Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I have a link back to my design site at the footer of every site I develop, I'm actually more worried that SEs will penalize me or clients for three way linking (if they link to each other and then both link back to me, since some are on my portfolio page). Why should I not interlink client sites?
All sites are different and have different aims and objectives is anyone seriously trying to suggest that for everyone on the internet this is a bad thing? Maybe it is for you but not for me.
By having my link, the company was able to find my site and explain what transition led them to the loss of my contact info, and they were able to have me make needed changes to their site. Things happen, people misplace contact info, a text link means that anyone from the company can find me quickly in case something goes wrong (or in case my office number changes, which is has, they at least can get to my site and get the new number).
webmaster
mysite.com
on the other pages I just put my email with "webmaster" in the link text in case there is a problem with the site (this prevents potential google problems with site wide links too).
(and nobody has ever requested I remove them)
I don't just design a website and drop them off into never never land either--I am their webmaster for as long as they need me. If they need updates they will often go to their website and click on the link to send me an email.
NOT to put a link on your clients pages to your page is just waisted potential to attract further clients, not important how "professional" you are, but evidently you might be in the position to waist this potential ;)
Unimportant how professional you are, you will need new clients. And the best place to show your knowledge is evidently on your former work, a potential client might come across, and might want the same.
Try to buy a car without the manufacturers name/logo on it ;)
Try to find a car maker website with a home page link to the one who designed the site. For that matter, how many Fortune 500 company sites allow that?
Unimportant how professional you are
Just about says it all, doesnt it? Debating professional standards is like debating ethics. For some this tends to be very situational where the ends justifies the means. For others, standards are hard and fast.
[edited by: Kirby at 4:28 pm (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
I pointed to them that their design was a slightly changed copy of ours. Never got a reply from them. From this experience, I can see that branding your work does have some advantages, in case other designers rip off one of your designs.
But at the same time, it can often backfire if people think you are the copier. Worse, when you brand your clients' sites, and don't take care of the updates, they can make some unexpected changes to the design and code while leaving your name there. I'd rather not be associated with bad designs.
But I do agree that this is a matter of personal ethics. I don't believe that I lose out on referrals. The best referrals I get are word of mouth from the clients. Sure there's less than if the link was visible, but it's also of better quality and easier to convert, as the sales pitch was not done by me, but by my clients.
[edited by: Harry at 4:04 pm (utc) on Aug. 8, 2006]
Try to find a car maker website with a home page link to the one who designed the site. For that matter, how many Fortune 500 company sites allow that?
This statement was already made, the response is that if a company has the capital to be a Fortune 500 company in the first place, they more than likely have the capital for an in-house development team.
Worse, when you brand your clients' sites, and don't take care of the updates, they can make some unexpected changes to the design and code while leaving your name there. I'd rather not be associated with bad designs.
Then you remove your links. Even if a client's site looks bad, visitors can go to my site and view my portfolio. They could choose to not click my link because a site looks bad, but if my link wasn't there, they wouldn't have found me anyway. Its worth a possible conversion.
The best referrals I get are word of mouth from the clients. Sure there's less than if the link was visible, but it's also of better quality and easier to convert, as the sales pitch was not done by me, but by my clients.
You still have to work no matter how a prospective client finds you. The most an existing client can do is vouch for your work, they can't quote other people, you still have to pitch them or close the deal.
I'd rather not lose thousands of dollars just because a particular type of client is easier to convert. A "quality" client is a paying client. What you consider professionalism, I call impractical business management.
I can see both sides of the argument on this whole "designed by:" links in the footer of clients sites thing.
I do think it signals cheap or amateur web development services and is seen as a bit of a 1990's maneuver. I can also see why (on the face of it) it would appeal to the developer as means of "free" backlinks though. Remember that with backlinks its quality that you're after, not necessarily quantity. I'm sure that Google/MSN/Yahoo! do not give much weight to links that are repeated in the same place across an entire site (ie; footer links).
Surely a better solution to this problem would be to have 1 single page on the client site in the form of a blog post or press release that focuses solely on the development of the site, its features and benefits and some information about the development team behind it. Such a page would give you far better opportunities for getting target keyphrases into hyperlinks and hyperlinking to multiple points within your site instead of just a bunch of low value backlinks pointing to your homepage. It IS also something that you would find Fortune 500 companies doing and is of far more benefit to visitors who are interested than a nondescript text link in the site footer.
