Whitelabeling Details
Permalink 2 users found helpful
Many mid sized agencies love using concrete5. They also want to own the relationship with their clients and are concerned our logo and marketplace integration gets in the way. Currently they hack out our branding in different ways, all of which is legal. These private labeled concrete5 installs become difficult to upgrade, don’t encourage proper license use of add-ons, and generally seem like a band-aid solution to a real need that might generate revenue for concrete5.
Our plan is to create an add-on that comes as part of joining certain levels of our partner programs. This add-on would:
o.. Let agencies co-brand concrete5 with their logo as the primary in the right corner of the toolbar, and in TinyMCE, with a “powered by concrete5” showing up much smaller in fewer places.
o.. Disable/remove the add functionality page in the dashboard for anyone who isn’t in the “webAgency” user group.
o.. Ability to insert their own news items into the news feed.
o.. Disable/remove Add from Marketplace in the add block UI.
o.. Ability to introduce approval mechanisms so your clients can browser add-ons but you get alerted/requested on their install.
o.. Disable/remove the Browse themes tab in the Design drop down.
o.. Remove the Customize button from the theme management page in Dashboard.
o.. Remove the core themes.
o.. Disable the Design window for the block area and block instances.
o.. Disable layouts.
o.. Make the help page link load any URL in the window, or send a private message to the concrete5 partner account associated with the agency. - support through project page?
o.. Disable Update notice
o.. Control your own seed content for the site.
o.. Pass a starting point package through the cPanel addon?
o.. Marketplace curation:
o.. Make sets of blocks & themes you want to make available to clients.
o.. Modify sets on an instance basis.
o.. Add your own themes & add-ons for private delivery. No PRB.
Difficult Questions:
Q: Can I quit at any time?
A: Yes. Your client sites will remain the same unless they want to get updates. At that point they will be notified that you are no longer a white-labeling partner with concrete5 and their site will look and function like a normal concrete5 site.
Q: What happens when things don’t work out with a client?
A: You turn on the white labeling feature with the root admin account and then give the client their own login. If you and the client want to break your relationship, simply turn off the white labeling feature and the site will function like a normal concrete5 site.
We don’t get involved with any conflict resolution. If we’re hosting the site, we change admin passwords for the billing contact. We reserve the right to exclude anyone from the white-labeling program for any reason without notice.
Q: What does it cost?
A: Hrrrmmm... well we could make up some tiers... or we could just say its free to setup but you have to be a Pro to use it more than once.. ($99/mo)
Thoughts?
Things we're not including that would make it more appetizing?
Our plan is to create an add-on that comes as part of joining certain levels of our partner programs. This add-on would:
o.. Let agencies co-brand concrete5 with their logo as the primary in the right corner of the toolbar, and in TinyMCE, with a “powered by concrete5” showing up much smaller in fewer places.
o.. Disable/remove the add functionality page in the dashboard for anyone who isn’t in the “webAgency” user group.
o.. Ability to insert their own news items into the news feed.
o.. Disable/remove Add from Marketplace in the add block UI.
o.. Ability to introduce approval mechanisms so your clients can browser add-ons but you get alerted/requested on their install.
o.. Disable/remove the Browse themes tab in the Design drop down.
o.. Remove the Customize button from the theme management page in Dashboard.
o.. Remove the core themes.
o.. Disable the Design window for the block area and block instances.
o.. Disable layouts.
o.. Make the help page link load any URL in the window, or send a private message to the concrete5 partner account associated with the agency. - support through project page?
o.. Disable Update notice
o.. Control your own seed content for the site.
o.. Pass a starting point package through the cPanel addon?
o.. Marketplace curation:
o.. Make sets of blocks & themes you want to make available to clients.
o.. Modify sets on an instance basis.
o.. Add your own themes & add-ons for private delivery. No PRB.
Difficult Questions:
Q: Can I quit at any time?
A: Yes. Your client sites will remain the same unless they want to get updates. At that point they will be notified that you are no longer a white-labeling partner with concrete5 and their site will look and function like a normal concrete5 site.
Q: What happens when things don’t work out with a client?
A: You turn on the white labeling feature with the root admin account and then give the client their own login. If you and the client want to break your relationship, simply turn off the white labeling feature and the site will function like a normal concrete5 site.
We don’t get involved with any conflict resolution. If we’re hosting the site, we change admin passwords for the billing contact. We reserve the right to exclude anyone from the white-labeling program for any reason without notice.
Q: What does it cost?
A: Hrrrmmm... well we could make up some tiers... or we could just say its free to setup but you have to be a Pro to use it more than once.. ($99/mo)
Thoughts?
Things we're not including that would make it more appetizing?
I'd say for pricing have tiers- if you're reselling it, you can say its proprietary, which is worth at least $20 a month. Then as you're going up your tiers include more and more features.
well we'd keep a "powered by concrete5" in there, just subtle.
I don't think we'd let you get away with saying its proprietary.
I hear the appeal of tiers, but I also tend to think we've got a lot
of pricing out there already and I don't want this to get confused
with hosting, etc...
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
I don't think we'd let you get away with saying its proprietary.
I hear the appeal of tiers, but I also tend to think we've got a lot
of pricing out there already and I don't want this to get confused
with hosting, etc...
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
I'm not in the target audience for this, so I don't have anything useful to add -- but I'm curious why "disable layouts" is in the features list (doesn't seem to have anything to do with white-labeling like everything else in there does)?
there are already defines for disabling layouts and the design tab,
layouts are buggy, and slow, so I disable them
layouts are buggy, and slow, so I disable them
i've met plenty a creative director that is angry that a content column is single pixel left or right of where it should be. Letting the client chop something up into bits on the fly makes them cry.
I like the layout thingy, my clients love it as well.
I think this is a good idea.
I replace the dashboard single page with a google analytics snapshot, many of my clients like to see the stats there against going to google analytics. So, an addon of that would be cool feature and a plus.
I am interested, the pricing is a bit high but will see.
I think this is a good idea.
I replace the dashboard single page with a google analytics snapshot, many of my clients like to see the stats there against going to google analytics. So, an addon of that would be cool feature and a plus.
I am interested, the pricing is a bit high but will see.
@frz what about having our own marketplace for our customers? that would be a nice feature. What I mean is for us to upload all of our addons and attach our own marketplace on it. Also, in case our customers add an addon, get some percentage from the sale of c5's addons.
Yeah that's the whole Curation bit towards the end. Upload your own
packages and privately give them to your customers. I suppose we could
let you sell them to your customers too.
We've considered adding an affiliate percentage back on your client
purchases from the marketplace.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
packages and privately give them to your customers. I suppose we could
let you sell them to your customers too.
We've considered adding an affiliate percentage back on your client
purchases from the marketplace.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
cool! :)
any further consideration to the marketplace piece? (just askin'!)
not the highest thing on our radar. Seems like a lot of pain for very little reward.
I don't like the Pro idea, the price is way to high for any of the benefits. Sorry guys but I feel Pro Accounts are just a sting but if it works for those that have it then fantastic.
All the features are valid and would be nice.
If it was a made into a block that say cost $15-$20 per site and sold in the market place then it may be worth it.
I can hear some people crying out 'what about all the hard work that has gone into the block' and that is a very fair point but I feel that if you make the add-on more affordable you will sell more of them in the long run and should make a few more bucks than turning people off because your block cost $50+.
