Inform clients on Opensource materials used or not?

[x[E]nOn]

When CMS is one of your client's requirement, and if you decide to make use of Opensource platforms like Wordpress or Joomla since it fits their needs, would you tell your client first? Or would you just go ahead and use what you deem is suitable as long as you meet their requirements?

I am thinking of this because I have a problem when I tell clients that I will be using an Opensource CMS like Wordpress, they would be give me with that "hey! Isn't that a free software? You should be charging lesser, shouldn't you?". I did try ways to explain like creating another CMS from scratch to have what many of these Opensource CMS could provide is totally WTF unless they have a lot of time and money to develop one but I could see that I don't give them a good impression even after I explain.

Honestly, some clients wouldn't even know what was being used to for their CMS as long as they could use it to update their site. But I don't know if it is rightful to not let them know before hand that I will be using an Opensource material for their site.

How would you usually do?
Thanks.

[C. Ankerstjerne]

I don't see any reason for you to tell them exactly what type of CMS they're using, unless they're interested. They're buying a finished product from you, and most clients will not care what's under the hood. Most people who buy an iPad won't care that there's an Intel processor under the hood either.

On the other hand, I don't see why they should mind you using a free software package. Again, you're providing a finished product, at the price they find reasonable. You're not ripping them off for not building everything yourself. You're charging them the price it cost you to do the work without building it yourself. If they'd wanted everything custom-build, you'd simply have charge them more.

[masm50]

I like to be upfront, and if I have just themed Wordpress and done a few customisations then I tell them that. Building everything from scratch would be completely pointless for certain sites unless you have been asked to make everything from scratch. Some sites need a full custom solution but most don't.

As Christian noted above, the price you quoted and the work you did was for customising that open source CMS, and if they wanted something custom it would cost them a lot more. If you explain it as a way of "smarter" spending, then I have found clients quite receptive to that.

[bluedreamer]

The key here is to provide the right software for your client, irrespective of cost. At the end of the day your client is paying you to develop software to provide a solution for them, using the best tools available and according to their budget and needs.

[C. Ankerstjerne]

The key here is to provide the right software for your client, irrespective of cost. At the end of the day your client is paying you to develop software to provide a solution for them, using the best tools available and according to their budget and needs.

But the initial quote would obviously be a lot different, depending on whether it's a customisation job or building a CMS from scratch?

[bluedreamer]

But the initial quote would obviously be a lot different, depending on whether it's a customisation job or building a CMS from scratch?

Yes, but what's wrong with offering a customer 2 quotes, one using existing software and another fully custom?

[C. Ankerstjerne]

Generally, the client won't have the technical knowledge to understand the difference. Unless the client can get some additional benefits from an alternative product, giving the client the choice between two products will only confuse him. Of course, if there are potential benefits, then the client should be giving the choice.

[Shyflower]

I think your clients have a right to know what's going into their sites. When you're building a house, you would certainly know whether your cabinetry was hand made or store bought.

I don't have a problem telling my clients which cms I use and why. Nor do I have a problem with telling them that something is open source and because it is, it saves them money. Most clients are happy to hear it.

When you see something that may be a problem (negative) find a way to turn it into a positive. That's a positively sure way to make your business succeed.

[Wolf_22]

Never fix something that's not broken and never say too much. Words to live by!

[C. Ankerstjerne]

Never fix something that's not broken

I just hate that phrase. Thankfully, a lot of people don't follow it. A lot of great inventions have build on something which worked just fine. If noone ever improved on something that 'worked', there would be no internet, no colour monitors, no aircrafts, no cars, no trains, no telephone, no wheel, no nothing.

[Wolf_22]

To each their own.

[jantheman]

I tell the clients which open source software I'll be using for their site and include it in my proposal.

I haven't had any problems with clients questioning my costs, but would just explain what is involved with creating a custom CSS template, configuring the open source software and adding their content (plus admin, testing, user training etc) - which is what my quotes are based on.

[dojo]

Most of my current clients ask for a unique design for wordpress, so it's clear to them we're using the script. Still, for other clients, I always mention that I recommend WP so that they can manage the content easier. it's always a good idea to discuss these details upfront.

[joebert]

Depending on the software license, you may be legally obligated to at the very least pass along the software license literature to the client.

You shouldn't be afraid to explain in detail any open source software you're using. As long as you know it front to back, and can provide personalized support for what you setup, I don't think they're going to care.

Back to legal obligations though, you might want to really go over any open source softwares license agreement and see how it jives with the clients future plans for the website.

[XLCowBoy]

Most people don't realize that a custom solution is actually 10x more expensive.

[AJay17]

I have always let them know up front what I plan to use and it has never had a negative effect.

[chadavan]

I think that by not telling them you are setting yourself up for a potential disaster.

I spin it this way: we use open source projects to reduce the cost of building your website. I explain to them what open source software is and why its free. I also explain what they are paying me for (the hours to implement their site into said CMS).

And a topic more for another discussion: All my websites are built into a CMS - even if the client does not want to update the site themselves. Now when they call me to make the updates, I can log in to their CMS and make the changes quicker than a static site - thereby saving the customer money in the long run.

[Chroniclemaster1]

I spin it this way: we use open source projects to reduce the cost of building your website. I explain to them what open source software is and why its free. I also explain what they are paying me for (the hours to implement their site into said CMS).

And a topic more for another discussion: All my websites are built into a CMS - even if the client does not want to update the site themselves. Now when they call me to make the updates, I can log in to their CMS and make the changes quicker than a static site - thereby saving the customer money in the long run.

