Do you need a Content Management System?
There is a common notion that the Content Management System (CMS) is the ideal solution to keeping a website current. It saves the client money by relieving their dependency on the designer/developer. Sounds great on paper…
I think this is a misconception.
“Off the shelf” or custom-built, a CMS is a just a program. Content production is the heart of the matter. This is a creative process that no machine can automate. If you’re starting from scratch then forcing template structure onto undetermined content seems rather like putting the cart before the horse.
You don’t know what your content will be until you write it.
Only the client can decide what messages they want to put out. They are the expert in their field. A pro-active designer or copy writer should be able to support them by advising on tone and terminology. They could go so far as to suggest messages (such as an opinion piece on an industry development), but the onus is on the client.
You don’t know how much you will be able to write.
A business whose website I have worked on has produced five news stories in almost three years. They couldn’t have known at the start of the project that they would be so infrequent. It may be that they just don’t have much to say.
Mr client, do you really want to update your own website?
A client should be too busy doing more urgent things like pursuing sales and supporting customers. There’s value in helping them move workload from their desk onto yours. We often build systems for our own convenience, because the client returns to us to update the website.
For many projects that an independent developer or small company would take on, I’d suggest the following thought process:
- Consider building the website in static form.
- Set a milestone where that approach becomes undesirable. If this milestone is reached quickly (or immediately), then so be it.
- Review the content. Get your crystal ball out and do your best to foresee requirements. Accept that you can’t anticipate everything.
- Evaluate off the shelf options eg: Could my news section be built on a system like WordPress?
- If not, build and populate a database that delivers the content. One dynamic page and a database table is easier to maintain than a hundred HTML pages.
- If the client wants to get hands-on, then build a CMS. Keep it simple, with minimal functionality.
Am I trying to talk myself and other developers out of work? Hardly! There’s no satisfaction or long term gain from selling someone something they don’t use. What I recommend is looking after your clients by helping them to not spend more than they need to at a point in time. I’ve found that the goodwill and trust it creates will benefit your relationship and the courses of actions that you do advise will be taken that much more seriously.
Recent Posts RSS
April 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Interesting post. I’m of the opinion that a CMS-enabled site is always better than a static one, but your point about whether or not the client should be doing the maintenance is well made.
A lot of designers we work with use the CMS on behalf of the client for many of the reasons you’ve mentioned.
It’s a client-by-client judgment call, in my opinion, as to whether or not it makes sense to give them a CMS. Someone, if not the client, should be doing updates (else the site become outdated) and I think using a CMS is the way to go!
Thanks for the article.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hi Brett,
I agree that a CMS enabled site is better (that is, more sophisticated) than a static one.
My own experience has been that it is sometimes better just to give clients an opportunity to “dip their toe” in the web with a simple structure, let it evolve somewhat, then reconsider your options.
Of course, for some projects a CMS is obviously needed from the outset. As you say, it’s a client-by-client judgement call.
P.S. Intriguing website you have there! Consider yourself subscribed