Managing Client Expectations, Managing client expectations Options

[sharithurow]

Hi everyone,

I could use some advice. I know Jill has been in the same boat I'm in, and others as well.

We have a number of clients who really, really want to maintain their own Web sites. I am not against people maintaining their own sites. I understand that maintaining your own site can (a) greatly reduce costs and expenses, and ((IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) give you more control over your site.

I like to maintain all 3 of my sites rather than have others work on them.

However, there are some people who really shouldn't be maintaining their own sites because they lack certain skills. Sure, we've created templates where people can upload a Word file to add a press release. But it's not enough. People forget to write unique titles, metas, and so forth. They do not cross-link well.

And, as I'm sure Jill can relate, they often ruin perfectly good search-friendly copywriting.

I understand that the client owns the site. They can do whatever they want with their site. But all too often, they ruin the site's effectiveness without consulting the designer, developer, copywriter, search engine marketer, etc.

I stopped counting the number of times that a PR firm has taken control of my clients' sites and butchered the content. And then the client is shocked to discover that search engine traffic drops.

Here's the tricky part. How do I diplomatically let a client know that I don't believe he/she has the necessary skills to maintain their own site?

I don't make that sort of statement to be rude or condescending. In reality, it takes our staff more time to fix the mistakes than to have me implement text/code/graphics from the very beginning. So the client actually saves money.

Two things we have done:

(1) Allowed clients to edit certain sections of the site (by contractual agreement, of course).

(2) Trained their staff, which can get expensive.

Any other suggestions? Thanks so much.

[qwerty]

You might suggest that, if they choose to take control of everything on the site, it would be wise for them to spend a little time reading up on everything they'd need to know in order to do things properly. Give them a list of books (including your own, of course (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) and the URLs of two or three SEO forums.

Hopefully, they'll take a look at the wealth of information they're going to need and realize it's just too much work for them to take on themselves.

[Rob]

Hi!

Expanding on what qwerty said, I'd let them know everything you do to work on a website (and associated optimizations), and how you keep up to date with your skills (which as explained below is often a daily task).

I spend alot of my time not only working, but researching - i'd say a good hour or so (more sometimes) a day is spent with me keeping up with news, new techniques and technologies etc.

Presenting everything that is involved with site (and associated optimization etc) maintenance should show them its a highly skilled job, not something they could just pick up immediately.

Similarly, i'd show them the figures of butchered traffic from when a PR company has been involved, and highlight this risks happening again, and resultingly sales (if appropriate here) goes down etc etc.

Hope these few comments help in some way!

Rob

[SearchRank]

There really is no good work-around, especially when you are doing SEO for the site. Even if you develop an easy to use, search engine friendly CMS, that only allows them to edit text or replace pictures but locks them out of changing title tags, meta description tags, html structure itself, etc., they can still mess up that optimized content.

Only thing you can really do is charge them each time you have to fix it. Possibly hitting them in the pocket book enough times will teach them and if not you at least get compensated for your time.

[cline]

Shari, this begs two questions:

1. Why are you so much more expensive for the clients than for the clients to maintain their sites themselves?

2. Why does the clients feel when they are working with you that they don't control their websites?

I have the same problems, too. And I have no powerful solutions, but, here's what I do.

For #1, I cut the client a break in the costs to maintain their site. I only get into site maintenance after I've already done a lot of work with the client, so I figure I've amortized my set-up and marketing costs of dealing with the client so I ought to pass that savings on to them.

For #2, I notice 2 things: speed and lack of changes.

Regarding speed, if you can implement the changes very quickly, then the client feels like they're in control.

Lack of changes is the toughest issue. It's just bizzare to me that a client will pay good money to have you SEO the site, experience business success derived from that effort, be happy, then implicitly ask you to destroy it. But they do. My experience is that all you can do is warn them, and if they don't accept the warning, execute the destruction ASAP. The only way they'll learn is through pain.

[Minerva]

Shari,

Perhaps some of these clients would be amenable to hiring your firm to do short, quarterly assessments of their sites to ensure that "things are working." The assessments would be an opportunity to show what's NOT working.

-Andrea-

[Lesli]

I was about to suggest the regular checkups...but Minerva beat me to it (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Let your clients control their own site (or, heck, even hand it over to a PR firm), but suggest to them that, to maintain SE position, they have you give their site regular reviews / fixups. Tell them that you'll take a look at the content, fix what's wrong, and provide them with a list of what fixes were made and why. You can keep the "why" kind of brief, to avoid overwhelming them and yourself; but that lets them take control but also has them coming back to you regularly to smooth out their rough spots.

Kind of like taking your pet to the vet.

(...which reminds me...gotta make two appointments!)

[BrianR]

Andrea & Lesli - that's the option I use too. A smallish quarterly review fee, but make it plain that, if there are mistakes to be fixed, it will cost extra. And it does. So, just a couple of these reviews and they all fall in line!

