Attitudes in IT - Mediocrity Wins?

podo asks: "I've spent the past two months of my life working almost full time on a PHP/MySQL based web site for a client. Today I received an e-mail from the client point me to a similar web site set up by a competitor. 'Doing exactly what we are doing.' The site in question is not doing what we are doing, they have no dynamic content, no web forms, just e-mail addresses. They scarcely have any content (I counted only four HTML pages) at all. The client is chastising me for taking a long time and because the other site is 'much more impressive visually' than ours. Has anyone else found themselves in a situation where their painstaking work is compared to work which is a showcase for mediocrity? How have you dealt with such clients who fail to see the difference between a shoddy rush job and real quality?"

Comments

Do your homework! Specifications...

[andawyr]

Keep in mind that clients rarely know what they want until they seem something tangible, be it something you develop for them, or something they see.

Regardless, satisfying a client without a very detailed spec (which they sign off on) is a very difficult thing. It's never good enough, or is never matches their conception of what they were looking for.

Always, always, always, have a spec document that details exactly what they're getting for their $$$. Then, when they bitch and moan about what you gave them, point at the document. It's not a fail-safe way to do business, but it will help you not get sued. It also helps prevent scope creep, which if allowed will impact *your* bottom line, not theirs.

Not sure you want to hear this...

[Your_Mom]

Could it be that your client is right? I mean, if your pages have a beautiful back end, but a front end that looks like processed yak's droppings, isn't there a good chance that a prospective customer will go for the more 'professional' website?

You might have an amazing database engine, but if it is not visually appealing, there is still a major issue.

To sum up: Customers like shiny things. Make it pretty.

Lessons...

[HRbnjR]

The best lesson any developer can learn is to make sure you have a good graphic designer on your team.

Sadly, it has been my experience that flash always beats substance. My bosses/clients have always spent all their time niggling about design, layout, and color selection, rather than the actual functionality :S

Hmmmmm

[MrIcee]

It is difficult to respond to your question. You don't give us any ideas as to how big your site is in comparison to the 'competitive' site.

For example, you state they only have 4 pages of content - how many do you have, etc.

There are a number of things about your post that strikes me as a bit odd. For example... when we bid projects we give a firm one-time price and a firm one-time delivery date. These are always adhered to - come hell or high water. Of course, changes to the specification can cause changes to the price and timeline, and our clients are aware of that - but as long as no changes are added to the original requirements document we ALWAYS meet our deadlines. Your post tends to leave that kinda open ended (I've given two months of my life - well, didn't you SPEC THAT OUT?).

Secondly, a MAJOR part of our client relationship is TEACHING THE CLIENT what a good website is, etc. Since almost 100% of the sites we do are heavy cgi-bin coded sites (C) with database handling, image processing, etc... there are many factors in such sites that require us to teach the client why one approach is better than another approach. THIS SHOULD BE DONE UP FRONT - NOT AT THE END. You have committed to an approach, but it doesn't strike me that you have educated your client as to the pros and cons of your approach.

Step 1: Discuss the clients needs with the client and show them examples of a number of solutions and outline to the client why each solution is better/worse than the others.

Step 2: Have your client give you feedback on which approach they wish to take, and why. Keep in mind how the site might progress in the future.

Step 3: Deliver to your client a detailed specification that outlines the site, the engines, how they work, how navigation works, how the site graphics look and feel, firm FIXED price and timeframe to delivery. Include periodic goals to show the client (we actually allow the client to critique the design while it is in progress)

Step 4: Create said site, in said timeframe and for said price.

At this point, it doesn't matter what the competitor does or did - the CLIENT was offered all the solutions and all the pros and cons and was properly educated as to why each was good / bad. OBVIOUSLY the competitor also selected one of those solutions - if they didn't, you left one out of your explaination. But assuming that you did your work correctly - than the client will ALREADY know the competitors site sucks (or cost a boatload more) and they will know why.

Most likely the call you will get from your client is *hahahahaha, check out the crap that the competitor did - man are we glad we went with you*.

What does this have to do with IT?

[LordNimon]

Every industry has situations where the consultant does some good work, and then the client complains that it took too long or cost too much, and he points to some lesser-quality alternative as an example. I don't see how this problem is unique to the IT world.

And the resolution is the same in every case: either the consultant over-estimated what the client wanted (in which case, the consultant is in trouble), or the consultant has to explain to the client that his so-called alternative really isn't that great.

Nothing to see here ... move on.