Comments on: Would you pay $250,000 for this site? http://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site The starting point for the work of Kirsten Wright Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kirstenwrighthttp://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/#comment-6004 kirstenwright Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:22:54 +0000 http://wrightcreativity.com/?p=3048#comment-6004 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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Thanks again for your comment and insight onto why it was worth $250k. 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.

]]> By: Friend of the famoushttp://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/#comment-6003 Friend of the famous Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:06:24 +0000 http://wrightcreativity.com/?p=3048#comment-6003 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. 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.

]]> By: Huntington Beach Vethttp://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/#comment-6000 Huntington Beach Vet Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:41:32 +0000 http://wrightcreativity.com/?p=3048#comment-6000 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! 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!

]]> By: kirstenwrighthttp://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/#comment-5991 kirstenwright Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:46:40 +0000 http://wrightcreativity.com/?p=3048#comment-5991 John, <br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: JohnONolanhttp://wrightcreativity.com/2010/03/would-you-pay-250000-for-this-site/#comment-5990 JohnONolan Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:40:40 +0000 http://wrightcreativity.com/?p=3048#comment-5990 I'm astounded that you can't see $250,000 of difference between the first site and the second one. I'm astounded that you can't see $250,000 of difference between the first site and the second one.

]]>