Any more than that and it is really just as simple to hack the stuff out.
I would be happy to pay to cut out that extra bit of hassle.
I think you could sell a lot of this type of block.
Lots of us little web shops would like the features.
On the topic of customers buying blocks:
Not sure if getting a kick back if a customer buys an addon is such a great idea (for me only, we are all different).
If one of my customer want extra functionality then they contact me to advise them, then install and customise it for their site.
I am not really in the business of tidying up customers sites because they have over enthusiastically tried to do it themselves, even if such a tidy up did make me money.
What would be nice is a loyalty scheme for buying add-ons for developers (no not just the Pro account people), the more you buy the bigger discount you get, sliding scale or points based whatever works for you.
There are of course customers that we would trust to install blocks but in my case they are few and far between and I always buy the block on their behalf.
If a relationship breaks down, as mentioned somewhere above, I would simply get the customer to create a C5 account and assign the licences over to them and if the white label block had been installed then I would un-install it.
Just my 2p's worth.
Have a great weekend everyone.
All the features are valid and would be nice.
If it was a made into a block that say cost $15-$20 per site and sold in the market place then it may be worth it.
I can hear some people crying out 'what about all the hard work that has gone into the block' and that is a very fair point but I feel that if you make the add-on more affordable you will sell more of them in the long run and should make a few more bucks than turning people off because your block cost $50+.
Any more than that and it is really just as simple to hack the stuff out.
I would be happy to pay to cut out that extra bit of hassle.
I think you could sell a lot of this type of block.
Lots of us little web shops would like the features.
On the topic of customers buying blocks:
Not sure if getting a kick back if a customer buys an addon is such a great idea (for me only, we are all different).
If one of my customer want extra functionality then they contact me to advise them, then install and customise it for their site.
I am not really in the business of tidying up customers sites because they have over enthusiastically tried to do it themselves, even if such a tidy up did make me money.
What would be nice is a loyalty scheme for buying add-ons for developers (no not just the Pro account people), the more you buy the bigger discount you get, sliding scale or points based whatever works for you.
There are of course customers that we would trust to install blocks but in my case they are few and far between and I always buy the block on their behalf.
If a relationship breaks down, as mentioned somewhere above, I would simply get the customer to create a C5 account and assign the licences over to them and if the white label block had been installed then I would un-install it.
Just my 2p's worth.
Have a great weekend everyone.
i just moved this thread about whitelabeling from the private leaders area to the public chit chat forum for more feedback
The powered by Concrete5 would be a deal breaker for me. We design websites and you give them away for free....period. If one of my clients could simply google you and find you on there own and even one of them decided to go directly through you and get a free or inexpensive template that just cost me a ton of money. If you're even thinking about making that something that is definitely going to happen please let me know so I can stop moving my sites over to Concrete5.
Another reason $99 a month is way to high is because you can do everything you mentioned now for free.. And none of the other open source content management systems charge that by their very definition.
There has to be a big incentive no to just slap a brand new proprietary content management system on a credit card and pay $99 per month as a minimum payment.
Those are just my thoughts. Thanks for your consideration.
Another reason $99 a month is way to high is because you can do everything you mentioned now for free.. And none of the other open source content management systems charge that by their very definition.
There has to be a big incentive no to just slap a brand new proprietary content management system on a credit card and pay $99 per month as a minimum payment.
Those are just my thoughts. Thanks for your consideration.
I'd be happy to license this add-on on a per site basis like every other add-on.
The Pro program delivers little value at this stage, and I concur with the above comments, I wouldn't shell out $100 a month for this.
The Pro program delivers little value at this stage, and I concur with the above comments, I wouldn't shell out $100 a month for this.
I don't see any reason why the whitelabeling stuff has to be connected
to the pro accounts. I was just shooting for simplicity.
I'd love to keep the thread focused on detailing the features desired
around the whitelabeling stuff..
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
to the pro accounts. I was just shooting for simplicity.
I'd love to keep the thread focused on detailing the features desired
around the whitelabeling stuff..
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
Hey Franz,
I like the idea a lot. It would simplify my relationship with my clients but I REALLY prefer a one time charge per site or something similar. I have no problem posting credit where credit is due and leaving C5 logos etc. in the site(if my clients understood more, they'd not have hired me in the first place) but adding my own "mark" adds perceived value to my labor.
However: Dashboard links, news, documentation, Add Functionality, Pages and Themes etc. potentially cut me out of the loop and I'd rather have a "pre-formatted" package for certain clients to keep the temptation of tinkering with the site out of sight :)
I unfortunately have a current client who confused easy accessibility with being easy to redo his website without any help... and is now so frustrated he blames C5 (and probably me) for his self made problems! (He's now switched to WP on his own is is suffering even more problems lol).
I like the idea a lot. It would simplify my relationship with my clients but I REALLY prefer a one time charge per site or something similar. I have no problem posting credit where credit is due and leaving C5 logos etc. in the site(if my clients understood more, they'd not have hired me in the first place) but adding my own "mark" adds perceived value to my labor.
However: Dashboard links, news, documentation, Add Functionality, Pages and Themes etc. potentially cut me out of the loop and I'd rather have a "pre-formatted" package for certain clients to keep the temptation of tinkering with the site out of sight :)
I unfortunately have a current client who confused easy accessibility with being easy to redo his website without any help... and is now so frustrated he blames C5 (and probably me) for his self made problems! (He's now switched to WP on his own is is suffering even more problems lol).
I think we'd make that stuff pretty configurable for just that reason.
I also think we should shelve the pricing part of this discussion. I'm
not sure how to price it but if there's actual value there I'm sure
there's an answer.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
I also think we should shelve the pricing part of this discussion. I'm
not sure how to price it but if there's actual value there I'm sure
there's an answer.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
2p more
How about 2 blocks (shhh don't mention money), 1 for labels and one for features/functions.
How about 2 blocks (shhh don't mention money), 1 for labels and one for features/functions.
Hey Franz - finally getting around to chucking some thoughts in :)
Firstly, I know you said don't mention pricing, BUT, I believe you're right, there is value in it. Whitelabeling is only of interest to agencies who wish to leave their own mark on the CMS dashboard and we're making money by selling the site.
I think having 'Powered by Concrete5' left on it, is a sales tool, not a sales killer. If I can't add more value to Concrete5 for my clients than they can add themselves by downloading it and trying to set it all up for free by themselves, then I'm in the wrong business. As you know, I make a very big deal out of the fact that I use C5 and it's a free CMS.
I like the features and ideas that you've come up with above. What would be absolutely killer for me, is some kind of widget interface for the dashboard - a bit like iGoogle. Widgets could be free, paid for, custom built - I don't care really, but I'd like to be able to point and click what goes in there, and then lock it down, so the client can't alter it. For example, I'd have a widget that opens a support ticket in my ZenDesk, a widget that shows Google Analytics, a widget that shows the latest news from my blog / twitter account (not that there would be anything worth reading there...) - you get the idea. Sure, I can build all of this myself, but a customizable, drag and drop dashboard with a widget market place - Cool :)
Jon
Firstly, I know you said don't mention pricing, BUT, I believe you're right, there is value in it. Whitelabeling is only of interest to agencies who wish to leave their own mark on the CMS dashboard and we're making money by selling the site.
