Photoshop isn't a major app) and special workstation(s) they justify a higher rate for they invested in a training and tools (which can take years to master some apps, no different than the training needed to be a Cisco engineer, for example).

Chris
Wishing for the day the guilds would be back!

WHT rates are not standard. $80/hour for a site design from a professional company is actually a good price. You can't automate web design, it takes time. Nor can you replace stock photos with "art" if that's the required look.

You're talking about WHT standards and "15 year olds". I'm talking real standards from established companies that DO charge by the hour and do bill for their time, as it should be.

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
For that rate it better be a major corporate site like IBM or Cisco that requires advanced backend work.

That's for a 15 page web host site. That price is decent among the real competitors and if you saw the quality of their work you'd understand why.

We have charged upwards of $100 per hour for web design work. And the client thought we were cheap, compared to some of the quotes he received.

If you are nitpicking about your final bill, then this indicates several problems:

1) You should have asked for a "project contract" instead of hourly.

2) You picked the wrong company. If they didn't tell you it would be billed hourly, or give an approximate number of hours, then there is a problem with them. (And also with you for not asking.)

3) You don't have a contract. This is bad. Even an "hourly" contract should stipulate the expected hours and allowable % of overage, etc.

The list can go on, but suffice to say that if you "agreed" for the work to begin without first solidifying the terms... then the fault is really your own.

You can't just ask someone to do somthing for you, and then later expect them to have done it how YOU felt it should be done. If so, then why "hire" them in the first place. If you had restrictions, then you should have told them and gotten it in writting.

See a lawyer and they'll sell you a simple design contract for next time.

What justifies $100/hr? Have $15,000 worth of software? Have a SGI computer (or a *nix server farm to process 3D animations)? Have a MFA?

Truly, these pay rates are too high. If I wasn't going to pay for 4 color processing in the 80's, I surely not going to pay someone $100/hr to thumb through stock photos. That's abusive, nevermind insulting to customers' common sense.

Truth here both are at fault. The client who didn't have a contract for such an important job (this wasn't a $10 banner job), and a designer who took him to the cleaners (someone trying to imitate the pros and charging unjustified rates).

Sad thing is, this will be yet another occupation that'll be outsourced overseas because it's cheaper. Like programmers charging those same rates, some guy in Timbuktu who works for $12/hr will get the job. The pay rates are over inflated and they scream for outsourcing.....something I dislike with a passion. :angry: Enough jobs lost in the IT field alone :angry:.

CXP

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
What justifies $100/hr?

These are normal rates. Web design is more just just flipping through stock photos and arranging text on a site.

What justifieds $100/hr is if the customer is willing to pay $100 per hour, just like some people see it justifiable to buy a $100,000+ car where a $17,000 car will do just fine.


JP

Originally posted by Amdac
These are normal rates. Web design is more just just flipping through stock photos and arranging text on a site.

That maybe, but server admin rates are from $12/hr and up. Now what takes more technical knowledge (especially when web design now is so automated)?

If I can acquire 10/hrs of server admin time for $120 (or let's go up even to $75/hr), what justifies $100/hr for web designer service?

Really want to know what justifies such inflation? Give some examples why it costs so much.

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
That maybe, but server admin rates are from $12/hr and up. Now what takes more technical knowledge (especially when web design now is so automated)?

If I can acquire 10/hrs of server admin time for $120 (or let's go up even to $75/hr), what justifies $100/hr for web designer service?

Really want to know what justifies such inflation? Give some examples why it costs so much.

Chris

Real server admin jobs pay a hell of a lot more than $12 an hour, what company did you work for? Look at rates for popular datacenters charging $100/hour for server admin work. Once again, your numbers are inaccurate. IT jobs aren't cheap. It's not "inflation", skilled jobs receive high pay rates.

I have absolutely NO clue how you can say web design is automated. Web design is one thing that will never be automated and is always time consuming. I've spent weeks on some of my sites.

There are cheap solutions that automate web design -- site builders, etc. So I think that's where he's going with that argument.

But aside from turnkey solutions, web design is far from automated. It is a skill. The better you are at it, the more you should get paid. That's a marketplace principle.

But even now, people in other parts of the world, namely countries where we outsource a lot of our jobs, charge a much cheaper rate than what we do, and so of them there are actually quite talented when it comes to the basics of web design.

