Comments
TLDR: Amazing websites don't need to be expensive anymore with AI vibe coding, stop wasting money on fancy pants agencies.
Recently I heard of an organisation that was pleased the range of quotes they had received for building them a new website had all come in just under 100K. One. Hundred. Thousand. Pounds.
Honestly, this isn't out of the ordinary, I know many organisations that gravitate towards expensive web builds. I regularly quote for website builds at User-Friendly (my top price with all the bells and whistles is closer to 6K) and so often, the client opts for a web agency charging them +£30,000. I have this sense that it's an area most don't feel comfortable with, so just assume more money is best.
I typically build in Squarespace or a bespoke design in Wordpress, however recently I've been building more and more with AI 'vibe' coding. It's made me question whether I should still be building them the way I have been for years. (I just rebuilt the Userfriendly site and it's nicer, more responsive and endlessly more adaptable. Before it was a little awkward and stuck at the platform limitations).
I'm want to offer a small trial at the end of this post, but I wanted to explain the thinking first, because I think this matters beyond whether anyone wants to work with me.
The thing that's changed my mind isn't just how quickly and easily you can build a website now (it's taken weeks down to days, or hours). It's how quickly you can change anything...
Usually, someone in an org notices something isn't working, or you have a new programme that you want a new functionality fit for. Maybe people don't understand what you do, or a programme needs its own page or form, or you've got an idea for explaining something that your current website can't really accommodate.
Then you have to figure out what the solution might be, figure out who to hire, explain it to them, get a quote, wait for them to do it, give feedback. Hopefully you end up with what you wanted. And probably a few thousand pounds later...
yuck
With AI coding, you can have a conversation about what you want to change, get a version in front of you, and keep working on it. Some of those smaller things could be done over a coffee break. Bigger things will take longer, obviously, but even being able to try an idea before deciding whether it's worth pursuing is a pretty big change.
You also have more freedom over what the website can actually be. I've spent years building within website platforms, and they're useful, but you eventually hit the edges of what they let you do. Then you're finding workarounds or changing the idea to fit the platform which is such a killer for good ideas. And some of the limitations are still infuriating, like why can't you have a dropdown menu in Squarespace where the parent page is also clickable?! Or create a table. These are the market leading platforms and after years of using them I can honestly say, they're slow to sort themselves out, and now AI is leaving them for dead.
I'm not suggesting everyone should immediately bin a perfectly good website. If yours does what you need, great. But if you're about to spend money on a new one or harbouring an ugly duckling, maybe it's time to jump ship.
I've typically charged around £5K for a website through User-Friendly. For this trial, I'd like to work with three organisations at £2K per site to build or rebuild their website using AI, then hand over the keys and help them understand how to keep working on it. I already have one website confirmed, so there's two slots left currently.
We'd agree what's included, ongoing costs (not to me, but for the site hosting etc) and the handover before starting. I'm particularly interested in working with teams who have someone willing to have a go at making changes themselves, because I want to find out how well this works once I'm out of the picture.
If you're interested, email me [email protected]
![James Odene [User-Friendly]](https://res.cloudinary.com/cea/image/upload/c_crop,g_custom/c_fill,dpr_2,q_100,f_auto,g_auto:faces,w_36,h_36,b_white/Profile/lfbicsnwyhmah2ybuurk)
FWIW, I think there are some comms risks here — I've noticed that Claude sites in particular start looking really same-y without a good design eye editing them. The new User-Friendly site I would have immediately clocked as Claude-made (and applied some automatic discount to it based on this had you not said it, based on things like):
Little glyphs and words above headings
Random italicized words for emphasis
Using 01, 02, 03 in things that don't need numbering, with the leading 0.
Along with the neutral color palette.
Here are some examples of sites that are clearly made by Claude, and have a lot of these features:
Claude Academy's example websites also look this way: https://academy.claude.com/use-cases/create-a-custom-webpage
I used Claude design with just this prompt: "Can you make me some slides? Don't use my design system - just use whatever you feel like. Fill them in with filler content."
Here are some screenshots of that:
I think that working with a good designer (like you!) seems great for folks doing this, but also, if we're already concerned about EA websites being really same-y, this poses the same kind of risk, or at least for me, as someone who has starting feeling negative about seeing endless amounts of Claude-designed things.
Hey, thanks for the comment. This actually wasn't made by Claude, and a few of the things you highlight are preexisting features of the UF brand.
I take your point on things looking similar, but we already have this issue with lots of platforms. I could likewise spot a Squarespace site a mile away. That said, at least this time we're tied to an engine that's got significantly less boundaries.
Also, in terms of my offer, I'll still be designing the website, not just saying to AI 'make this site for me'