I think having 'Powered by Concrete5' left on it, is a sales tool, not a sales killer. If I can't add more value to Concrete5 for my clients than they can add themselves by downloading it and trying to set it all up for free by themselves, then I'm in the wrong business. As you know, I make a very big deal out of the fact that I use C5 and it's a free CMS.
I like the features and ideas that you've come up with above. What would be absolutely killer for me, is some kind of widget interface for the dashboard - a bit like iGoogle. Widgets could be free, paid for, custom built - I don't care really, but I'd like to be able to point and click what goes in there, and then lock it down, so the client can't alter it. For example, I'd have a widget that opens a support ticket in my ZenDesk, a widget that shows Google Analytics, a widget that shows the latest news from my blog / twitter account (not that there would be anything worth reading there...) - you get the idea. Sure, I can build all of this myself, but a customizable, drag and drop dashboard with a widget market place - Cool :)
Jon
Hey Franz, my 2c
As a developer, the pro account really doesn't benefit me all that much at this time. So $99 for whitelabeling would be way out of reach still.
Selfishly, my vote is for $25-$45 per site labeling. I would pay that respectfully.
As far as co-branding...I like everything you added in there. Very well thought out. It's obvious you have been listening to what people are hacking away at.
1) I definitely think you should make money on this. I just don't think its $1,200/yr value for co-branding.
2) perhaps 2 options? full branding for $1k/yr and then co-branding for like one time $35?
Chad
As a developer, the pro account really doesn't benefit me all that much at this time. So $99 for whitelabeling would be way out of reach still.
Selfishly, my vote is for $25-$45 per site labeling. I would pay that respectfully.
As far as co-branding...I like everything you added in there. Very well thought out. It's obvious you have been listening to what people are hacking away at.
1) I definitely think you should make money on this. I just don't think its $1,200/yr value for co-branding.
2) perhaps 2 options? full branding for $1k/yr and then co-branding for like one time $35?
Chad
I think Chad has hit the nail on the head in his post.
His suggestion for 2 options for branding sounds like a worker to me. I personally would never want to completely remove Concrete5 brand from the site as I would never be crazy enough to say this is my CMS, it is their product and I am just privileged to use it.
I just want to be able to put my logo on next to the C5 one or solo in the some cases.
I think it would be neat if there was an option to turn off or on the features suggested by Franz so a developer can decide what suits them and their customer.
His suggestion for 2 options for branding sounds like a worker to me. I personally would never want to completely remove Concrete5 brand from the site as I would never be crazy enough to say this is my CMS, it is their product and I am just privileged to use it.
I just want to be able to put my logo on next to the C5 one or solo in the some cases.
I think it would be neat if there was an option to turn off or on the features suggested by Franz so a developer can decide what suits them and their customer.
Keep it simple and just White Label it.
Other CMS companies offer this feature as a one time very small charge and it completely removes the CMS name from the site, back end, and even the code.
It would be of no use to me if C5 was co-branded on there.
I started the other thread on this over 6 months ago and have been wanting it ever since.
I can't wait to see it.
Other CMS companies offer this feature as a one time very small charge and it completely removes the CMS name from the site, back end, and even the code.
It would be of no use to me if C5 was co-branded on there.
I started the other thread on this over 6 months ago and have been wanting it ever since.
I can't wait to see it.
A few lines of CSS takes care of white labeling on the frontend, and then a few more lines in the base css files for the backend. Shhhh don't tell anyone! lol
Place this underneath the header required in your theme header:
And this at the end of your ccm.dashboard.css file:
There, all concrete5 logo images are gone! For professional reasons, I prefer not having the concrete5 logo image, but I do like the powered by concrete5 links. Concrete5 is something well worth being a selling point in my view, and I don't agree with trying to pass it off as your own program.
Place this underneath the header required in your theme header:
div#ccm-logo-wrapper img, #ccm-logo-wrapper, #ccm-page-controls img { display: none !important; } div#ccm-page-controls ul#ccm-main-nav { margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 49px; position: absolute; left: -49px; } div.ccm-editor-controls { background: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(#FFF), to(#e7e7e7)); background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #FFF, #e7e7e7); border-radius: 5px; } div.ccm-editor-controls div.ccm-editor-controls-right-cap {
Viewing 15 lines of 18 lines. View entire code block.
And this at the end of your ccm.dashboard.css file:
div#ccm-dashboard-header a img { display: none; }
There, all concrete5 logo images are gone! For professional reasons, I prefer not having the concrete5 logo image, but I do like the powered by concrete5 links. Concrete5 is something well worth being a selling point in my view, and I don't agree with trying to pass it off as your own program.
Just another view point. Though I feel credit is due where it is deserved and I leave the logos and powered by links on the sites I create, c5 is released under the MIT license. Which in short means, "Do what ever you want with my program, just don't sue me if it breaks anything you own."
In that respect, though you should NOT claim the software was written by YOU, you do have the right to remove any indication that Concrete CMS Inc. had anything to do with it's creation, except remove the LICENSE.TXT file.
However, I have found that my clients prefer to know that the software being used has a large community that stands behind it. And keeping the c5 name and logos preserves that feeling of security. After-all, people do like their symbols.
In that respect, though you should NOT claim the software was written by YOU, you do have the right to remove any indication that Concrete CMS Inc. had anything to do with it's creation, except remove the LICENSE.TXT file.
However, I have found that my clients prefer to know that the software being used has a large community that stands behind it. And keeping the c5 name and logos preserves that feeling of security. After-all, people do like their symbols.
Actually.. Concrete has stated several times throughout their site that they have no problem at all with re-branding this product. That is the only reason I even considered switching to it as I really don't feel like adverting to my paying design clients that they could simply push a button and have a free templates supplied by the company we use. The one thing I think you're not factoring in are the people that have spent thousands of dollars modifying it from it's current state.
Right, I wasn't saying white labeling is wrong. However, claiming you wrote the entire software package has it's own moral/ethical implications.
And trust me, I've put thousands of *hours* in to c5, so I understand the investment.
Don't get me wrong, given particular clients, I certainly understand why white branding is an appropriate solution. However, in the open source world (regardless of the free beer / free-dom argument), recognition IS payment.
Personally, it just doesn't sit well with me to take and not give back. As long as as the person gives back to the community, they should feel free to white-label-away.
However, the legal perspective is different. Giving back isn't a requirement.
And trust me, I've put thousands of *hours* in to c5, so I understand the investment.
Don't get me wrong, given particular clients, I certainly understand why white branding is an appropriate solution. However, in the open source world (regardless of the free beer / free-dom argument), recognition IS payment.
Personally, it just doesn't sit well with me to take and not give back. As long as as the person gives back to the community, they should feel free to white-label-away.
However, the legal perspective is different. Giving back isn't a requirement.
I second this opinion and I'd also go one step further. If you give the impression that the CMS is your own creation, you're also responsible for fixing any bugs or anything else that might go t*ts up.
I'd much prefer to say to a client, look here is a great CMS that thousands of other people are using and I'm happy to recommend it. But ultimately it isn't made by us and therefore if there are any bugs or one day it's no longer supported, we're not to blame.
