When do you directly modify a customer's site?

[Jon_King]

This issue is a difficult issue for our young company:

For SEO purposes do we directly modify the customer's site or instruct them how to do it themselves?

Selling and starting a new site from 'scratch' is our preferred method; we then build the structure and content to meet the consumer needs, while also optimized and search engine friendly.

But what happens when there is a substantial investment already in the current site and you are asked to work with it? What happens when the structure and artistic design is very complex and third party modifications will not be practical?

Do you teach (or consult with) your clients how to modify their sites? In essence laying out a complete map for them to implement?

Modify, consult or build from scratch; how to decide, that is the question.

[jdMorgan]

Jon_King,

Have them change their password to a temporary password and give that to you.
Update their site, tweak for a month or two.
Get paid.
Tell them they can change their password back.

Teaching a client to do Web-work or having them modify the site step-by-step is too much work, and you get blamed if they screw it up.

Just my opinion... :)
Jim

[lorax]

We do it ourselves and in the process gain thier trust. We normally end up taking over all of the website tasks and help them find solutions that fit thier business model. Like developing a methodology for updates and rewrites. In the end, they're happier because they can focus on what they do best and we're not in the position of having to babysit and answer questions every other minute.

[Jon_King]

Maybe I'm understating the complexity of some of the sites I've been asked to optimize. These sites are both artistic and code intense.

There just would be no professional way to manipulate the code on some sites without close involvement by the current developer or the current IT dept.

In other cases it would be very difficult to recreate art to match the existing site look without getting the original files from whoever art directed the site in the first place.

All in all, I’m finding it very difficult to quote these jobs without getting into many specifics.

If I was the developer of a particularly complex site I would lobby hard against allowing a third party 'in' to manipulate it.

This is really the crux of the biscuit... no way these large companies are going to have my company take over their site, but they want my help and I am struggling with just how to do it.

[lorax]

Jon,
My initial reaction is I'd still want the control over the decision making process. Put their developers and artists under your control. The only other way I'd do the job is if I could clearly define who did what and when. In otherwords - they don't edit anything unless I tell them to and only what I tell them to. It's still a control issue but without it you're sunk.

That being said - divide and conquer! Develop a plan for the whole site sans $$. Divide up the work into manageable sections/phases. Determine an order to complete them in. These division have to allow you to work on just one portion without significantly affecting another. Some overlap should be expected. Get them to buy into your plan.

Sit down with your plan and scope out the phases. Take into account any backtracking to clean/rework the sections to weave them together. Determine what you want to have happen and define responsibilities for the phase. Define the division of labor and responsibility carefully. They need to know what you expect of them. This is the sticky part because you need to be clear about how much information you give them and what they're allowed to do with it while you're doing the job. After you're done - if they screw with it - so be it. Price it, get concensus, and then get started. Take each phase this way.

As you're pricing the job - allow for a 10%-20% contingency fee per phase unless you're confident you can nail it for the fee you state. Even then, I'd use at least a 5% contingency.

[WebGuerrilla]

Jon,

I really think it depends on what types of clients you want to serve. If you are working with mid level down to Mom & Pop operations, you are going to have a much better chance of getting direct access to a site. But if you are working with large corporate kind of sites, you will never be able to move forward unless you get comfortable with directing people from within the client's IT department.

Typically, they way I go about it is to first prepare a proposal that outlines what areas I will be providing direction in. It doesn't spell out the specifics of what I do.

Once they've signed off on that, I'll usually use a site ripping tool to copy the sections of the site I'll be working on. Those pages are put up on a staging server that I own. I then can tweak as much as I want without messing directly with the clients site.

Once I've made all the changes, I give the IT department access. It then becomes their job to take my examples and port them over to the live site.

Sometimes I'll do just a small section that demonstrates the overall concept, and sometimes I'll do every page. It just depends on the inital contract. The client is free to choose not to implement the changes I come up with. If they do that, I don't really care because I'm paid for the work I put up on my server.

It isn't always the best solution and the results don't always come out as good as they might if you had full control, but it is the way most large scale SEO is handled.

[Jon_King]

The concept of a staging server with the customer integrating modified pages back into their site is a good approach.

Thanks WebGuerrilla and Lorax.