Climber

You are talking about prices of houses in capitalism, houses would be worth very little in social capitalism, in reality there's so many empty homes lying around the place owned by the super rich, this isn't just a millionaire's 100 percent inheritance tax, it's anyone richer than 1 million, there are actually multibillionaire's in this world, and most have only rose to the top because of what they've inherited, ultimately because of inheritance everyone else has to pay for it, it's much worse than a welfare state could ever be.
 
This party would make banks run publicly as well as all major corporations, if you think back to the 2007 crash, the UK bailed out the banks half a trillion hence why we're descending even further into debt, they screwed so many people over from taking huge risks with other people's money, now the average man is paying.
 
By the way we're not taxing people in life, it's an inheritance tax. There will be an initial tax, but just to free the world from the super rich, many would see a tax like this as jealousy but it's actually because of the super rich that so many people don't succeed in life, they have little opportunity, you have to have money to make money. But we're not socialists, we want equal opportunity with unequal outcomes, people should be allowed to better themselves, but not to a point where nobody else has a chance to rise up to the same positions as them. Most bankers are from private schools, they knew people to get where they wanted to go, whereas the average man is always kind of cut off from connections, isn't given the opportunity and doesn't have the money to get that kind of education.
 
I agree that much of politics is utter crap, but this is a new idea, I've had so many debates with people and they are focused on dogma, but dogma will never move us forward, it's about trying new things.

I can't see a Millionaires 100% inheritance tax being popular. I would hope you realise that technically being a millionaire doesn't mean that you are rich. With property prices at the level they are, many of us are paper millionaires simply because we own a reasonable house in a decent location. In many parts of the country, anyone owning an average home will be half way to being a millionaire.
 
I will resist the temptation to turn this post into a rant, but it reminds me of a lot of the nonsense I have been reading recently (with the election looming) regarding the levels of income at which many seem to think we should be taxed ridiculous percentages of our income. Obviously, to anyone working for minimum wage 150 grand a year seems like a fortune. The reality is, however, that it's not.
 
In answer to your question, yes advertising and activism are similar. In fact, any activist will have much more success with a decent strategic marketing plan in place.

I can see a time in the future where web "design" is obsolete. I know it's sci-fi but look at how people access information on computer screens in Star Trek TNG - there's basically one standard interface that data can be viewed on, nothing fancy, straight to the point. Let's face it, when you interact with information on the web or any computer system you don't need a gazillion layouts or designs, you only need one that's best suited to the content. Perhaps in future there will be a handful of different "styles" you can use, maybe high/low contrast, light or dark, and perhaps systems will be clever enough to arrange content on screens automatically in the optimal way.

The process was tested on service based clients, so mobile locksmiths, landscape gardeners, builders etc ... each ranks their ROI based upon increase in call / enquires to quote for work.
 
For me it's down to when you consult each section of the development process and how much planning goes into the initial stages. So if the client is a landscape gardener who operates from Windsor + 30 miles, they are in the mid to high cost bracket (e.g. most houses they landscape for are 400k+) and they don't just lay a patio but also select the right types of plants for the sun / region then it's at this point you need to discuss with the team how best to approach this.
 
Ask the SEO team SEO team how they want to approach the 'location landscaping company' search terms and what sections / landing pages they will need.
Ask the db / backend developer how this data needs to be stored, what data fields will be required etc, how they can structure the site for internal site flow, path checkers etc.
Ask the design team how they can turn this page structure into a UX / mobile friendly site based on the requirements.
Ask the copy writers how they can utilise the landing pages, how they can work the seo terms required.
 
If you get these guys to input as a group the finished project is seamless and the residual work for the SEO team is a lot easier as they have exactly what they needed built into the site.
 
The other thing is working out how much input the client wants, needs etc and what level of content they will be adding if they get a CMS. Most sites I built which rank have a real cut down cms, basic stuff like showcase folders etc but even then I see what their ability / commitment is. It's pointless making a CMS which does everythig if the client never uses it. It's pointless making a single page per showcase if they only ever have 1 sentence and 2 photos. It's always horses for courses, one size never fits all.
 
Essentially here would be a great dev team ... their projects always look the bomb, are well finished and push the boundaries, but notice how they all work their own magic before anything begins
 
https://youtu.be/P3sBc5QSVW8?t=6m47s

That's right now but you'll inevitably face the need to supply things like ecommerce and more "complex" features, even if it's the 1 in 10.
 
Having done similar work in the past the biggest issue I've found is the "middleman" promising things to the client that are unrealistic for the budget, or the inevitable scope creep. I'd say the best thing you could possible do is involve your designer/developer in right from the start.

Hell yeah.
 
I've done a lot of research into interlocking parts of a development team, the hassle to implement and obviously the performance of the delivered website. If certain key areas get looked at before other processes then the outcome will outweigh the cost. Developing in this managed method doesn't come cheap, that said the test subjects of the fully managed service i've tested are creaming the serps, some seeing 30 - 40% traffic gains vs the same period last year.
 