Creativity, on the other hand, is priceless -- you either have the ability to just build web sites, or you have creative ability. Look at some of the big firms here in North America and you'll see what creativity is all about -- and for that, corporations pay big money.


JP

Originally posted by johnder
What justifieds $100/hr is if the customer is willing to pay $100 per hour, just like some people see it justifiable to buy a $100,000+ car where a $17,000 car will do just fine.

Yeah, and it's a wonderful prescription to go out of business quick to shell out $1500+ for a design someone else (like an up and coming designer) would do for $400 to $600. Not wise business sense. Sure if someone has a site as large as IBM or Cisco, it'll justify shelling out the cash as they can pay the rates for 24/7 projects to be done on the fly, yet smaller "mom and pops" can't/won't afford these $100/hr rates.

What folks may not understand is: if you goto a design house you're paying the salaries for a team of designers to work on your project. As any programmer would know about software design is, more fingers in the pie can equal to more code problems. Same can occur on the design side. The team leader has to keep everyone else inline, but that's why it takes soooo long for a project to be finished....even when you paid 3x the rates!! There's delays in communication and working with different mindsets (artists are quite varied in their outlook, they don't work like programmers). When you're working for just one designer (like many up-and-coming designers) you'll have only him/her to deal with and talk directly to THE designer. The only delay there is getting them online/phone and them sleeping. Few of them can justify $100/hr rates. A fair range for a single designer is $10 to $40/hr for custom work (that factors in a living wage, and price of their tools/equipment).

What I'm trying to say is 3 fold.

1. Overinflation of pay rates causes the designing industry to be outsourced to cheaper competitors. Making it that much more difficult for quality designers to bring home the bacon.

2. Unless it's a design firm that employees teams of designers, $100/hr is not a justified rate. Only free lancers that invested in serious pro level tools and equipment can qualify, and web designers usually don't invest in beyond the standard fare (Photoshop, Macromedia products, and use their home or work computer which isn't a SGI workhorse, etc).

3. You don't always get what you pay for. Projects don't all must come with a $1500+ price tag to be "good". If you're business wise you'll look for a SINGLE designer and be patient (as they don't work 24/7) to get a project done with them. You can get equal quality at a lesser price.

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
Yeah, and it's a wonderful prescription to go out of business quick to shell out $1500+ for a design someone else (like an up and coming designer) would do for $400 to $600. Not wise business sense. Sure if someone has a site as large as IBM or Cisco, it'll justify shelling out the cash [i]as they can pay the rates for 24/7 projects to be done on the fly[i], yet smaller "mom and pops" can't/won't afford these $100/hr rates.

I stopped reading after the first paragraph because it's obvious you're arguing the same points that have been explained to you over and over. $400 for a site that takes 100+ hours to design is insane, I would never pay someone $4/hour. You're babbling prices off the top of your head. Do some research, compare prices of successful web design firms and you'll see real values.

The quote I received was from Ceonex (PixelBrick), one of the industry leaders. If you've ever seen the quality of their work you'll understand why they charge so much. I've seen many examples their work and I would never go elsewhere for a design. There aren't many companies that can match their skill.

Instead of sitting trying to justify the reason for pricing, why not ask them why their prices differ from the $4/hour designers you're used to dealing with.

With price comes quality, it can't be put any simpler.

By the way, the quote was $15,000 not $1,500.

Originally posted by Amdac
Real server admin jobs pay a hell of a lot more than $12 an hour, what company did you work for?

There you have it....what company did you work for?.

Free lancing isn't a company job. I worked cheaper, since that's where the jobs were (and a wonderful way to pick up spare cash). Not everyone can fork out $1500, but many can pay $20, $50, $100.

And back then, Amdac, we did everything by hand. Hand letter layouts, hand coloring, hand pasteup. Real works of art to be framed. So today with these software tools I will claim they're automated, because the work we used to do doesn't exist anymore.

Back then it was a profession (you did it for the love because the pay was never equal to the time you put in), everyone had a niche, and to rise to the top you had to work up the ladder. Pay rates were enforced, so everyone would have fair pay.

Now what do we have, any startup justifying $100/hr??