BrianR

[projectphp]

I stopped counting the number of times that a PR firm has taken control of my clients' sites and butchered the content. And then the client is shocked to discover that search engine traffic drops.

Clients are like children, you have to let them learn by their own mistakes. The trick is to make the mistakes memorable, but not devastating.

My (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/penny.gif) of what I would do:
1. As soon as any client makes waves about making changes, send a detailed email outlining what errors can occur, why you prefer to maintain sites, and the expected costs to fix things if they are broken. This can be a standard, generic email to save time. If this doesn't persuade them to let you keep maintaining the site, then...
2. Let them maintain the site. If they stuff up, and want to know what happened, refer to your previous email, and point out the costs associated with fixing any errors / problems, and the benefits of continuing to use your services to avoid just these circumstances.

Not to sound nasty or cynical, but this situation can be a great oportunity to make extra money. If clients, in attempts to save money, cause problems that need fixing, that is just extra revenue.

You can't save people from themselves. If clients want to maintain their own site / disregard councel, they are well within their rights. The best one can hope for is to maintain the relationship, and try to guide people in the right direction, and let them work stuff out for themselves.

IMHO, and I am not trying to be self justifying, these are the situations in which one really earns one's keep. Clients do self defeating things for variety of reasons, and harm minimisation is often as large a part of SEO as improving sites. Ensuring a site isn't completely desimated in the rankings because of a clients decision can be just as important, to the clients business and livelihood, as getting them more traffic.

Just my (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/penny.gif)

This post has been edited by projectphp: May 5 2004, 12:28 AM

[Rob]

Clients do self defeating things for variety of reasons

They all of a sudden think they're wasting their money and can do it themselves (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Nice post btw (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Rob

[Scottie]

I'm with PHP on this one... the client is always right. (Even when they aren't (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

They are paying me to do a job. If I do it and they go behind me and mess it up (despite being briefed on why I did what and what should be changed and what should not) then it's their problem.

I'm always happy to fix it again. And invoice them...

These are not the sites you want in your portfolio though! You never quite know what you will find when you visit later. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[peter_d]

You can always cloak it - saves a lot of problems.

I'm joking, of course (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm with pphp. It's professional to warn them of the consequences, but you can't save them from themselves.

[Jill]

After having this happen to me numerous times throughout the years, I simply put it in my contract that as long as I'm on board with the company, any changes they make to the site have to be run by me first, or I am absolved of all responsibility for rankings, etc.

I haven't really had any problems since doing this many years ago. Of course, I think it's a bit different for Shari because she actually does design. My clients generally have their own in-house designers and I could care less if they mess with their design. As long as they leave the other stuff alone I'm usually happy! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Jill

[glaikit]

A good perennial question to ask, and many good points made.

If the client wants to do their own content updates, but understands that SEO is dependent on content, they should be amenable to periodic review, recommendations, and SEO tweaking.

The difficulty arises when balancing the good points of site updates against messing with something that ain't broke, SEO-wise. It seems certainly reasonable to explain that if I am 'out of the loop' on content changes, then how can I be responsible for changes in search engine rankings/ROI that result? A possible solution might be to make certain pages - say top level ones - off limits unless you review content changes first, or they take their chances and suffer the consequences.

The other issue - clients that can't handle the straightforward HTML updates themselves without making errors - is one I have faced many times. I build sites (design and organic SEO) for mostly small businesses, and 95% start out by saying they want to handle their own updates. The underlying principles they're not stating are, they think it's easy and they think it will save them money.

I handle this problem by telling prospects that yes, you can do it if you want to - first buy a "real" HTML editor/program, and a good graphics program, and then a few books... then plan on spending a lot of time, because it took me 5 years before I went pro. (Either that, or they can try one of those site-building wizards offered by hosting companies, but I will have nothing to do with it.)

Then remind them that time is money.

Then remind them that ROI is money.

Then tell them that ALL of my clients eventually abandon doing their own updates, even when a site is deliberately designed for easy updates. No matter how you look at it, it always saves them money to pay me, unless they can afford a dedicated in-house employee who knows what they're doing. (Does the client do their own wiring and plumbing? Do they do their own print and media ads and marketing? Do they do their own tax returns? Why do they think a website is different?)

Content Management Systems (CMS) have become the rage lately. Though I have not deployed one yet, I've been looking into them. It seems to me they have their place but they STILL rely upon some understanding of website architecture, design, and HTML - and they dont even address SEO or usability.

So the bottom line, as many others pointed out, is to teach lessons with the pocketbook when all else fails - and that you really can't save them from themselves. Business relationships change, there's no reason not to 'renegotiate' your position when their position changes. Just put it in writing so as not to get bit (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Scottie]

Welcome to the forum, glaikit! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/bye1.gif)