We hear this question all the time. In RFPs, in conversation, in business meetings. Usually it’s accompanied by very little detail, and often the assumption is that “this website” costs this much, while “that website” costs more.

We joke here at idfive that we want to go talk to a contractor the way we’re often approached about our work. “OK, so, we want you to do our kitchen. We don’t have a plan, though—-that should be part of your estimate, because you’re the expert. If you don’t put a plan in the estimate, we won’t consider you at all. Oh, and our budget is $25,000, but we want really high end stuff, OK? But once you get it all built, we need to have the ability to change stuff around… I mean, it’s hard to envision it unless we can actually see it.”

This is an extreme example—-kind of. In the public’s perception, the difference between a house-builder and a web site builder seems to be that the house-builder creates something that is supposedly more “tangible” than a web site. The issue may be one of physicality--wood and stone are objects, and no matter how abstract their assigned value really is, they exist in some world of perceived objective reality.

But in the case of digital communications, one pixel looks much like another, regardless of how long it took to decide to put it where it is—and that which exists only on-screen is somehow not “real,” no matter how many physical resources went into creating it.

Further, for people outside the industry, web-based applications are only really noticed when they break. When they function just fine, it’s not apparent to the user that the back-end database and workflow, stored procedures, and complex interface took lots and lots of time to think through, much less create.

Perhaps this explains why a university will spend $200,000 on a view book for 5,000 prospects, but their web site—which occasions that many visits a month —may be saddled with a $15,000 annual budget at best. It may also explain why many organizations don’t understand how long it takes to make the things they ask for—why, for instance, a well-thought content management system costs more than Contribute. Pipes and walls you can see and touch. Code, you can’t.

We try and educate people on a daily basis about why effort=dollars, but it rarely sinks in, for just these reasons.

I believe we should take a different tack and talk about value. What is it worth to your business to have a really good web site? Why is it, maybe, worth more than a print piece? Value is perceived more than real. Perceived value explains why things that are tangible are thought to be worth more than things which are conceptual or digital.

If we could transcend the dollars/time model, we may be able to show people that budgets ought to be allocated to communications that are worth more, as opposed to those which consume more actual physical resources. We may even get to a place where we’ll see colleges and universities running capital campaigns for their web sites. Why not? After all, the bottom line is that the web site affects everyone involved with any organization, and it’s usually the first point of contact you have with people. Shouldn’t it be worth more than a brochure?