For this reason removing all traces of Concrete5 branding isn't a concern to us. However the news feed thing and being able to add our own branding sounds like a great idea. Not sure about $99 a month though. I'd have no problem paying a one off fee of $99 (possibly more) for each site we build using Concrete5 simply because I think it's such a good product. But not as a monthly fee and not for simply white-labelling it.
I'd much prefer to say to a client, look here is a great CMS that thousands of other people are using and I'm happy to recommend it. But ultimately it isn't made by us and therefore if there are any bugs or one day it's no longer supported, we're not to blame.
For this reason removing all traces of Concrete5 branding isn't a concern to us. However the news feed thing and being able to add our own branding sounds like a great idea. Not sure about $99 a month though. I'd have no problem paying a one off fee of $99 (possibly more) for each site we build using Concrete5 simply because I think it's such a good product. But not as a monthly fee and not for simply white-labelling it.
I agree with this. However, support is a whole different type of "product".
I can sell you a car, and I can fix your car, but that doesn't mean I designed or built it. You know what I mean?
Then again that analogy breaks down when we start talking about the price of the car.
I can sell you a car, and I can fix your car, but that doesn't mean I designed or built it. You know what I mean?
Then again that analogy breaks down when we start talking about the price of the car.
Yes that's true, but if you sold me a car you wouldn't rip the Ford badge off the front and stick your own badge in its place, and make out you designed the entire thing. And then act puzzled when there's an obscure fault and back-track and admit that you didn't design the entire thing afterall :)
Very true.
I have actually used C5 as the selling point to my service contracts.
"Here's a great system that's easy to develop your application with. It's free, and if you go with it, I'll spend less time developing and maintaining your product!"
Which is basically my way of saying, "Please don't make me use some proprietary system, or (god forbid) Joomla!/WordPress."
I have actually used C5 as the selling point to my service contracts.
"Here's a great system that's easy to develop your application with. It's free, and if you go with it, I'll spend less time developing and maintaining your product!"
Which is basically my way of saying, "Please don't make me use some proprietary system, or (god forbid) Joomla!/WordPress."
Here's what I think... We used to sell a proprietary fully custom CMS to customers that we spent two years building from the ground up.. We used to sell it for $219 a month with support, hosting, etc.. That was 10 years ago.. Today free content managegement systems like this one have driven the costs down so far it's not even worth it to build a custom CMS from the ground up because no one wants to pay for them.. Customers have no problem paying $500 plus a month for SEO.. but god forbid they spend half of that on the website they're paying to get people to. That's directly cutting into my ability to make a living. Customers had no problem paying $200 a month for this service as it was a lot cheaper than paying a web designer $50 a month. And that's true. I understand why Concrete5 is doing it.. They're making their money back with add-ons, hosting, etc.. And it's obviously making them enough money to pay their bills. But because these open source companies are driving the price of CMS's down to nothing it's directly cutting into our bottom line and making it impossible to invest in our own CMS built from the ground up. Add that onto the fact that none of the other open source content management systems require you to put their name on the cms's and the fact that Concrete5 is offering a hosted solutions for $50 a month and free templates that almost completely cut me out of the monthly fee all together.. and we really don't have a choice but to not point out the fact that we're using Concrete5 even if it is a modified version with more features. People resell things all the time without mentioning where they got them from or how much they paid for them. That's the entire definition of reselling. Apple buys their iPhones from a manufacturer in China. Do you think they put their name or how much they paid for it on your receipt? Of course not. Concrete5 had every opportunity to sell their product as opposed to give it away. And they chose to give it away. I'm assuming it's because now as a result of that they have thousands of users that are buying their add-ons and themes. It's a great business model for them that obviously pays off. Sorry to be long winded here.. but I also want to mention that the car companies don't take the Ford logos off their cars.. but I bet you they would if their customers could simply go to Ford directly and get the car for free.
First off, c5 doesn't require you to keep their name, branding, etc-
they just don't do it for you (yet). Also, Apple comes up with the
concept and the hardware required- they just get the companies in china
to mass produce the product. I think that jbx( or someone in this
thread) said it right- if you can't add value to a concrete5 website,
then you shouldn't be involved in web for a living. If you show your
customers what the basic one does and what your modified one does then
you should be well off, especially if your customers don't know about
the marketplace.
On 6/6/11 10:21 AM, Concrete5 Community wrote:
they just don't do it for you (yet). Also, Apple comes up with the
concept and the hardware required- they just get the companies in china
to mass produce the product. I think that jbx( or someone in this
thread) said it right- if you can't add value to a concrete5 website,
then you shouldn't be involved in web for a living. If you show your
customers what the basic one does and what your modified one does then
you should be well off, especially if your customers don't know about
the marketplace.
On 6/6/11 10:21 AM, Concrete5 Community wrote:
Ok.. Apple was a bad example.. But there are definitely resellers out there that don't put their costs in their product descriptions... or links to their suppliers.
I can absolutely add value to Concrete5 out of the box.. but I'd have to convince my clients and sell them on all of the differences.. why would I want to put myself in that position.. Especially when I'm comparing my product to one that is free.. Free is hard to compete with no matter how much value you add. Most customers would try and get something for free before they took your word for it and paid you for it.. whether it's for their own good or not. I'm just confused as to why I would want to put myself in that position. Especially when I get nothing for every client that I send to Concrete5 that ends up cutting me out of the deal and ends up spending hundreds of dollars on add-ons and themes. As a reseller I'm still going to purchase those add-ons for my clients.. it's just that I get to mark them up and make a profit. That's a normal supplier/reseller/end user relationship. Concrete5 is still getting paid for what they've chosen for a business model.. which is future add-ons, support, and themes.
I can absolutely add value to Concrete5 out of the box.. but I'd have to convince my clients and sell them on all of the differences.. why would I want to put myself in that position.. Especially when I'm comparing my product to one that is free.. Free is hard to compete with no matter how much value you add. Most customers would try and get something for free before they took your word for it and paid you for it.. whether it's for their own good or not. I'm just confused as to why I would want to put myself in that position. Especially when I get nothing for every client that I send to Concrete5 that ends up cutting me out of the deal and ends up spending hundreds of dollars on add-ons and themes. As a reseller I'm still going to purchase those add-ons for my clients.. it's just that I get to mark them up and make a profit. That's a normal supplier/reseller/end user relationship. Concrete5 is still getting paid for what they've chosen for a business model.. which is future add-ons, support, and themes.
You make many valid points. And to a degree, some car companies do take other cars, rip the badges off and slap on their own. I mean, look at the striking similarities between the Mazda2 and the Ford Fiesta... The Corvette and the Cadillac XRL... the Saturn Sky and the Pontiac Solstice... Chevy does a lot of business with Daewoo...
In the same respect, yes Apple slaps their logo on to some garbage product from China. But they paid the company for the product and the right to put their logo on it, and then up-charge it because their logo is on it. With c5, you don't have to pay for the product nor the right to white label.
And, you're absolutely right in that FREE open source products have changed the market, dramatically. And the "old way" of marketing your services has to change, or you're out of a job. Joe Schmoe, high schooler can, and is, building beautiful functional websites now. In fact, my 15yr old brother makes websites.
So what is marketable now is your expertise/experience. The fact that you've built a CMS before shows you know a thing or two, and aren't afraid to get under the hood and add a turbocharger, or three. I don't care how pretty of a site Joe can come up with, if [expletive for poop] hits the fan, Joe knows nothing about database management or likely has no experience in OOP. Aside from that lets talk about security and server management.
