| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 (  2 ) > > || |
|Survey: "Webmaster" is hottest IT Job|
Business 2.0 says job has fastest salary growth
The Hottest Salaries [money.cnn.com]
|1. Webmaster ($49,200) |
2. Senior database administrator ($93,300)
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of detail here. And, at $49K, the growth rate in webmaster salaries may be strong, but it's far from the most lucrative niche in IT.
The other obvious issue is that averages can be totally misleading. A webmaster could manage a single small site, a huge distributed enterprise web presence, or hundreds of unrelated sites.
Perhaps the interesting conclusion one can draw from this is that more companies are recognizing the need to devote internal resources (or at least more resources) to their web presence. A firm that in the past might have used an ad agency for occasional site changes may now need a full-time webmaster to handle frequent updates, ensure continuous operation, and handle community features that need monitoring and management.
The low salary might be since all the "good" webmasters are working for themselves... and not in corporate america... ;-)
Define Senior Database Administrator.
That term Webmaster is used "loosely" and can cover a gamut of sub-specialties which all influence salary in most instances.
Same goes for Senior Database Administrator.
I do believe region is going to be an influencing factor too. For example, a Senior Database Administrator here in California could easily make twice that amount if the skillset is present.
Can we assume that these salaries are "entry-level" positions? ;)
If you are truly a "specialist" at what you do and can "prove" that, then you are worth whatever you want to make. ;)
I really see "webmaster" as a catch-all title that can mean anything from manually updating static HTML pages once a month to managing a server farm of database-driven dynamic sites (which also involves programming, server/network/firewall/load-balencer administration/management, as well as database development/administration). It's hard to compare without knowing the actual duties performed by each (which is inherent in any job salary comparison, but more so with such an amgiguous job title).
Most IT jobs suffer from these definition issues. I used to hire and employ "network engineers" - that sounds like a well-defined category, but pay in the marketplace could vary from extremely low salaries for uncertified individuals trying to get some hands-on experience to six figures ($) for senior people with high demand skills and certifications like Cisco.
A local training firm runs ads periodically promoting their courses (geared to non-technical career changers) stating that "network engineers make "an average of $73K" - newly minted "engineers" are shocked when they are offered half that, if they get any offers at all.
Still, having some numbers is better than having none. Trends can show what's happening in the market, and if an individual is making less than the average they can carry the report into their boss at review time. (Those earning above-average salaries will hope their boss doesn't show up with a copy of the numbers.) :)
Just to add: there is this high quality IT-magazine CT over here in Germany, edited in Hannover, with lots of good contacts grown in twenty years of experience around the CEBIT-scene. In their March edition they published a very detailed survey on IT-job-salaries.
I cannot tell whether the figures are yet publishd somewhere over the net, but since they do this regularly, it might be interesting to observe development over the next years.
Maybe the webmaster-category will be split in the near future (We had a discussion here in ww on a similar issue a few months ago). But this will only happen AFTER the public will have fully recognized the potentials of the web. This is on the way, as your original posting indicates.
When there's one person working on a site, he's the webmaster. When there's more than one person working on a site, you don't know what the "webmaster" does until you ask.
They could be an executive coordinating the priorities of several departments, or the secretary that knows how to use the FTP software.
There was an article I saw recently talking about the (marked) decline of the title Webmaster. Some folks associated "webmaster" with ugly 1-person websites. I think it's got more to do with the ambiguity of the term.
I couldn't pay house payment at $49,000 in Seattle... :-) Heck rent is 1600 a month anyway...
I seriously doubt it. At least not since the "learn at home" schools and tech schools are pumping them out by the 1000's.
|Webmaster - A person whose occupation is designing, developing, marketing, or maintaining websites. |
The above from Dictionary.com. That's four job titles rolled into one.
$50-75k - Designing
$50-75k - Developing
$50-75k - Marketing
$50-75k - Maintenance
$200-300k = Webmaster Salary
|There was an article I saw recently talking about the (marked) decline of the title Webmaster. |
About time too. There should be distinctions between:
a) the Website Co-ordinator (publishing schedule & SEO, PPC & other promotional marketing; co-ordinating the CPM, CPC, CPA and other revenue channels on the site)
c) the Website Graphics Designer (flash, animated gifs, pngs, gifs, jpegs, possibly actionscript)
To my mind anyone who doesn't do all four doesn't convincingly qualify for the term webmaster. And for those who do handle all four roles (you too, huh?) webmaster is an increasingly silly hobbyist term which really belongs somewhere in the mid-nineties. Can't we say Web Producer or something?
BTW, if anyone does do all four and works in a company and currently earns $49,200, I've got a really good suggestion for them.
No, I don't like "Web producer" either, it sounds daft. Does anyone have any better suggestions? There has to be something better than DungeonMaster. I mean Webmaster.
Hey, how about that. According to ronin I'm actually a webmaster... who'd a thunk it?