I think what we're losing here is that the understanding of different clients is quite simply different. What you tell the Director of IT at a large company who has you on contract is vastly different from what you're going to talk about with the owner of Mama's Little Cheesecake Shop, Chicago IL. That's why requirements development is so different from other phases of the SDLC. It is primarily a discipline of communication; while you need technical expertise that is distinctly the subordinate skill you're being called upon to exercise. If you can't communicate effectively to determine your clients needs, the instant recall of an entire catalog of technological solutions won't save you.

So I don't believe it's fair to say that someone is being "dishonest" if they don't leave EVERY decision up to the client. A client wants a website that works, and part of what you are hired for is to provide your expertise. Put another way, I think of myself as a non-technological layer of abstraction which hides away the implementation of the website and exposes only the relevant information which the client needs to make decisions about what they want. I always keep discussions about projects on the level I/O. "I can execute the project this way which will require you to purchase this level of webhosting, and permit you to make changes like x, y, z in the future, vs. solution 2 that will cost more to code but provide cheaper webhosting, but without the ability to make those changes as easily." & "If you want me to do that, I can but you will need to sign an open source software license. Given the needs you've expressed to me, that sounds like the best way to go."

That means that you can't just talk to your client and put together a specification, you have to LISTEN to your client and understand how this solution will integrate with their current business and factor in the future needs of the solution as best you can. One way I manage this is to epmloy incremental development methodologies. If I can deliver the UI, then I have a powerful tool for talking with the client "Is THIS what you wanted? Is THAT working the way you thought it would?" Once that's nailed down, you can move on to the next phase/increment of the project. Constructing it piece by piece, giving your client the ability to change their mind, but at the same time requiring them to sign off on things phase by phase which allows you to avoid unacceptable scope-creep.

[brothercake]

Bear in mind that your client may well have a standing assumption that everything you produce for them belongs to them. If this is not the case, you need to spell it out, so they don't go thinking they can - say - repackage and sell it on.

[awasson]

I created and maintained a CMS about 8 - 10 years ago... It was great but it didn't hold a candle to Drupal, Joomla, WordPress, etc...

I tell my clients right from the get-go that we're using Drupal, WP, etc... unless they have a preference for something else. The client is paying for web development experience and expertise and there is enough work involved in customizing an Open Source package to make it into a unique website. If they have trouble with that, then show then a new (Garland themed) install of Drupal and then another site that you have customized. They'll get the picture.

Furthermore, the speed of security patches and troubleshooting makes it a no brainer to go with a nice big community driven project

[JMouse]

I would always inform the clients, as it makes a difference as to their title of ownership to the site - they would never 'own' the software only their design.

I always make it clear that what they are paying for is the design, the personalisation and the installation - but that the actual software is Open Source and they don't own that and can't sell it on.

[Newviewit]

New View Media has a project management process where we submit documentation and get sign off by customers through different phases in the website design.

All information such as CMS choice and reasons are included.

[dnordstrom]

I inform my clients about what system is powering their site, just as I would tell them which web hosting provider is serving it if I would arrange it.

People in this thread are discussing writing the site from scratch or using an open-source application and the difference in cost—some even providing two quotations for it. These are not two equally perfect solutions for any project. The budget and the requirements are the deciding factors and those should be discussed way before any CMS is being considered.

Are you planning how to build the site before you're even working with a signed client? I wouldn't.

And I wouldn't provide different quotations for different applications. That's an informed decision we make together when we come to the stage of selecting the right tool for the job. Certainly not before anything has even been signed or the budget has been discussed. It's not the way to provide quality results.

Quality results come from a process involving different stages of decision-making. I provide a service, not a product, which is why the price is discussed before the details of how the site will be made. You can slap a price tag on your product and have "no" decisions left to make—just producing it for your client—but it sounds like trouble to me.

Basically, I'm selling web services and not Dell computers that you can customize before you buy. Otherwise I'd get a web shop and start selling "solutions" for generic (read: fantasy) projects.

Back to the topic: Yes, I keep my clients informed and it's one of the core values of my company to do so. No unnecessary surprises since I keep communication open and honest from the beginning.

[TheOriginalH]

Total openness will garner long term relationships - and trust. To "hide" the fact that you are using the likes of Wordpress is to treat a client like an idiot. The web is no longer mystic, many people are far more savvy than once they were - and google makes up for the areas they don't know.

Essentially as an internet professional you sell your skill. And that is measured fiscally (generally) by time. If you really think that wordpress is the best tool for the job, then by all means use it. Let the client know why you think it is a good fit, and explain what customisation you aim to provide for them, then bill for your time. Simple.

You may have some clients come back and say "can't I just do that myself?". To which the answer is obviously yes. In much the same way that one could plaster, or build ones own house. But without experience it will take far longer, probably be more shoddy and ultimately could end up costing more.

If your concern is looking unprofessional, don't worry. Many people use OS solutions that fit the bill in a professional environment. In fact if the clients requirements exactly equate to Wordpress and they are billed hundreds of thousands for a bespoke solution that reinvents the wheel then I would argue that to be highly unethical at least.

If you have a client that wants to try and do it themselves, it can often actually be to your benefit to help them. Freely give advice. Point them in the right direction. I have done this on numerous occasions and the result is almost always that they come back and gladly give me the work when they know what's involved - and that they have bitten off more than they can chew. By helping them and being open in the first place, a relationship of trust is built.

[Jack76]

I see no problem in telling the client what CMS is being used. Whether or not it's open source should mean nothing. But honestly in the hundreds of clients i've built cms websites for only a handfull have ever asked what cms is being used. Most people do not care and just want it to work.