These are services you offer along with the pretty site you might spend 1-2 hours setting up for a client. If the client isn't willing to pay for those services either suck it up or drop them (not sure if this is for you or my subconscious telling me).
Bottom line is, the license lets you do what you want. But you have to weigh that against your sense of honor and humility. Again, in the open source world, *recognition* is payment. You absolutely have the right to strip the c5's recognition from the product. Personally, (and not always) I don't find this to be sensible. However, my web development business has turned into a consulting business. So my perspective might be different.
In the same respect, yes Apple slaps their logo on to some garbage product from China. But they paid the company for the product and the right to put their logo on it, and then up-charge it because their logo is on it. With c5, you don't have to pay for the product nor the right to white label.
And, you're absolutely right in that FREE open source products have changed the market, dramatically. And the "old way" of marketing your services has to change, or you're out of a job. Joe Schmoe, high schooler can, and is, building beautiful functional websites now. In fact, my 15yr old brother makes websites.
So what is marketable now is your expertise/experience. The fact that you've built a CMS before shows you know a thing or two, and aren't afraid to get under the hood and add a turbocharger, or three. I don't care how pretty of a site Joe can come up with, if [expletive for poop] hits the fan, Joe knows nothing about database management or likely has no experience in OOP. Aside from that lets talk about security and server management.
These are services you offer along with the pretty site you might spend 1-2 hours setting up for a client. If the client isn't willing to pay for those services either suck it up or drop them (not sure if this is for you or my subconscious telling me).
Bottom line is, the license lets you do what you want. But you have to weigh that against your sense of honor and humility. Again, in the open source world, *recognition* is payment. You absolutely have the right to strip the c5's recognition from the product. Personally, (and not always) I don't find this to be sensible. However, my web development business has turned into a consulting business. So my perspective might be different.
There's some very interesting and lively debate here, that's great.
The concept of building in white labeling features is a given. Its being done right now, so we kight as well make it easier. The details of what is included is just semantics. The reason why every web dev agency creates websites is to make a dollar, so the price of the white labeling option is THE most important feature.
Take a leaf out of Google's book. They worked out how to create a kick-ass advertising system which made them money. Just 1 thing. Many of their other web based services just piggy back that - eg. Gmail, google calendar, YouTube. All just different ways of showing ads.
The more users/traffic google gets, the more clicks they get on their ads. Could they charge for a service like YouTube? Absolutely! Would it be anywhere as popular? Nope.
I suggest you look longer term and provide white labelling for free. This will encourage more agencies to run with concrete5 and a larger base for the c5 marketplace. More users will encourage more developers to create add-ons and themes, and make more money for concrete5. A win-win for everyone. It's ok to use the marketplace as the cash cow, there's no need to try and force a new revenue stream. Simply expand what's already there, and thisnis the perfect opportunity.
The concept of building in white labeling features is a given. Its being done right now, so we kight as well make it easier. The details of what is included is just semantics. The reason why every web dev agency creates websites is to make a dollar, so the price of the white labeling option is THE most important feature.
Take a leaf out of Google's book. They worked out how to create a kick-ass advertising system which made them money. Just 1 thing. Many of their other web based services just piggy back that - eg. Gmail, google calendar, YouTube. All just different ways of showing ads.
The more users/traffic google gets, the more clicks they get on their ads. Could they charge for a service like YouTube? Absolutely! Would it be anywhere as popular? Nope.
I suggest you look longer term and provide white labelling for free. This will encourage more agencies to run with concrete5 and a larger base for the c5 marketplace. More users will encourage more developers to create add-ons and themes, and make more money for concrete5. A win-win for everyone. It's ok to use the marketplace as the cash cow, there's no need to try and force a new revenue stream. Simply expand what's already there, and thisnis the perfect opportunity.
Definitely agree that the Market Place is where the money is at. Heck, I've marked up people's add-ons 10 fold before. So it goes without saying, the MP makes money for everyone.
all very interesting. I like this debate and it's helping to see it
unfold a lot.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
unfold a lot.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
I must admit, I don't really care if clients can go and get C5 for themselves, for free, and cut us out. If they do that, it's not the type of client we'd really want anyway.
At the end of the day we're making money from:
1) Advising the client what is best for their needs - this may or may not involve C5 depending on their requirements, and the client will take our advice on this hence why they are paying us.
2) Free themes are one thing, but our clients all want their sites to be unique and custom-built. To do this well costs money.
3) In addition to a custom-built design, our clients want help and advice on marketing and SEO, along with hosting and technical support all of which we provide. C5 might be free but the other things I've mentioned generally aren't. C5 is just one piece in a big puzzle and unless the client wants to spend 10 years learning everything that we know, they're likely to come unstuck.
4) Basically we aren't making a shed load of money by offering Concrete5, it's merely adding value to what we normally sell. Our clients want our help and expertise and are going to gain very little by trying to obtain a copy of C5 themselves.
I disagree with the comments about school kids producing beautiful websites and the market place changing in that respect. The old "why are you charging thousands of dollars when my nephew can do this for $50" thing has been around for the last 12 years. At the end of the day not may school kids can produce a fantastic looking custom-built design, fully standards compliant using best practise, with marketing advice and services, whilst also offering consultations and technical support during normal working hours.
At the end of the day we're making money from:
1) Advising the client what is best for their needs - this may or may not involve C5 depending on their requirements, and the client will take our advice on this hence why they are paying us.
2) Free themes are one thing, but our clients all want their sites to be unique and custom-built. To do this well costs money.
3) In addition to a custom-built design, our clients want help and advice on marketing and SEO, along with hosting and technical support all of which we provide. C5 might be free but the other things I've mentioned generally aren't. C5 is just one piece in a big puzzle and unless the client wants to spend 10 years learning everything that we know, they're likely to come unstuck.
4) Basically we aren't making a shed load of money by offering Concrete5, it's merely adding value to what we normally sell. Our clients want our help and expertise and are going to gain very little by trying to obtain a copy of C5 themselves.
I disagree with the comments about school kids producing beautiful websites and the market place changing in that respect. The old "why are you charging thousands of dollars when my nephew can do this for $50" thing has been around for the last 12 years. At the end of the day not may school kids can produce a fantastic looking custom-built design, fully standards compliant using best practise, with marketing advice and services, whilst also offering consultations and technical support during normal working hours.
I don't think it makes sense to argue about the best way to run a business (at least not in this thread :) -- rather the discussion should be about which white-labeling options are appropriate for which kinds of businesses.
Personally, I'm in the same boat as 1stWebDesigns -- clients pay me for my experience in all facets of producing a site and for the consultation/service/support I provide to them. For the kind of business I run ("freelance web developer with no desire to manage sites after they've been built"), it's better that the CMS *not* be white-labelled, because clients can be more secure that even if I drop off the face of the earth, they still own their site and can find someone else to service it.
-Jordan
Personally, I'm in the same boat as 1stWebDesigns -- clients pay me for my experience in all facets of producing a site and for the consultation/service/support I provide to them. For the kind of business I run ("freelance web developer with no desire to manage sites after they've been built"), it's better that the CMS *not* be white-labelled, because clients can be more secure that even if I drop off the face of the earth, they still own their site and can find someone else to service it.