When I hear the word Webmaster that's what I think of anyway... jack of all trades master of none that sort of does the whole thing. From design to coding to implementation.
That's probably why I think of small to mid-size sites when I hear the title Webmaster.
Interesting, demand seems to be growing for "webmasters" in the UK, although rates generally decreasing.
>There has to be something better than DungeonMaster. I mean Webmaster.
LOL. Just ordered my first novel from De Sade recently. I'll tell you if I discover an interesting suggestion there. Until then make sure you got you whip with you, if you boot your PC;)
This is exactly the discussion, I think Brett himself started (in the supporter's section?). The growing importance of this issue for ordinary business will naturally cause a certain diversification, and in the long run define a new term for the activities of the person coordinating the procedures.
That's a good benchmark to start things off
|The above from Dictionary.com. That's four job titles rolled into one. |
$50-75k - Designing
$50-75k - Developing
$50-75k - Marketing
$50-75k - Maintenance
$200-300k = Webmaster Salary
How about webmaster tasks that cover "Analyst" , "Content"?
$50 - 75k Analyst
$50 - 75k Content
Then, how does one structure this according to one's scale of operations? A webmaster soon becomes a webdirector IMO.
It seems to me that many of these tasks could be performed part time or under contract.
[edited by: Whitey at 3:13 am (utc) on May 1, 2007]
Another issue is that I'm guessing most webmasters are younger (databases have been around a lot longer than the internet!) and have less seniority than "Senior Database Admistrators". I.e. what is the salary for a database guy with only a couple years experience? That might be a more fair comparison.
I recently saw this position posted:
|1. Minimum of five years related work experience demonstrating progressive responsibilities and skill development in a broad spectrum of marketing communications tools and processes. |
2. Hands on experience in complex website development and maintenance, creative writing, graphic design and production for print and electronic media including newsletters, advertising and collateral materials, digital photography, marcom and public relations strategic planning.
3. B.A. in communications, journalism or related field OR combination of education plus experience.
4. Knowledge of and skilled at project management, market research, creative writing and editing, creative design & production for print, web and electronic communications.
5. Knowledge of and skilled at marketing communications processes, mass media, tools and best practices including web site development and maintenance; print, broadcast and electronic marketing communications, strategic public relations management, and strategic marcom planning and implementation.
6. Knowledge and experience with a variety of PC & Mac software including but not limited to MSOffice, InDesign, PowerPoint, Illustrator, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and Dreamweaver, Also desirable: Visio, ACT, CRM, Quark, PrintShop and Frontpage.
7. Highly skilled in digital photography and related software and applications.
8. Knowledge of and skilled at using sound management principles.
9. Knowledge of standard business practices.
10. Knowledge of administrative systems and processes.
11. Skill in follow up and follow through.
Sounds like a webmaster to me, though they are using the term "Corporate Communications Specialist"
Pay? "$16.56 - $19.87/hour" What's that, a $34,444 - 41,329/yr?
I decided not to apply...
presumably business 2.0 has now fired half their IT department.
see this story about server backup failure [nytimes.com].
lol! That is just too funny!
I guess you get what you pay for, eh?
There is a difference between a webmaster and THE Webmaster.
Hmm, interesting. I always knew I've been undervaluing myself. So where are all these £26k+ Webmaster roles in the UK!?
|Define Webmaster. |
Define Senior Database Administrator.
That term Webmaster is used 'loosely' and can cover a gamut of sub-specialties which all influence salary in most instances.
I've got to agree with you there. A serious lapse of common sense by CNN. Surely there is some "webmaster" out there responsible for posting this content on their website; I'm surprised nobody brought the issue up.
Moving onto some more late-breaking news:
Recent statistics reveal the top three highest-paid positions in the field of News Media!
Of all those employed by global media conglomerates, the apex of the financial hierarchy is broken down as follows:
|Most IT jobs suffer from these definition issues. I used to hire and employ "network engineers" - that sounds like a well-defined category, but pay in the marketplace could vary from extremely low salaries for uncertified individuals trying to get some hands-on experience to six figures ($) for senior people with high demand skills and certifications like Cisco. |
Never fear! Ambiguity will no longer be an issue roughly a decade from now... when China has taken over the world and we are all forced to fall into step with the Communist empire, forsaking the tired old concepts of freedom and democracy for the much more reliable, predictable lifestyle of the oppressed proletariat.
Y'know, because there's hardly any synonyms in the Mandarin language.
I suggest you start learning it now. There's nothing more frustrating than being whipped mercilessly AND shouted at in an incomprehensible language at the same time.
|Hmm, interesting. I always knew I've been undervaluing myself. So where are all these Â£26k+ Webmaster roles in the UK!? |
Mostly London. But you can find them outside of London as well if you have the skills that they are looking for.
End of last year I was offered Â£40,000 ($80,000) + commissions a year for a Webmaster/SEO/PPC vacancy (by a solely internet based company), as well as Â£37,500 ($75,000) for a Webmaster/XHTML/CSS/ with SEO skills (ecommerce branch of a Brick and Mortar company - top 3 electrical outlet in the UK).
