Identical Websites, Different Price

These two websites are nearly identical. Yet one can be a $59 template, while the other can cost upwards of $10K.

Knowing the difference will help both people who pay for design (to avoid scammers) and people who do design (to offer value).

How can two websites look so similar yet have so different dollar value?

When looking at them side by side and seeing the prices, we naturally try to come up to the most obvious conclusion.

It's the copy!

The one on the left has typical, template copy that has no meaning. It doesn't solve a problem or clear and doubts.

It's non verifiable. Bold claims with nothing to back them up.

The one on the right has much better copy. Clear value proposition, explained in the description. Links to reviews and studies that validate the claims.

But is the copy alone really worth $9941?

Here's a twist

Now take a look at another set of websites. They are completely identical at first glance.

Same layout. Same copy. Same visual. Yet the price of one is still $10K and the other one is $4K.

Easy answer

The easy answer is confidence and status. When I asked designers this question, many said that it's ALL about the $10K designer being more confident and more famous.

If someone has a lot of experience, or is well known on social media they may be able to charge more.

There is a tiny bit of truth to it, but that only works in those online circles. What I mean is it works when your clients are from the same social media bubble.

And most serious clients don't follow designers on X.

The extra $6000

The copy is an important part of a website. Probably the most important. That's why we start all websites with a typeframe.

Designers who use Lorem Ipsum are luckily now extinct. A good website has to start with a message. Visuals that don't amplify a message are worthless, even if they're pretty.

But in reality, proper copy can boost that $59 project to around $4K.

Above $4K we go beyond what we see. Beyond the pixels and typography. Beyond PNG's and Figma files.

A cheap design is always accompanied by cheap copy. Bordering on stupid.

Let's quickly take a look from the top. There are five stars, but no context on who voted and where. Impossible claims like 9 Billion users.

Meaningless headline copy. Streamline, effortless, seamlessly are all words that carry absolutely no meaning. This doesn't tell you why you should subscribe.

Then even more meaningless description with an attempt on a joke that falls flat.

And an accidentaly "ok'ish" button copy. Probably done by accident.

Price for a Landing Page

What do you sell?

We're at a stage when the process of making websites becomes really fast. Better tools, AI and well known patterns all contribute to that.

That means that after a brief 2022 price spike, general web work quotes are on their way down.

You will be earning less and less (and less) for a landing page design. Or any design in general.

That is unless all you focus on is selling pixels on a screen. This is what most designers do and it will lead to them earning less.

Let's take that $59 design apart a little more, shall we?

It starts with the classic L/R section split, but due to the person looking right at the camera, the visual grabs the attention first.

The gaze principle doesn't apply here. When the person in the kv is looking to the side, we naturally follow their gaze, often towards the CTA.

In this case the eyes grab all the attention. Then our eyes naturally jump to the brightest spots. In this case the two icon pill shapes and the button. Now, this isn't necessarily bad.

You don't need to use the gaze principle in every design. Let's look at it in another way and then I'll tell you why this design is worth $59.

The kicker is usually a way of answering "why?" with social proof. The headline says what it does. The description says HOW it does it. The action drives you to click.

This kind of annotation can make even a bad design suddenly make more sense.

Eyes grab attention. Wide-eyes can signify something is wrong, so we naturally pay even more attention to them. Slightly parted lips have extra tension and are subconsciously processed by our brain.

It all connects.

But…

The $59 design doesn't say all that. It's not annotated or explained in any way. It's just a Figma file or a PNG. And that is exactly why it's worth $59.

The $4000 design has much better copy.

The claims at the top are verifiable. You can click the arrows and go to the app-store or some article that proves their claim.

The headline has a clear benefit that's easy to understand.

The description explains how it works and gives you extra links to find out how each element contributes to the solution. These are all smaller, separate landing pages with their own CTA's.

So you're not taking the client "away" from the CTA. You are letting them explore. Read more.

Get convinced.

What is the extra $6000 for?

Of course the $10K is just a figure of speech here. At Squareblack we worked on projects where a landing page was so complex it required 20–30K just for that part.

But from 4 to 10K shows a range. And I believe that 40/60 split is where the real value of a project currently sits at.

40% of the cost is the copy and the visual. The PNG file.

The other 60% is what designers should really be selling. The outcome.

Why do you need a website? What's the goal you want it to achieve? What will be a success to you?

These (and more) are all questions only the best agencies are asking. When the design starts with actual research, it makes more sense AND more money for the client.

Aligning business goals (we want more money) with market reality (we want to be sure we're not wasting money) is the necessary first step of every design.

Not AI-generating some image and adding random copy that's just the right length to look good.

Typical websites do worse and worse over time

True value

If you're value oriented, your client will notice that. They will see you're not selling them pixels right away.

They will understand you're selling them a path to more profitability (most likely). And that can justify a higher price.

Strategic thinking

If you start with a strategy, follow up with research, do a design and then annotate it, they see the value.

And if you also offer post-launch strategy (you should) they see they're completely taken care of. This is what clients pay for.

They don't pay for pixels. They pay for a result. And a way to improve that result over time.

The reason

So it's not that the pixels on the right cost $10K and the same pixels on the left cost $4K or $59.

The better designer can charge more because they sell value. They sell a long-term plan. Those pretty pixels and the copy are just step one of this.

In a good plan they will be updated, tweaked and changed. And that will be included in a post-launch strategy document delivered alongside the design.

This is version 1. Here's how we suggest version 2 should be done and how we should test them against each other.

Example

Imagine two cars on a photo. They look exactly the same. Here I used one of my favorite cars of all time.

When you look at them on the photo, you don't really see the maintenance that went into the one on the right. You only see they're clean on the surface.

But the one that's also well kept and maintained will win a race. The other one will just break down in traffic eventually and annoy everyone.

Designers should go beyond superficial. Design is not about pixels. It's about delivering value.

And clients should understand what they're paying for. If they get a figma file for $10K there's a 99% chance they overpaid.