Now, I don't know if the person that owns this website is a member of this forum but in either case. This is ridiculous.

http://www.drupal.com.au/

Whoever owns this is charging upwards of 750 dollars or australian currency for a DRUPAL website, if you look at his examples, none of these should have taken him more then a few hours AT THE MOST to complete.

I put up websites for business that use Drupal for FREE or very little charge because the effort is so minimal. I am not upset, it was just humorous to me what people will pay when they don't know any better.

Comments

dtj’s picture

If you want to run a charity, that's fine. On the other hand, if you're in the business of making money then you should admire a person who's able to leverage Drupal for business use.

If you think you can do what he does for less, then you should compete with this guy. Let the market decide who's the best.

blindsay’s picture

Your misunderstanding my point. What I am trying to say is that he is charging an abundant amount for a free application, like someone giving you access to a free recipe that you didn't create and selling the cakes for a $100 dollars when it only took you 5 minutes to bake it.

Just seems abit slanted to me.

budda’s picture

I don't see the problem here?

The guy is charging $750 for his time to configure/theme/develope modules for a business website.

It's his time, not the Drupal core that he is probably charging for. I do the same, although it's more like thousands per site than a few hundred dollars...

And whenever I create some new module for a client, I usually release it for free for other Drupal users too ;)

--
www.bargainspy.co.uk | More Drupal modules

dtj’s picture

Even though you're being hyperbolic in your criticism, it likely took several hours to get those websites from concept to production. In creating a website for a business (or any client, for that matter), you've often got a lot of preparatory work before you even touch the "site settings" menu. As a consultant, you should consider all the hours you spend on a project when determining a price.

With Drupal, the work leading up to the launch of a "simple" site should be more difficult than the technical work required to actually setup and configure the site. That's the beauty of Drupal and that's the reason why you can roll a website for a fraction of what you'd charge a client in ages past (i.e. $A750 today versus $A7500 yesterday).

rnsi’s picture

This also includes 1 year of hosting. That's $A62 /mo or about $46USD. That's not a bad price.

joel_guesclin’s picture

Anyone who thinks that putting up a web site is just a matter of slapping a few pages together is an incurable optimist or else very lucky. I would reckon that the cost of setting up even a simple site would follow the old 20/80 rule: 20% of the time setting up the website, 80% of the time helping the client to explain what he wants from it.

Oh yes, and then there's the time you spend waiting for clients, when NOBODY is paying you! Perhaps a holiday? Oh yes, you might get sick too.

By the way, did you know that A$750 is less than £350? When I last looked yer average freelance programmer in the UK could expect to make maybe £450-£500 per day. Plus expenses. So I reckon he's working at a cheap rate.

Nice to know that you can make a living out of Drupal. Good on yer, mate!

budda’s picture

Well said. £500 a day would be nice. Maybe next year...

--
www.bargainspy.co.uk | More Drupal modules

reikiman’s picture

In it RMS expands on different angles to how the heck programmers can make money and have food to eat if the software is free. The main theme is services and support.

That's what this drupal.com.au place is doing - services and support.

Face it, setting up and configuring drupal isn't exactly easy. Getting the base thingy installed is okay, but it has a few hurdles that true neophytes couldn't handle. Then if you want to customize it beyond that, well....

- David Herron - http://7gen.com/

webgeer’s picture

I don't think there is anything wrong with charging for setting up a website.

I am a little concerned that by using the drupal.com.au domain name, referring to his company as "Drupal CMS Consulting" and then referencing websites that are created by Drupal and not really clearly differentiating between Drupal the content management system and his company Drupal CMS Consulting, he could be giving people the impression that he is responsible for Drupal and that he designed those websites.

I think he really has at least a moral (and probably legal) responsibility to have a little more information about Drupal, and a link to drupal.org and clearly differentiate between "Drupal CMS Consulting" and "Drupal".

dtj’s picture

Webgeer, you're not linking to Drupal on any of your websites. Although, in fariness, you do state on your homepage:

"Webgeer Media is involved in publishing a number of webpages. Some use a custom Content Management System that we developed and other use Drupal (often with custom modules)."

Which is a little vague on the point of what Drupal actually is.

Also, I don't think use of Drupal legally obligates any of us to link to Drupal.org. A person might feel that good business ethics dictate a credit to Drupal, however.

webgeer’s picture

My primary point was that his company name and the webpage leaves the impression to the naive reader that his company "Drupal CMS consulting" is responsible for Drupal. Read the webpage again, as someone who would naturally believe that "Drupal" is just a shortened version of his company name "Drupal CMS Consulting".

As for my website. I don't sell my services as a website designer to others. All of our website are owned and run by us. My website is not a solicitation for business. There is a huge difference.

dtj’s picture

If I was a naive person and I really cared to investigate Drupal, I'd probabaly do this or this.

Besides, in what way is a person doing harm if they adopt the Drupal name? I don't think he's diminishing the value of Drupal in the least. (You might be able to claim trademark dilution if "Drupal" were a federally recognized mark, but it's not a recognized mark in the United States and it's not in Australia.)