Both were outside London (couple hours drive), and both to be part of a web team.
The only way to get these types of salary, imo, is to specialise (seo and/or xhtml/css/wai) and go for a big player. Small companies can't really afford to pay upwards of Â£30,000 and most of the time they outsource their web work.
Webmaster is a such a Web 0.9 word.
It was used to refer to someone who could hack together some HTML and put stuff in tables.... mostly though they would just FTP into a site and make content changes.
Today in the Web 2.0 model we have 2 prevalent job titles.
The first is Web Developer, who for the most part is a computer programmer who develops their software on the web rather then as a client side application. With Ajax and PHP/Python implementations using database interaction most 'webmasters' have to be programming savvy.
The second is a Web Designer, who is for the most part a graphic guy who knows HTML and CSS. He may have some programming skills but for the most part he is looking at layout and form more then function.
A Web Developer should be able to write nice SQL, design a normalized database, and write eloquent code that runs fast and is worth more then $50, 000 a year.
I just wonder what the "webmaster" job description actually is.
|Webmaster is a such a Web 0.9 word. |
Its actually "US" that perpetrate the use of the word Webmaster. For "US" it has an all encompassing meaning. For the general public, it has this "entry level" ring to it.
I run a small job board for this industry and can tell you that only once since 2004 January has someone utilized the word Webmaster in their job posting. And, that was for a University website.
Here are some of the most recent job titles posted...
|SEO Specialist, SEO Team Manager, University Webmaster, Director of Search Engine Optimization, SEO Link Manager, SEO Copywriter, Online Sales Development Director, SEM Inside Sales Rep, Internet Marketing Specialist, Search Engine Marketing Manager, SEO Expert, Director of SEO, Senior Web Analytics Specialist, Senior SEO Specialist, Internet Marketer, E-Commerce SEO Specialist |
As you can see, the Webmaster's role is quite diversified and should be rightly compensated. :)
|The only way to get these types of salary, imo, is to specialise (seo and/or xhtml/css/wai) and go for a big player. Small companies can't really afford to pay upwards of Â£30,000 and most of the time they outsource their web work. |
Id agree with that, but by doing these types of all-round "webmaster" projects you can also develop related skills in business analysis, project/budget management, communications - these are more transfereable and dont rely on mastering certain technologies to make the £40-60K bracket.
I remember reading a (popular) thread like this at some forum or another 3ish years ago, and another here at WW more recently.
One thing we can count on is that tech job titles are going to remain ambiguous no matter how much we complain :-)
A webmaster should refer to someone that has a working knowledge of everything involved in the process of creating, marketing and maintaining a website so that they can A) Do it all themselves in smaller environments and B) Oversee the entire process in larger ones.
What a webmaster actually does mean in common conversation is anyone who can operate an FTP program.
Which I think is probably a good thing. Who honestly wants to go around calling themselves a Webmaster? Or worse, Webmistress?
It's interesting the range of perceptions about webmasters, here....I mean it is WEBMASTERWorld
In my jobs the webmaster has always been one of the most important and respected people in the company. But maybe that's just because I'm the guy who's webmaster. :)
1. is in operational control of the front-end of the website (and possibly backend on less complex sites).
2. is the "gatekeeper" for the website. (hence, operational control of the website--not anyone can go in and make changes). A webmaster has to be closely involved and sign off on web projects going live. This includes any changes to the templates, publishing system, front page or anything that affects what site visitors see.
3. is a multidisciplinary generalist with a respectable knowledge of web development, design/ui, sysadmin, marketing/content and project management. Perhaps not an expert in any one field but fusing together these various skills into a finished product. A bit like an editor-in-chief, but much more technical.
4. works closely with various departments (ie Marketing, Legal, Design, Project Management) to manage rollouts of products and new areas of the websites and too insure these are properly integrated into the website as a whole. They fulfill kind of a technical project manager role--more technical than a project manager and actually able to work on the site, but also interfacing with other areas of the company.
5. works closely with content producers to insure content changes are not spilling over into structural changes.
6. usually has a direct line to all department heads in case of an online emergency. (even in a large company they may have direct contact with the CEO).
7. consults with other areas of the company when projects are in the planning stages and is involved in major projects affecting the website.
8. may manage a group of other webmasters who perform more administrative tasks such as correcting front-end code bug and working with QA, producing additional website documentation (ie site maps).
The webmaster is at the crossroads for whatever is going on with the website.
The webmaster is the person called in an emergency and often knows where a lot of skeletons lie.
Given all of the above, it's easy to see why a webmaster is pretty darn important.
In my state (a relatively impoverished Southern one), starting pay for a webmaster working 40 hours a week is about $20,000-$25,000 a year. If you own a firm, theoretically you could be pulling in twice that, but I don't know a single freelance or salary designer not in charge of a company earning anywhere near $50,000 annually.
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 (  2 ) > > |