Webflow Should Be Expensive.

Webflow raised prices last week and the internet is mad.

I've watched the reactions roll in, ranging from "we're going up a little bit" to absolutely dramatic, like 50% versus 300%. And while I get the frustration, especially with the bandwidth change which is a different and weirder issue, I think most of the takes are missing the actual question.

The actual question is what Webflow is, and where it fits in the model for people who build websites for clients.

Two kinds of people use Webflow

If you don't have the technical expertise to build these systems yourself, or you don't want to have those people on your team, or whatever it is, you're farming that expertise out to a platform like Webflow. That seems like it could be worth a decent amount of money. It's certainly worth more than $30 a month, which is the base CMS plan, and then you move up from there.

On the other hand, if you already know how to do all of this, or you're a company that does, why would you ever choose to use Webflow over something else? You have the ability to do it yourself. The systems exist, they're out there.

So already, the "Webflow is too expensive" complaint depends entirely on which one you are. Most of the loudest voices in this debate are in category two, but they're paying like they're in category one. That's the actual tension.

The retainer model problem

A lot of builders are operating on something like "I'll charge you $10,000 up front and then $100 a month." That hinges on the price of the tool you're using staying relatively the same as whatever you thought it was going to be. If that cost goes from $40 to $105 a month, you have to raise your hosting prices and that sucks.

But here's the thing, Webflow as a platform has shifted to a place where they really encourage pushing that fee directly onto the client. And frankly, that's way easier.

If the fee goes from 40 to 80 a month, it's not your fault, and it has a direct reason from Webflow. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter. The point is it's something about the platform, not something you decided to charge.

When a client gets upset about it, you can come at it however you want. "Listen, we can consider another platform. We can do all these different things. Obviously it requires work, but that's on the table." That's actually a much healthier conversation than "I'm raising your bill."

Stop calling it hosting

If we get away from the old model where everyone has a massive WordPress system and we make our money on hosting and SEO services we never actually do anything for, we're moving in a much better direction. Clients see the actual cost of hosting, whatever that is, and they pay for that on their own. They are actually paying the designers and developers for the ongoing work and expertise.

For my sites I don't even phrase it as hosting and have a big hosting fee. I charge for what it costs to keep the thing running, the platform or whatever that might be. Separate from that is the "hey do you want me to just be around and be available" retainer.

Hands down, most people do want me around. Even if they have a thing not directly related to the website, or they're considering adding more complex things, they have someone to go to easily, right away, with no friction. That's worth real money, and it's separate from what the platform charges.

What the price changes actually meant for me

The price changes were weird, they were confusing, and I understand why they wouldn't feel awesome. At the same time, I have clients on Webflow and clients not on Webflow, and the impact for me was nothing. Zero of the people I had on Webflow are going up in price.

The sites I chose not to put on Webflow, I did so for reasons. They're larger, more complex. I now have even more validation for the client that has a custom-made site, a custom CMS, and a custom CRM I coded. For me to have those talk to each other, it's way easier when they're both codebases I manage.

That "scarier" more expensive CMS licensing where you pay a couple hundred dollars and then renewal fees for the site and plugins, suddenly that doesn't sound so scary, right? Because mixed with the fact that I have a server that's maintained, the base price is more than $30 a month, sure, but when you account for traffic and all the things a platform like Webflow gives you, is it cheaper than running the Webflow platform? 100%.

And Webflow could absolutely be the right platform for those clients in the future if they don't want the technical details on top of it. That's the point. Pick your trade-off.

The actual question

If you're paying for a platform like Webflow, should it be dirt cheap?

The biggest complaint I'm seeing in the wake of this announcement is people upset that Webflow isn't focused on the right features. Okay but here's the trade-off, if they're going to keep shipping features and the platform gets more sophisticated, what happens?

If they get enterprise to pay for it and just give it to people at a loss at the cheaper tiers, one of two things has to happen. You eventually become an enterprise customer. Or enterprise is so significant they have to spend all their time on it, and they're not going to ship you the features you want anyway.

There's always a trade-off. It is a platform. It is a platform you pay for that has done a significant amount of work. I think Webflow should be expensive.

And honestly, the deeper question is, if your hosting model was built around a platform staying at $30 a month forever for every client, did you really build the right model in the first place?

The wrong framing is "this platform does all this work for me, I don't have to manage a server, I don't have CMS fees, and it's half the cost of doing it all myself." That's not the trade-off. The right trade-off is, do it yourself for cheaper with a sustained fee you actually know, or you jump into the platform.

Pick one.