Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

thomvest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#51

Post by rhizome »

hyperbovine wrote: post #48
lwhi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't creating some brave new world - levelling the playing field for all .. if you believe that you're quite simply bonkers :) The injustice isn't that some people are being paid less - it's that some people aren't being paid at all . On top of this there's one person, or company, who is wholly benefiting from the situation, while another takes a cut of the proceeds. Logically, the system works because some peo…

This is what I was getting at in my original post: why do so many people feel the need to render a moral judgement on the behalf of others? If it's rotten, don't participate. Everyone using those sites does so of their own free will.

For the same reason you've been replying in this thread: it concerns you. Similarly, if you don't like peoples' comments here, why refer to them or reply to them at all? Just ignore them. See how anti-social your line of logic is?

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#52

Post by rhizome »

reneherse wrote: post #45
jimboyoungblood wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, actually it's about saving $22K.

Actually no it isn't because he got exactly what he paid for: A template-like design and a mess of code worth $2K-3K tops. Instead of saving $22K what he actually did was waste time running an ego-stoking circus for two weeks.

Maybe this story would be better framed as "how to convince people that your $2K redesign is really worth $25K." I mean, if the guy is the CEO and this took two weeks, $22K "savings" over two weeks works out to about $500K/yr, which is probably near the value an average CxO sees in themselves.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#53

Post by farlington »

rhizome wrote: post #28
jharrison wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose fault is it if a designer chooses to engage in a contest and they end up spending their time in a losing effort? We all have to compete but rather than disparage a business owner for being a good steward of their money could you instead present a valid argument for using a designer as opposed to a contest? Some good reasons why a designer, that might hypothetically cost 10x more than a contest, would be better…

Would you feel the same way if you thought you were hiring a designer and they sold you what amounts to a template that they've used for a hundred other clients? After all, the designer would merely be a good steward of his time by maximizing the value of work already done. Selling the same work to multiple business owners is the flipside of spec'ing out to multiple designers. Think of it as a contest to see who the…

Great point. It's interesting to think of crowdsourcing websites as just another channel through which designers can sell templates.

If the customization/client service end is kept to a minimum, a 10% conversion would probably be a pretty nice, relatively hassle-free business. There'd be an initial investment of time in developing a stock of templates to use, but after that, a designer could probably profit off the same work for quite some time, with a minimum of effort dropping in logos, changing colors and swapping stock photos.

And for every 'contest' won, a 99designer would make way more than they could selling a single psd template—not to mention having a much more aggressive sales strategy and zero advertising costs.

It kind of makes you wonder who's exploiting who.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#54

Post by hyperbovine »

rhizome wrote: post #51
hyperbovine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I was getting at in my original post: why do so many people feel the need to render a moral judgement on the behalf of others? If it's rotten, don't participate. Everyone using those sites does so of their own free will.

For the same reason you've been replying in this thread: it concerns you. Similarly, if you don't like peoples' comments here, why refer to them or reply to them at all? Just ignore them. See how anti-social your line of logic is?

Last post on this and I'm finished. Read the comments I was originally referring to. They are not of the "This threatens my way of life and my stream of income, and I'm concerned about it" variety. I would have no problem with that.

Rather, they uniformly denounce the whole practice as immoral and wrong. They disguise their own self-interest as a moral argument. Why? Because admitting that's its their own asses they are looking out for immediately begs the question, isn't that what all these spec designers are doing as well?

At which point the argument is shot, unless you happen to believe that by some preordained right certain people should be allowed to pursue happiness and wealth, while others should not. Now /that/ is anti-social.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#55

Post by mike-cardwell »

rhizome wrote: post #36
mike-cardwell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they need the money, they should be looking for contract work or full-time work, not entering competitions. I'm for letting people try new methods of commerce and letting adults make their own decisions. Nobody was exploited here.

Where's the "new method of commerce" in "send us stuff for free and we'll pay one of you?"

Inbetween your second set of quotation marks.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#56

Post by rhizome »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #55
rhizome wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the "new method of commerce" in "send us stuff for free and we'll pay one of you?"

Inbetween your second set of quotation marks.

Well then, someone should take that idea to a patent prosecutor and make some bank.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#57

Post by reneherse »

lwhi wrote: post #46
horatioplink wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part that's so frustrating is that thomvest (and lots of other companies) is in the business of creating relationships and yet they don't understand how having a relationship with a designer/agency will benefit them.

I completely agree. If a company treats the people involved in its business relationships as cheap, expendable commodities - the company is not going to shine.

And it's an investor/partner/employer to avoid

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#58

Post by GertG »

Still trying to make up my mind about crowd sourcing, but I like to compare it to the well-established practice of architecture contests. That system also gets criticism for forcing architects to do a lot of work without a guarantee of being paid anything, but nevertheless it is broadly accepted: big-name bureaus participate in them too. The reason why it works, imo, is because the potential reward is much bigger. They might spend weeks preparing an entry, but in case of a win it's usual to have months or years worth of paid work. In my eyes, for web design/software crowd sourcing to gain the credibility needed to attract more than starters looking for a foot in the door, it will need the same effort/reward ratio. For example, you design a specific part of the future website in detail, and the winner gets to redesign the whole site. That way, the client still has the benefit of getting more than well-written intentions in a project proposal, and the contestants know that the potential reward is bigger than being paid for what he has already done.

Re: How we made a $25,000 website for $3,000

#60

Post by mike-cardwell »

rhizome wrote: post #56
mike-cardwell wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inbetween your second set of quotation marks.

Well then, someone should take that idea to a patent prosecutor and make some bank.

Trying to figure out what your point here was. I think you might be sarcastically suggesting that what I called "new", isn't "new"? If you are, then you've taken it out of context; I can try something new, without it being a brand new idea that nobody has done before. So can this company. That's what I was saying.

I have a full time job, and I do contract work on the side. I don't employ people. So I am one of those people who might have been "exploited". I didn't take part in this particular competition, but I'm glad for all opportunities, and I don't need protecting from them.

Post reply on HN