-Jordan
just for clarity as this discussion matures, its unlikely we're going to invest any energy into making complete rebranding easier. "powered by c5" makes a lot of sense to me because your client can understand the value you provide "look ill make all this work for you- call me first" but they can also sleep soundly knowing that if you decide to stop building website and start snowboarding more, they can still have a site built with concrete5...
MIT license means if you know what you're doing you can call it your own. This white labeling plan is more about helping your clients understand that just because you're using pipes, there's still value in calling the pipe installer before the pipe manufacturer.... if that makes any sense.
Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz
MIT license means if you know what you're doing you can call it your own. This white labeling plan is more about helping your clients understand that just because you're using pipes, there's still value in calling the pipe installer before the pipe manufacturer.... if that makes any sense.
Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz
I would imagine the simplest solution is to have a "settings" screen for the web agency to adjust a bunch of white labelling options. One of them being to show "powered by Concrete5", that way it's up to the agency if they wish to show it or not. It's clear that some people want it, and others don't. So it wouldn't be hard to offer both. That way everyone's happy.
About those 'Pipes"... I've checked all through the marketplace and can't seem to find that add-on
;)
;)
Franz or anyone,
Currently, I own the websitehttp://www.rubiconindicator.com which was created by using Concrete5. I am trying to find a larger BUY NOW button than the one I have either by what you carry or by "white-labeling" something? What do you suggest? If you go to the website, scroll to the very bottom and see what we have. Thanks for your help.
Josh
Currently, I own the websitehttp://www.rubiconindicator.com which was created by using Concrete5. I am trying to find a larger BUY NOW button than the one I have either by what you carry or by "white-labeling" something? What do you suggest? If you go to the website, scroll to the very bottom and see what we have. Thanks for your help.
Josh
I don't think this has anything to do with whitelabeling. That sounds like a webdesign need. I'm sure there's a contractor out there who can build you a bigger button.
My web contractor is telling me (Concrete5) doesn't allow him to change the icon.
The "buy now" button has absolutely nothing to do with the CMS -- it's just part of the content. If your web designer doesn't know how to change it, ask him to post a new message to the forum about this specific issue (it has nothing to do with white labelling so you probably won't get the right kind of help here in this thread).
I think it depends where you are positioning yourself. Are you building with C5 or designing for C5?
I know several UK companies that do very well by 'building' with Drupal. They major on the fact. As Concrete5 gets ever wider adoption I see opportunities to do similar with Concrete5. For me clients understanding that you're building with a free, opensource solution, that's regarded as one of the best, will add to rather than detract from the proposition. I want to be there when people come looking for someone who is using Concrete5 to deploy sites.
If you're designing for C5, in my experience it's much harder to demonstrate value if the client's perception is you're 'just' reskinning an out-the-box solution. White labeling is certainly more attractive here. I think that applies to any CMS system.
I'd like to see the curated marketplace piece separated from the white label piece. I'm happy for people to know I build with C5, so white labelling is not an issue, but I absolutely would love a vehicle for pushing (possibly even selling) homegrown add-ons - some of which have no relevance to the C5 market place out to my client sites.
Not sure either would convince me to keep paying the pro membership cost come renewal time, but I'd definitely pay something for the curated marketplace.
Hope that helps.
I know several UK companies that do very well by 'building' with Drupal. They major on the fact. As Concrete5 gets ever wider adoption I see opportunities to do similar with Concrete5. For me clients understanding that you're building with a free, opensource solution, that's regarded as one of the best, will add to rather than detract from the proposition. I want to be there when people come looking for someone who is using Concrete5 to deploy sites.
If you're designing for C5, in my experience it's much harder to demonstrate value if the client's perception is you're 'just' reskinning an out-the-box solution. White labeling is certainly more attractive here. I think that applies to any CMS system.
I'd like to see the curated marketplace piece separated from the white label piece. I'm happy for people to know I build with C5, so white labelling is not an issue, but I absolutely would love a vehicle for pushing (possibly even selling) homegrown add-ons - some of which have no relevance to the C5 market place out to my client sites.
Not sure either would convince me to keep paying the pro membership cost come renewal time, but I'd definitely pay something for the curated marketplace.
Hope that helps.
Your $99/month really put me off C5, if this is the future you envise, I've been wasting my time here, I do appreciate your work but a monthly hit of that proportion sounds like greed to me.
Adobe Business Catalyst, for example, starts with $12 for a basic package and you can whitelebel with them for a one off $1995 which includes , hosting, billing , SEO admin, Support tickes , and many many more management tools that C5 does not have.
Adobe Business Catalyst, for example, starts with $12 for a basic package and you can whitelebel with them for a one off $1995 which includes , hosting, billing , SEO admin, Support tickes , and many many more management tools that C5 does not have.
I think you have failed to read the full thread...
Being a Pro member at $99 / month in order to have access to a specific whitelabeling package was simply a thought being discussed.
Currently there is no specific whitelabeling package available, but there are also absolutely no restrictions on whitelabeling the site for free yourself. Concrete5 is and always will be a free CMS with no restrictions on whitelabeling it. If you wanna do it, then go ahead. I know many people who already have.
I think you should re-read the thread before posting comments like that...
Jon
Being a Pro member at $99 / month in order to have access to a specific whitelabeling package was simply a thought being discussed.
Currently there is no specific whitelabeling package available, but there are also absolutely no restrictions on whitelabeling the site for free yourself. Concrete5 is and always will be a free CMS with no restrictions on whitelabeling it. If you wanna do it, then go ahead. I know many people who already have.
I think you should re-read the thread before posting comments like that...
Jon
I have read all the thread and I'm sorry you don't agree with my comment.
The $99/month is on discussion and that is exactly what I'm doing, just expressing my opinion on the matter. When the CEO of a company gives hints such as this idea/suggestion/thought for the future, it is clear to me that he is testing the grounds and surveying our opinions. SO that is what I've offered on my comment above.
I was seriously considering changing over most of my small clients to C5 until I read this thread. It takes lots of hours to understand a platform and adapt your resources to it. Hence my coment about not being happy wasting my time.
The $99/month is on discussion and that is exactly what I'm doing, just expressing my opinion on the matter. When the CEO of a company gives hints such as this idea/suggestion/thought for the future, it is clear to me that he is testing the grounds and surveying our opinions. SO that is what I've offered on my comment above.
I was seriously considering changing over most of my small clients to C5 until I read this thread. It takes lots of hours to understand a platform and adapt your resources to it. Hence my coment about not being happy wasting my time.
I still don't see how you have wasted your time?
You're never going to be required to pay for anything. If you wish to white label Concrete5, then go ahead. That option is always going to be available for free...
Jon
You're never going to be required to pay for anything. If you wish to white label Concrete5, then go ahead. That option is always going to be available for free...
Jon
Hey Vicente,
Can't disagree with your feelings at all. These threads are great to test the pulse of users to help anticipate future development (but in all reality... it really does seem as if some people post without reading (oops, that might be me! lol)
Jon's point is valid too... a long thread like this is too often "skimmed over" and the initial intent gets lost.
Nuff said
I think I'll have my morning coffee and get to work making money with my Free CMS :-P
Can't disagree with your feelings at all. These threads are great to test the pulse of users to help anticipate future development (but in all reality... it really does seem as if some people post without reading (oops, that might be me! lol)
Jon's point is valid too... a long thread like this is too often "skimmed over" and the initial intent gets lost.
