fla's to the client?

[Markp.com]

I keep it unless the client specifically requests it, Then there will be a small fee.

What he said...

[jAQUAN]

what about:

3. The client may need to slightly alter a page you did by changing a font or color and they have staff that can handle that change.

see scenario #1

[random25]

wouldnt you rather spend your billable hours doing substantial programming rather than changing fonts and colors?

over-all, i think sitting on code is a road-block to more fluid, efficient production.

I have enough of a code base built up that i can do just about anything needed for a flash website. why reinvent the wheel, when i can just copy and paste from my code base.

I charge a base price for the site, then an hourly fee for updates/changes.
This keeps money coming in constantly, instead of only getting money when i do a new project.

[indivision]

see scenario #1

ic. i guess all of my clients fall into that category if having in-house developers counts. so i didnt see the distinction.

[indivision]

I have enough of a code base built up that i can do just about anything needed for a flash website. why reinvent the wheel, when i can just copy and paste from my code base.

I charge a base price for the site, then an hourly fee for updates/changes.
This keeps money coming in constantly, instead of only getting money when i do a new project.

i benefit from a code base as well. but, i see it as a way of making it easier to offer a better product. for instance, when i meet with a client and they describe something that ive already essentially built, i let them know, "i can re-implement what ive done for you in a day." and i only charge them for a days worth of work. is that crazy? it seems only fair to me and has worked well so far. i mean, charging for time spent on building your own tools is like a mechanic charging everyone for their wrenches, imo.

[random25]

Thats why i charge a "build" price per website based on the ammount of content, instead of an hourly rate for building the site.
They are going to pay me for my code, if its new code, or old code, they still have to pay me for it if its gonna be used on thier site.

[indivision]

well. i think its really a moot point. however you want to break it down, its all going to be the bottom line cost to the client. your build cost plus hourly charges could equal the hourly charges alone of someone else who automatically includes source. the cost has to be competitive regardless.

unless it involves some kind of pre-packaged product that you sell independently, i prefer the approach that assumes source code is included because i want clients to hire me based on the quality of my service, not the inability to do otherwise.

[same goes for re-using code. why not just factor that into one bottom line price or rate that the client can understand? then you dont have to get into ticky-tacks of ownership, etc. you come off looking better, imo.]

[random25]

When you give the code, you give license to anyone to make a mess of what you have created.

I don't want my name on something that has been wrecked by the client, and I sure as hell don't want it in my portfolio.

[indivision]

you can develop brilliant code on a crappy design. that can make your work "look" bad as well. but do you turn it down because some other persons aspect isnt well done?

i think clients usually understand that, when it comes to portfolios for developers, the over-all quality of the final product doesn't necessarily reflect the over-all ability of the developer. [you cant take full credit or full criticism for large client projects that involve a large team of people.] but, including such projects in a portfolio, crappy finale or not, still demonstrates your experience working on projects of such scope and the ability to build certain functionality.

[random25]

Once i give the client the code i remove them from my list of work,

If i show a site that has been modified by a previous client as an example to a potential client, and that site is no longer up to my design standards it reflects badly on my skills.

All it takes is something as simple as bad fonts or distorted images to make a site look like a fourth grader built it.

Potential clients usually don't understand, and thats why i make sure i only show them work that i deem as "perfect".

As far as working with a group or a team, well... I just dont do that, Unless i am in charge of the team, or at least in charge of quality control.

[Loyal Rogue]

Once i give the client the code i remove them from my list of work,

If i show a site that has been modified by a previous client as an example to a potential client, and that site is no longer up to my design standards it reflects badly on my skills.

All it takes is something as simple as bad fonts or distorted images to make a site look like a fourth grader built it.

Potential clients usually don't understand, and thats why i make sure i only show them work that i deem as "perfect".

As far as working with a group or a team, well... I just dont do that, Unless i am in charge of the team, or at least in charge of quality control.

Now I can fully understand why you picked Henry Rollins as your avatar...

Gigantic egos and posturing aside, what you said doesn't make alot of sense.
If you want to show potential clients your "perfect" work then you shouldn't be sending them to the client's live site.
You should be sending them to the "perfect" copy on your own server that the client doesn't have access to.
Just because you didn't give the client the source code doesn't mean that they, their staff or their nephew can't change, add or subtract pages, elements or even your (decompiled) Flash.

I'm with the Geezer and Indy on this one.
Two things our company will never do is hold a client's domain name or source code hostage.
That became one of our selling points in the initial pitch after we noticed how many clients complained about how their last web developer screwed them or wanted more money for something they thought they had already paid for once.

.

[jubjub]

Good stuff here. Apologies for posting what appears to be ground covered more than once. I just wasn't sure which forum best suited the question.

[random25]

how many clients complained about how their last web developer screwed them or wanted more money for something they thought they had already paid for once.

Either way you decide to go, be sure to have the client sign a contract stating exactly what they are paying you for before you start the job.

This is where alot of people screw up.

[Napalm]

I've only been asked once for the sourcecode - that was my old company who purposely deleted all my backups I made when I left. I zipped it up, password protected it 3 times and sent it to them.They're probably still trying to decrypt it.

[Frets]

Gentleman

This belongs in the boardroom.

Thread moved.

Frets
SuperModerator

[Loyal Rogue]

Either way you decide to go, be sure to have the client sign a contract stating exactly what they are paying you for before you start the job.

This is where alot of people screw up.

This is probably the single best piece of advice in the entire boardroom.

If the client knows upfront that the source code is not included in the project quote and they sign a contract clearly stating such then they have no right or reason to complain about it later.

.

[earl223]

I think the difference is whether your "project" is based on "packaged code," ready for customization, or a fully customized application starting from scratch based on the clients needs.

If you have ready-code which you just customize for different clients, then the source code is not given to the clients.

But if you create a whole new customized thing just for that one client, i immediately include the price of the source code since the application is considered "theirs".

The realization is, business procedures and operations change over time. A website may need some new layout, an application needs to communicate with PHP inteads of ASP, or if the application needed to print a new report. What if, for some reason, you are unable to continue services for the client?

Programming ethics state that we need to properly document the code, like adding comments. There are two reasons for doing this: the first is for you, the second is for that other guy who may take over the work.

[badgirl]

I say keep the .fla files. The problem with selling your .fla files is that clients may not understand the work entailed in setting up the basic structure of the movie, which is often the most challenging part. Once you sell your files, they can easily be handed over to another, flash programmer (maybe even one who is not quite as skilled as you are) and that programmer can then use the foundation you have created to build a project that could appear to be magnificent. The problem here is it may then appear that the new programmer has shouldered all the work, when the truth is they may never have accomplished it without your .fla files. The new programmer could end up receiving client referrals that, by right, should be yours. IMHO asking a flash programmer to sell his/her .fla files is like asking a Michael Angelo for a paint-by-numbers copy of his masterpiece, “Creation”. Tell your clients, if they need changes you will be happy to make them. But, keep your .fla files to yourself.

[OddDog]

not handing the fla over is locking the clietn out of his own web site.

imo thats not professionally. .fla should be handed over, adn clearly stated so in contract.