Try to find a car maker website with a home page link to the one who designed the site. For that matter, how many Fortune 500 company sites allow that?This statement was already made, the response is that if a company has the capital to be a Fortune 500 company in the first place, they more than likely have the capital for an in-house development team.
How about companies such as BMW, ING, Philips, Renault and KLM? All are multi-billion dollar companies who have outsourced their SEO. And that are just a few examples I could come up with in a few minutes, I'm sure there are plenty more.
Do you really think they will add a link to their SEO or webdesign company to their homepage?
You mean not putting a few links on a Web site is impractical business management? If your income is dependent on those links alone then you are in a dire situation.
Another aspect to this debate are those who look at it with a short term view and those with more maturity that take a longer approach.
A good thing about this debate is that it really is divisive and is not clear cut. That means that ommission in many cases is the best course, as obviously, there is not a universal view on putting one's graffiti on a site.
About the specialized credits' page for some industry, it makes sense. For others it doesn't. For example, a steel maker allowing their design firm to have one page would be out of focus on the main goal of the site.
But a local musician with an ecclectic looking site might get away easily with including a promo page on the design firm that did his site.
The problem, of course, is that such a promo page is free advertising, and the designer should pay for that page. I don't buy the "a Web site is art or like a television show."
A Web site is like a corporate video or a brochure. You can't insert competing messages in there. The message is the one of the client. Who created the container is of no consequences.
Most commercials we see on TV are not branded by the agency. Agencies have better means to let the word out on what they do than tag their names on the bottom of a 30 seconds clip.
If a client purchases and owns the copyright to the design THEN they can choose if they wish to give credits or not ( that would be a part of the designer's / client contract )
To say that credits given for design smacks of amatuer or non professional is excessively vexation - probably why this is a popular thread :)
What a designer can claim is moral rights. Moral rights means that even if the real copyrights are with the company that purchased the Web site development services, it cannot stop the designer from saying to the rest of the world that it created the design for the site.
Also copyrights are limited to actual design elements and not the hard code found underneath, so claiming copyrights over a site one designs for a client is another abusive tactic of amateurs.
In the end, the designer can put an image and part of the site he designed in his portfolio and the customer cannot complain or force him to remove, unless there was a prior non discloser clause. It's also part of fair usage where if you work on something, you have moral rights to say you worked on it. So, no using copyrights is not a means to try to put your graffiti on your client's sites. The site is not yours, it's theirs.
[edited by: Harry at 7:32 pm (utc) on Aug. 14, 2006]
How about companies such as BMW, ING, Philips, Renault and KLM? All are multi-billion dollar companies who have outsourced their SEO. Do you really think they will add a link to their SEO or webdesign company to their homepage?
How do you know offhand which of those companies has outsourced their actual website design work? (plus, I've always been talking about the actual design work, not SEO work). And yes, I feel that they would allow the firm that designed their site to add a link, I've had at least one seven-figure client and another ten-figure client that didn't protest to my credit link.
If your income is dependent on those links alone then you are in a dire situation.
My income isn't entirely dependent on clickthroughs from inbound links or the subsequent search engine traffic that results from use of anchor text. But the only way that I would see dependency on credit links as putting someone in a dire situation is if both Yahoo and Google totally devalue links like that. And unless you work for Y or G, you won't know with absolute certainty if that's really on their agenda or what they're doing about it. All you're doing is speculating about what constitutes a dire situation; dire for me was missing meals because prospective clients weren't biting and referrals were slow a particular month.
Only small players or companies without comprehensive Web strategies would allow such things on their site.
Assuming that most of these companies do the work internally is also an assumption. Technology companies, like Microsoft or even Google are likelier to do their sites' design internally. But General Motors or Harris Bank will go through an agency.
Notice, I use the word agency all the time, instead of Web designer. The multiples is where the difference lies. Joe Shmoe in his appartment or mom's basement will put his links all over the place. He'll continue to do so even when he's a five person team. But after a while he'll see the type of clients they seek won't even look at him with his "Designed by Joe Shmoe" portfolio.