Look at rates for popular datacenters charging $100/hour for server admin work. Once again, your numbers are inaccurate. IT jobs aren't cheap. It's not "inflation", skilled jobs receive high pay rates.

And you're comparing any Joe Smoo's level of design to a Verio business model to justify the same rates?

I have absolutely NO clue how you can say web design is automated. Web design is one thing that will never be automated and is always time consuming. I've spent weeks on some of my sites.

It's automated from scripts to templates (every designer who know's their stuff has layout rules made up in advance).

What skill other than what nature designed? Or the skill to work these automated programs? Try working with Maya, takes years to learn how to use the software, not years to figure a design itself, which IS the creative side to pay for.

Chris

Chris, I'm not going to reply to you again. You're here saying that because you didn't charge a lot, any company that does is unethical or ripping people off. The original poster did not say it was from a "Joe Schoo" as you put it.

Your posts are based on nothing but your own experience as what appears to be a beginner webdesigner. I'm referring to companies that do this at a professional level, and do NOT use site builders, turnkey sites, etc. A real web design is completely custom and done by hand, based on the clients needs and requests. I would never pay less than $50/hour for a company website. I deal with real companies. In your world maybe everyone charges minimum wage, but in the real world there are different levels of quality, and different prices associated with these. I obviously have higher standards than you.

I'm done. This conversation is going nowhere, you can't seem to comprehend reality. It's not my place to justify what occurs in the business world. If you don't like it, contact the companies mentioned and argue it out with them. I wont read your reply.

Thanks, have a nice day.

Let's sum it up with -- you get what you pay for.


JP

Originally posted by johnder
Let's sum it up with -- you get what you pay for.


JP

I agree 100%. Let's hope this conversation is over now. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Amdac
Chris, I'm not going to reply to you again. You're here saying that because you didn't charge a lot, any company that does is unethical or ripping people off. The original poster did not say it was from a "Joe Schoo" as you put it.

If you refuse to read then why are you replying back??

Your posts are based on nothing but your own experience as what appears to be a beginner webdesigner.

Apparently since you refuse to read I guess you'd think that. If you did read thoroughly you'd noticed I've been a illustrator since the 1970's. Next year it'll be 30 years of experience and 6 years of that with webwork.

Now you can try to justify your position, Amdac, but don't insult those who understand art and design as a living, not only a job.

I'm referring to companies that do this at a professional level, and do NOT use site builders, turnkey sites, etc.

What's professional? That it's a company doing the work?

If you use Macromedia products or even Photoshop you're using site builders, Amdac. Do you realize that? You're not doing it by hand, not like what illustrators do.

A real web design is completely custom and done by hand, based on the clients needs and requests.

Not by hand. You're not doing layouts on Bristol or illustration board. You're not using inks, paint and technical pens (or even quills for calligraphy work). You're using proggies that does all the work but positioning the elements itself. On the code side, ready made scripts, or your own (which often is reused).

I would never pay less than $50/hour for a company website.

I would, because I know there's quality designers out there who can produce good work.

I deal with real companies.

Oh, I have too, even Fortune 500.

In your world maybe everyone charges minimum wage, but in the real world there are different levels of quality, and different prices associated with these. I obviously have higher standards than you.

In your world everyone pays a rate that's not justified. In your world you'd insult the kid who's starting out with dreams of being something in the art field. You'd associate $$$ with quality, instead of art itself. It's why cookie cutter designs are so popular online, because it "sells", not so much that it violates rules of art and design and those with a trained eye can tell if it was done by a true artist, than someone who imitates them.

No, Amdac, your standards are driven by $$$, as illustrated here.

I'm done. This conversation is going nowhere, you can't seem to comprehend reality. It's not my place to justify what occurs in the business world. If you don't like it, contact the companies mentioned and argue it out with them. I wont read your reply.

Don't read and don't reply then. But I'll defend those up and coming designers who's trying to break into the market who do good work, and charge a fair rate. They don't need to be looked down upon or regarded as "non professional" because they don't chase $$$ first. Any guy or gal out there who creates good work (either you are born with the talent or not) and follows the 10 elements and principles of Art and Design, is a professional in my book. I'd careless if they use GIMP as their image program, or they're hosting on a free site. What counts to be a professional is that they can produce Fine Art.

Thanks, have a nice day.

Ditto.

Chris