Why our web agency is often second choice

We obviously want to be the first choice for businesses choosing a web agency, and believe that the products that we deliver are worthy of this.

In reality, we can’t win all projects and, annoyingly for us, are not always first choice despite, in many cases, being the best fit. This isn’t me being overconfident, or delusional, and has been demonstrated time after time.

Don’t worry Ferrari garage, we are replacing the cylinder head on our Ferrari 458 Italia, and understand that we need to drop the engine out. Can you please tell us how to use a trolley jack so that we can get started?

Let me explain.

When a client is choosing a web development agency they look at it as a business decision, to get the best return on investment. This means that they need to get the correct solution, at the best price.

The ‘correct’ solution is not always evident, especially for someone who isn’t in the sector, and there may even be several different approaches all as valid as the next.

Web agencies, including Webbed Feet, pitch ourselves to potential clients detailing what we will deliver, and why it is the best approach. The end client will likely receive multiple pitches, often with radically different approaches. Each competing agency will provide reasons why their approach is best, and reassure the client that they will get results and a good return on investment. They will of course vary in price, sometimes by a factor of 50 or more (yes, I typed that correctly).

Let’s assume that each proposal is equally convincing, or at least ignore the ones that are not. Then surely, if they all produce similar results, then the cheaper ones will have a better return on investment…

And herein lies the problem, we’re not the cheapest, but we are good, very good. We also have the experience to produce and deliver what we say we will, for the price that we said we would; our estimates are usually accurate. We are also thorough, methodical and have in-depth deployment and quality assurance procedures so that what we deliver is reliable.

But all agencies say this! We’re yet to see one who says “We have never done this before, the price is just a guess, and our QA procedures are pretty poor, so what we deliver may not even work”.

Understandably it’s a tough choice for the client, and there are limits on what due diligence they can do. We therefore don’t win them all, and often come in second.

Not second to someone offering a better product for the same price, or even the same product for less. We come second to someone promising a better product for less, and crucially, not actually being able to deliver it.

This doesn’t even consider hidden costs. These can be deliberate to lure a client in, or accidental due to lack of experience. This is why we’re proud of our transparency from the outset.

By the time a client realises, it’s too late. Sometimes we can fix what is there, sometimes we need to start again, but unfortunately the client has already invested funds into the ‘failed’ solution. A portion of this can sometimes be recouped, but rarely is the client in the same position as they were initially, and even if they were, a lot of time has usually elapsed.

Then we get the clients who know from the outset that we’re what they need, but they don’t have the budget.

“I really want to use Webbed Feet, but costs are prohibitive at this time, we’ll come back once this project has developed”.

Of course we can work with them to deliver an MVP, but sometimes the cheaper option is too good to resist, and often too good to be true.

Some clients even know this. “I’m probably wasting my money, but it would be silly not to give it a go”, and who are we to argue? They are right, if the other agency did deliver then the client would have a truly cracking deal.

It’s frustrating, especially when clients know what they are doing, and we do win a large number of our projects second time around with them saying that they should have gone with us first time.

Buying cheap, and buying twice (or more), is not good economy. It often ends up costing more.

Some projects spring to mind where it ultimately costs the client more to have us fix the mess left behind from others. One particular client had, I believe, five agencies in all attempting to solve an issue, and all compounded on the mess left previously. The overall fix, rectifying the mess, was far more expensive than the original task would have been.

Now let’s throw AI into the mix. This is definitely going to make things worse as it’s far easier to get a cheap solution that promises the world. Already we have had several people asking us questions in an area where they do not know the fundamentals. They try and hide the fact that they are relying on AI.

“Don’t worry Ferrari garage, we are replacing the cylinder head on our Ferrari 458 Italia, and understand that we need to drop the engine out. Can you please tell us how to use a trolley jack so that we can get started?”

Sound ridiculous? It is, and we’re hearing the web equivalent of this.

If you have a brochure site, and don’t rely on it for sales, then maybe cheap and AI options are OK or, dare I say it, even the best choice. This, however, isn’t where we sit in the market. We specialise in business-critical systems, and websites that businesses depend on.

A web agency’s size and skillset are another key factor. Each member of our team has a particular set of skills, skills they have acquired over a very long career. Yes, a movie pun, glad you’re paying attention. Not one of them can do everything that the others can, despite them sometimes thinking that this is the case!

A larger website, with a user-focused front end that requires SEO, PPC, GEO and AEO (search, pay per click, and AI related optimisation), and a technical custom-built back end that integrates with other systems, should not be built by a single person. Otherwise, the design and user journeys will not be done as well as they would be with a dedicated front-end developer; the optimisation will not be done as well as if it was done by a dedicated marketer; and the technical aspects will not be done as well as they would be with a dedicated developer. Having the infrastructure of this team, a team that collaborates effectively, and are tied together by an experienced project manager, has costs, but results in a far more optimised and effective end product.

I could give examples all day, but this was supposed to be a quick article, so I’ll summarise just one. Well, more to the point, a typical scenario that happens all of the time.

A project where the client’s previous web developer fixes one bug, and another one appears; one where previous issues keep re-emerging; one where the client is losing any faith in the project.

These are our kind of project. A project where we don’t jump in feet first and add to the ever-evolving s**t show, but step back, analyse, and create a strategy that will actually work. A strategy that contains testing, quality control, and can not only make the project succeed, but crucially give the client reassurance that it is being handled correctly and is in safe hands.

We are Webbed Feet, we build websites and applications that businesses depend on.