Nuff said
I think I'll have my morning coffee and get to work making money with my Free CMS :-P
In general I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be trying to make money off of the developer side of the equation - the client side is where we're focusing. We're not actually even selling new pro accounts at this point.
concrete5 is MIT licensed, which is a good deal more "Free" than anything GPL licensed in this capacity. As someone else pointed out, feel free to whitelabel it in any old way you like.
As we discuss the white labeling features that are going into 5.5, we're thinking of them all being free to use.
Business Catalyst costs money both on the client and agency side, that 2k fee is for the right to whitelabel it - you still pay X/month per client. They were also bought by adobe for I believe around $40m a couple years ago. Holding them up as a paragon of free while calling our hypothetical plan greedy is probably inaccurate at best.
You'll have to excuse me if we use the forums to ask questions about a new idea from time to time. The "what if..." thinking that gives you the different approach and features you like in the CMS means there's always a lot of ideas on the table and some times they're not good.
To me, today, whitelabeling is something we should offer for free. It will drive marketplace sales so it's worth doing.
concrete5 is MIT licensed, which is a good deal more "Free" than anything GPL licensed in this capacity. As someone else pointed out, feel free to whitelabel it in any old way you like.
As we discuss the white labeling features that are going into 5.5, we're thinking of them all being free to use.
Business Catalyst costs money both on the client and agency side, that 2k fee is for the right to whitelabel it - you still pay X/month per client. They were also bought by adobe for I believe around $40m a couple years ago. Holding them up as a paragon of free while calling our hypothetical plan greedy is probably inaccurate at best.
You'll have to excuse me if we use the forums to ask questions about a new idea from time to time. The "what if..." thinking that gives you the different approach and features you like in the CMS means there's always a lot of ideas on the table and some times they're not good.
To me, today, whitelabeling is something we should offer for free. It will drive marketplace sales so it's worth doing.
Thansk guys for clarifying to me the "Freenes" of C5. It seems I've stepped into a sensitive area and do not want to offend anybody. So I'll try to expand on the feedback with a bit more time.
I'm a believer of what I call the Google model, where things are done on the basis of "do what you think is best for the job", to service your audience/clients, regardless of the money and how much that will bring in. Then money will come. simple.
Can U imagine the feedback I'll get if I proposed a few years back to photograph each square inch of the planet, map it, then give all away 4 free ???
C5 is genious in what it does, does well, the marketplace is your honeypot, and an excellent idea. For developers I honestly believe this is the future, you work your hours on an add-on and those hours you keep selling and selling. perfect.
frz, man, I do not hold Adobe as a paragon of the free, no way, they are in for the money , they sell unique products and can easely subsidise projects like BC, their business model is totally different to what (I imagine) C5 is/try to be. The suggestion or hypothetical plan you proposed above ($99/month) will "Hypothetically" step there... move C5 to compete with them. Hence my comparison to their product.
Please also understand that I did not say you are greedy, in fact, I totally respect what you and the C5 team do, but still, the idea comes across as greedy. A monthly charge for something a plugin can do is what becomes and issue for me and the "feeling" that you may flick the switch and start charging once the stats are right makes me "Hypothetically" a bit usecure about using C5 for future projects.
I will give C5 a go .. jut one step at a time.
Cheers ..
I'm a believer of what I call the Google model, where things are done on the basis of "do what you think is best for the job", to service your audience/clients, regardless of the money and how much that will bring in. Then money will come. simple.
Can U imagine the feedback I'll get if I proposed a few years back to photograph each square inch of the planet, map it, then give all away 4 free ???
C5 is genious in what it does, does well, the marketplace is your honeypot, and an excellent idea. For developers I honestly believe this is the future, you work your hours on an add-on and those hours you keep selling and selling. perfect.
frz, man, I do not hold Adobe as a paragon of the free, no way, they are in for the money , they sell unique products and can easely subsidise projects like BC, their business model is totally different to what (I imagine) C5 is/try to be. The suggestion or hypothetical plan you proposed above ($99/month) will "Hypothetically" step there... move C5 to compete with them. Hence my comparison to their product.
Please also understand that I did not say you are greedy, in fact, I totally respect what you and the C5 team do, but still, the idea comes across as greedy. A monthly charge for something a plugin can do is what becomes and issue for me and the "feeling" that you may flick the switch and start charging once the stats are right makes me "Hypothetically" a bit usecure about using C5 for future projects.
I will give C5 a go .. jut one step at a time.
Cheers ..
Thanks for the clarification.
Google isn't free at all in my eyes - or theirs. The money didn't just
magically come, they "tax" everything you get with ads. They also
charge for things like gmail/docs for business. The only way we could
embrace this model is if we did free hosted websites with ads on em
(like wordpress.) That just doesn't interest me as I see concrete5 as
a building material for development resources to use to manage their
relationship with site owners. This type of relationship makes sense
for business and organization websites - not personal blogs.
Regardless - what you should be focusing on is the MIT license. The
fact that we're on MIT truly means there's NOTHING I can do to change
your deal later. If I decide that concrete5 should be called
RubberCement46 and cost a million dollars a month, you will always
have concrete5 exactly the way it is today. I can't undo it or change
the deal on you - even if I wanted to. There's really no stronger
promise someone can make.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
Google isn't free at all in my eyes - or theirs. The money didn't just
magically come, they "tax" everything you get with ads. They also
charge for things like gmail/docs for business. The only way we could
embrace this model is if we did free hosted websites with ads on em
(like wordpress.) That just doesn't interest me as I see concrete5 as
a building material for development resources to use to manage their
relationship with site owners. This type of relationship makes sense
for business and organization websites - not personal blogs.
Regardless - what you should be focusing on is the MIT license. The
fact that we're on MIT truly means there's NOTHING I can do to change
your deal later. If I decide that concrete5 should be called
RubberCement46 and cost a million dollars a month, you will always
have concrete5 exactly the way it is today. I can't undo it or change
the deal on you - even if I wanted to. There's really no stronger
promise someone can make.
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz
is "whitelabeling addon" concept in effect yet?
There's a lot of love in 5.5 for it
Best wishes
Pecked out on an iPhone
Best wishes
Pecked out on an iPhone
Most of my clients are not concerned with what CMS I'm using. The ultimately care about how well it works, how easy it is to maintain, and "if its a good one". I assure them that C5 is the best around, they trust me (as a client usually does), and are happy they did once they give C5 a try. It does add a lot, however, to say that thousands of people use this platform, etc...
I have never whitelabeled in the past, but am considering launching a hosting service based on C5. I feel it would be beneficial to my business to whitelabel because it would give my business a sense of continuity and ownership. This includes removing "Powered by Concrete5", etc. I want to remove all traces that the client is using a third-party platform.
Let me qualify, however:
1) We will not tell clients that we developed the platform. This is lying and is wrong; I don't want to do business with anyone who conducts himself in this way.
2) We will not deny its C5 and will gladly mention it if asked about it. In fact, it'll probably be mentioned on my site somewhere, just not on the clients' website or their dashboards, etc.
