You are here: Home » Blog Management » Graphic & Website Design » Would you pay $250,000 for this site?
Mar
02

Would you pay $250,000 for this site?

On February 22nd, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about websites – more to the point – how expensive websites can and can’t be and what the benefit is for the business. The article discussed two female business owners, what they spent for their websites and how the sites were doing for them. Both were running successful businesses, and both had active websites. That’s about all they had in common.

Business owner 1: According to the article, “Katrina Garnett, 48, is an Australian-born Silicon Valley entrepreneur whose Crossworlds Software sold to IBM in 2001. Garnett has invested $2 million of her money to create My Little Swans, an adventure-travel business catering to wealthy families”. The portion of that she used on her website? An astounding $250,000. Her site, My Little Swans, sells luxury travel. (not really sure what swans and luxury travel have in common, but hey, she really wanted those swans!) Take a look through the site.What did you think?

If you’re anything like me, my first response was “you have GOT to be kidding me?!?!” Okay, so I will give the woman some credit, at first glance, I thought the site was pretty, and well put together. It was easy to use and captured what she does. There are a lot of cool features, and it is easy to connect with her on social channels. Overall, I would have given the site two thumbs up. But then…I remember that she spent $250,000 on it. More than I spent to buy my condo! And my thumbs drop. A lot. The site is good – but she easily spent $230,000 more than she should have. The site is nothing that special, in fact I have seen hundreds of sites that are much better than hers, and I can guarantee cost less than a tenth of what she spent. Seriously, that design team saw her coming a mile away. I hope they have trouble sleeping at night for the highway robbery they made out of her site.

Business owner 2: The WSJ says “Joan Bradford is a former schoolteacher and a theatrical costume–shop owner who bought and renovated an 1840s house 15 years ago in New Windsor, Md., and turned it into a bed-and-breakfast. She named it the Yellow Turtle Inn after she had a dream about such creatures and learned that they’re the only turtles that guard their nests.” And her site? She spent almost zero on her site, Yellow Turtle Inn. She used a program that came with her hosting and set it up in a few weeks. She says she has made tons of tweaks, but that she has never paid someone to work on her site. So take a look at this one. What you you think?

My first response, “Okay, it’s time to cough up a little money, because this needs a face lift”. The site is boring, simple, and obviously home-made, right? It has all the content that is needed, but it just doesn’t make you feel all warm and cozy like an inn should. I don’t really have any desire to call them because with a site that rudimentary, I worry that the service won’t be great and that they won’t deliver a good experience. A little goes a long way, and even a $5,000 investment would really help her to turn her website, and her image around. But, she does get a little more respect from me than Miss Swan because while the site is poor, at least she didn’t get hog-tied and taken for all she was worth!

A website is one of the first things that a customer is going to see – it needs to represent who you are and how they can expect you to deal with them. Clean, simple and concise websites make people feel like the person will be easy to understand. Glamor, elegance and extravagance will make them feel special and important. There are hundreds of other emotions websites can bring out  and what matters is that yours brings out the right ones from your visitors. But, you shouldn’t have to break the bank to get this to happen.

What do you think about the sites?

Related posts:

  1. 5 hints to make your next site design easier
  2. Contemplating a site re-design

  • JohnONolan

    I'm astounded that you can't see $250,000 of difference between the first site and the second one.

    • kirstenwright

      John,

      While the first one is miles and miles better than the second…I do not see a $250,000 difference. The first is worth about $20,000 (although that is pushing it), and the second one is worth about $200. So, at the most, I see a $19,800 difference between the two.

  • http://twitter.com/VetLovingPetsHB Huntington Beach Vet

    Yikes! That 250,000 site looks like so many other sites I see on a day to day basis. She seriously got ripped off. Interestingly enough I scroll to the bottom and don't even see the company that designed it. hmmmmm But yes if you want to encourage business (especially wedding business) you need to look like a pro. That looks like the typical tacky self done website. Not to mention I wonder if I googled adventure travel with no budget or bed and breakfasts Maryland where either of these sites would show up because without SEO then neither website is worth a penny. Great post Kirsten!

  • Friend of the famous

    Obviously no one here knows the amount of back-end coding that went into developing the Swan site. Do you think facebook was created for 20k? I happen to know someone who is a paying member of Swans and it has an entire Social engine for paying members only, and it also allows users to build entire Itineraries on there own while browsing the site just by dragging snippets of the site into a folder. So before you speak, get all your facts straight and know the entire functionality delivered.

    • kirstenwright

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You are right, the current version of Facebook was not built for $20k (although my guess is the first version cost a lot less!). And if her site has the functionality that you explain, then I can see her site being worth more than $20k as well. But, no where in the WSJ article did it talk about the back end functionality, nor is it easily noticeable from the front end of the Swans site. My observations were from what I could learn and see from the WSJ and just being on the site myself. If I was misinformed through that experience, I apologize.

      With that said, I have also seen a few very advanced social media type sites built into the back end for companies and have never seen one go above the $200k price tag. So, without actually seeing the back end of her site, I still can't validate the fact that she spent $250k.

      Thanks again for your comment and insight onto why it was worth $250k.