If you can crack this nut then I'm all ears, but sourcing clients of this calibre is hard. I find the best investors are always existing clients as they have experience what happened when they invested say £5k, and can only imagine what you could do with £8k.

Sounds great and I for one would be interested
 
The only downside I can see is a possible cost pressure?
 
Another point is how would you prevent and deal with scope creep?

Sounds great,
 
I personally would love the idea as long as I could negotiate my own price and have my own contract and not a 3rd party one. I would also need to opportunity to talk to the client directly at times because of the need to know information that a middle man cannot supply
 
Just some food for thought.

Teodora, thanks for your reply.
 
As far as cost goes, it's obviously a consideration (and the numbers wouldn't stack up for anyone wanting a quick £500 site), but generally due to increased efficiency it doesn't actually add to the price. If the web designer can save a day or 2 based on the increased efficiency, and the client can get a site built around a decent marketing strategy, everyone's a winner.
 
The 'scope creep' you mention is a good point, and up to this point has been dealt with on an individual basis. For some clients I write the copy for the site, where as with others I have no 'hands on' input at all. I always have a 45-60 minute telephone consultation with the client prior to offering this service anyway, so it's a good time to 'manage expectations'.
 
I'm currently arranging for a stonemason's site to have an overhaul. He has already found himself a designer, an on-page SEO guy, and also a copywriter, so my job is to work out a strategic marketing plan, and then act a bit like an orchestra's conductor, to ensure all the other pro's are all pulling in the right direction.

If you can't keep it civilised, I'll close the thread.

Quite right. If they understood it, they wouldn't be tutors. Those who can, do, and all that. LOL.

Sounds interesting to me. I remember someone wrote a bunch of copywriting threads ages ago, to help the community understand a little more about it.

I remember getting done some years ago now for forgetting to renew my road tax. Got a fixed penalty notice for it.
 
Perhaps I should have gone to court and argued the new red disc would have clashed with the blue theme of my van.

If I tell you why you are wrong, we are going to go round in circles again.
 
I've made my opinion on this thread clear. The OP can either follow my advice or not.
 
I have been talking with Ben about starting a series of marketing related threads to provide some valuable info for the members here. Ill make sure that one of the first is why a small service based business doesn't need a brand, just for you.

The logos above link to UK recognised bodies including a government department. You may not be allowed to change their 'brand' by redesigning the logos and they could insist that they are changed back whilst the site is taken down until they are.
 
The purpose of these logos is to inform potential clients that the business operates within the guidelines and/or regulations of those accrediting bodies. To that end potential clients expect to see them as they are and will immediately recognise them by the branding.
 
Wonder if anyone would want to change the branding of a bank, card handler or PayPal?
 
Think anyone would want to click on some 'spoofy' looking link to Mastercard?
 
You must always check the guidelines of any other business or organisation to see what they allow with regard to their branding. If you can't find anything simply email them and ask. I've done this in the past and if they are amenable they have simply asked to see the redesign before it goes live.

I'm not saying it's not important, in fact completely the opposite. Design done right, is hugely important.
 
My point really, is that design only works if it uses the foundation of a decent marketing strategy.
 
My view is that marketing tells you what to say, and design finds the best way of getting the message across, taking into account the target audience, the medium used, and all sorts of other factors. Factors which, the average 'make it pretty' designers, simply don't understand.
 
FYI, I know you are not a 'make it pretty' type of designer.

put it this way, if we agreed, the conversation would be over and we would not learn any more, its our duty to argue, no matter how stupid it sounds so we can learn more

You have missed the point. You are not doing a better job by trying to mess about with the logo's so they look pretty, you are doing a worse job. The logo's should be used as the various bodies intended them to look. Changing them will serve no useful purpose.

Now I think we are getting somewhere. I think I see what you mean.
 
When you say that designers don't choose the meaning, I think that hit's the nail on the head. The job of design is to communicate that meaning in the way which will best 'speak to' the target. From my point of view, the selection of the target, the meaning, and the message are marketing. How we choose to communicate that message is design. An overly simplistic outline I know, but one that I think gets us at least a step closer to agreement.
 
What do you think?

It's relevant to all design, all design comes under that bracket, you can't say that one type of design will have meaning and another won't, meaning comes in all shapes and sizes, as does design but designers don't choose that meaning the client does, sometimes we don't get a choice on delivery, but we would prefer it if we could, the client specify what they are trying to achieve and we, using theory, behavioural studies and lots of other techniques will come up with a suitable solution to meet those needs.

What exactly are we supposed to judge? From a marketing perspective, the roofing one is best. From a design perspective (which I suppose is a little irrelevant) I have no idea.

Good point. We should think of a more complex voting system in the future, however for now it's just a good fun, nothing too serious

You may have platinum membership, but now we can't all see that you are member of the week, month, and foreseeable future.

Member of the decade™

Designers get caught up on how things look. It's much more important to get the essentials right.
 
You should work out exactly what your message is (and how you are going to persuade people to part with their money), and then use design to make it pretty afterwards.
 
You don't build a business around a brand, you build a brand around your business.