All of that being said, I feel that my usage of C5 still contributes to the community for the following reasons:
1) With C5 as the core of my business, I find myself if the marketplace often buying addons - whitelabeling or not, I'm spending money there. I think C5 should adopt a philosophy like Google or Facebook who give generous allowances regarding their APIs: they know that the more they're used (even in contexts where they cannot advertise directly), the more traffic they will get, and hence advertising.
2) I plan on releasing several custom addons to the marketplace - for free and otherwise.
I love the fact that C5 5.5 has added a lot of whitelabeling features which makes it easy. I don't even mind if it costs a little to make it a little easier (although paying more is always a bummer). Ultimately, however, I'm happy if C5 sticks with the MIT license even if I have to go in and hack the core to whitelabel.
On another note, I noticed that some are trying to leverage some kind of guilt against those who want to whitelabel completely as if they are betraying the community or something by not, "giving credit where credit is due". I feel that the C5 team was wise in using the MIT license, understands it implications, and will ultimately make money from those who whitelabel. But there is no obligation on the part of the user to give back if he doesn't want to for some reason. I think giving back and being a part of the community is important, but I feel that the core of the community for most people is not giving away free stuff because its fun, but a bunch of guys helping each other make some $.
I have never whitelabeled in the past, but am considering launching a hosting service based on C5. I feel it would be beneficial to my business to whitelabel because it would give my business a sense of continuity and ownership. This includes removing "Powered by Concrete5", etc. I want to remove all traces that the client is using a third-party platform.
Let me qualify, however:
1) We will not tell clients that we developed the platform. This is lying and is wrong; I don't want to do business with anyone who conducts himself in this way.
2) We will not deny its C5 and will gladly mention it if asked about it. In fact, it'll probably be mentioned on my site somewhere, just not on the clients' website or their dashboards, etc.
All of that being said, I feel that my usage of C5 still contributes to the community for the following reasons:
1) With C5 as the core of my business, I find myself if the marketplace often buying addons - whitelabeling or not, I'm spending money there. I think C5 should adopt a philosophy like Google or Facebook who give generous allowances regarding their APIs: they know that the more they're used (even in contexts where they cannot advertise directly), the more traffic they will get, and hence advertising.
2) I plan on releasing several custom addons to the marketplace - for free and otherwise.
I love the fact that C5 5.5 has added a lot of whitelabeling features which makes it easy. I don't even mind if it costs a little to make it a little easier (although paying more is always a bummer). Ultimately, however, I'm happy if C5 sticks with the MIT license even if I have to go in and hack the core to whitelabel.
On another note, I noticed that some are trying to leverage some kind of guilt against those who want to whitelabel completely as if they are betraying the community or something by not, "giving credit where credit is due". I feel that the C5 team was wise in using the MIT license, understands it implications, and will ultimately make money from those who whitelabel. But there is no obligation on the part of the user to give back if he doesn't want to for some reason. I think giving back and being a part of the community is important, but I feel that the core of the community for most people is not giving away free stuff because its fun, but a bunch of guys helping each other make some $.
Yup.
Obviously we'd prefer you used the stuff we built into 5.5 the way we built it for several reasons:
1) The "powered by concrete5" is pretty small and as you say - it's the truth. Our sense is it will make things much easier in the big picture being clear with your client about what's what.
2) You're going to have an easier time upgrading if you don't hack the core to remove that tiny label.
3) There is nothing you can spend money on with us today for whitelabeling. There's no active Partner or Pro plan, there's no initiative to make one. There's been discussions about making it so you could manage your own packages here, or limit whats available to your clients from the marketplace, but in all honesty I see that as expensive to build and mange, and hard to sell.
4) Yes, the fact that you or your customers may buy an add-on or hosting through us is valuable. There are diminishing returns on that value the further away a whitelabeler pushes. So when we see whitelabeling folks who have mediocre looking sites where they're pushing their "awesomeCMS" (which is just concrete5 with the logo swapped,) and then we see the same people asking LOTS of questions about an addon they've purchased ONE license for, we tend to get a little pissy and answer their questions last. I totally get that's what we signed up for with MIT license, I'm just saying - it doesn't help us much so expect the same back. ;)
5) I absolutely agree that these are your clients, you're managing their expectations and workflow, and however you want to use concrete5 to do so is up to you. That's why you're not going to see us launch a pay to play whitelabling plan that forces you to work in a particular way. What do we know about how your business works. If concrete5 can be part of your toolbox, in the big picture, that makes us happy.
Obviously we'd prefer you used the stuff we built into 5.5 the way we built it for several reasons:
1) The "powered by concrete5" is pretty small and as you say - it's the truth. Our sense is it will make things much easier in the big picture being clear with your client about what's what.
2) You're going to have an easier time upgrading if you don't hack the core to remove that tiny label.
3) There is nothing you can spend money on with us today for whitelabeling. There's no active Partner or Pro plan, there's no initiative to make one. There's been discussions about making it so you could manage your own packages here, or limit whats available to your clients from the marketplace, but in all honesty I see that as expensive to build and mange, and hard to sell.
4) Yes, the fact that you or your customers may buy an add-on or hosting through us is valuable. There are diminishing returns on that value the further away a whitelabeler pushes. So when we see whitelabeling folks who have mediocre looking sites where they're pushing their "awesomeCMS" (which is just concrete5 with the logo swapped,) and then we see the same people asking LOTS of questions about an addon they've purchased ONE license for, we tend to get a little pissy and answer their questions last. I totally get that's what we signed up for with MIT license, I'm just saying - it doesn't help us much so expect the same back. ;)
5) I absolutely agree that these are your clients, you're managing their expectations and workflow, and however you want to use concrete5 to do so is up to you. That's why you're not going to see us launch a pay to play whitelabling plan that forces you to work in a particular way. What do we know about how your business works. If concrete5 can be part of your toolbox, in the big picture, that makes us happy.
Hey everyone,
This is what I have started doing on my Concrete5 sites
Which i think is a nice comprise.
1st for dashboard pages I leave them with little powered by Conrete5 link , because as it has already been said this is small and discrete and also more importantly it is true. I didn’t code this so why should I hide this.
2nd for Front end editing as most of front end rendering and template is done by myself. I use small jquery inside my them footer to replace the link and text.You can do what you want here without upsetting the core.
I have chosen to replace it with a direct link to my Concrete5 Profile so people see that I am active member of this community ; if i had any marketplace addons my clients cud see this too
You can use whatever text you want for link something like;
“Powered by Concrete5 Driven By YourName”
This is good compromise I feel as it is giving credit where credit is due ...I also add a disclaimer in my contracts too that only guarantee the add-on/themes made or installed by myself.
GB
This is what I have started doing on my Concrete5 sites
Which i think is a nice comprise.
1st for dashboard pages I leave them with little powered by Conrete5 link , because as it has already been said this is small and discrete and also more importantly it is true. I didn’t code this so why should I hide this.
2nd for Front end editing as most of front end rendering and template is done by myself. I use small jquery inside my them footer to replace the link and text.You can do what you want here without upsetting the core.
I have chosen to replace it with a direct link to my Concrete5 Profile so people see that I am active member of this community ; if i had any marketplace addons my clients cud see this too
You can use whatever text you want for link something like;
“Powered by Concrete5 Driven By YourName”
This is good compromise I feel as it is giving credit where credit is due ...I also add a disclaimer in my contracts too that only guarantee the add-on/themes made or installed by myself.
GB
