I wouldn't read too much into this. When a client tells you that you cost too much, it's not a statement of fact. It may not even be something they really believe. They may just be probing you to see if you will lower your rate.
On the (published) advice of Tim Ferriss, I read Roger Dawson's Secrets of Power Negotiating. It's a highly enlightening view into the mind of a relentless game-player. One of Dawson's first recommendations is: When you are negotiating with someone and they name a price, always flinch. If you're physically present, you should literally flinch, at least slightly. If you're on the phone, you execute a verbal flinch. If you're in email... you could try saying something like "My god, that's a programmer rate. I thought I was hiring at designer rates." (If the price you're objecting to is a ridiculously reasonable rate for a designer, you could always say "Oh, gosh. The high school sophomore charged a lot less.")
And then you stop, and wait. In the best-case scenario, your opponent will immediately say "oh, I didn't realize you were used to paying so much less; I'll lower my rate". In the second-best scenario, your opponent will fret, wonder what you were talking about -- perhaps even writing a blog post about it -- and then lower their rates, or make other concessions (Perhaps they won't raise their rates in six months, the way they usually do? Perhaps they will agree to push up the delivery date?). This will happen because you will have subtly but effectively said "I think your rates are awfully high, relative to the competition; you had better deliver".
It's just gamesmanship. If you really want to know whether or not programmers and designers can make comparable salaries, you need to get actual data: Poll your colleagues, or try to hire some designers yourself and see what they quote you. Or just wait and see if you ever get a job at your posted rates.
> They may just be probing you to see if you will lower your rate.
That could be out of genuine ignorance. A friend referred potential clients who had purchased "a set of integrated scripts" for 200 pounds (approximately US$390) and "just" want them uploaded and configured. I looked at the scripts, recognised some of them from Matt's Script Archive and quoted 20 hours work at 20 pounds per hour. They said no. Eventually, they went elsewhere and paid an extra 50%. I suspect that they were too embarassed to admit that my quote was reasonable.
I think the client is simply trying to negotiate with the author. He felt like his feelings were hurt; however, he should educate his customers.
If somebody replies, that means they are interested. And, they only said it was a bit too much, not outrageously insane. Nor did they say they aren't prepared to pay it. They're simply asking for reassurance from the guy that he is a programmer.
The way to act on this is to respond nicely and educate the customer. In this case, you would explain that you are the same great developer who created the web site, but that you agree with them, and therefore included in the hourly fee the additional work of consulting with a great programming resource without charging them extra, because you like to meet their needs exactly the way a great client like them deserves. Additionally, it should be easy for a web developer to show the client examples of what you've done before that's exactly what the client is looking for: a site based on graphics you designed, and the results of one of those web site validity tools that shows your CSS/XML code is as good as it looks. (And then if the client likes what you coded, and you never end up having to subcontract a programmer, don't gloat and tell them this.)
The author should put himself in his clients' shoes.
I take this as people not understanding what the heck they are putting out for bid. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the last website they had was whipped together by some exec's kid.
If they thought that his prices were high for PSD to HTML/CSS, then they'd probably fall over dead if they wanted a quote for a back-end to go with it.
Not sure what the writers point is, its just supply and demand, but the client phrased it badly and possibly undervalues the value of the writers skills
they obviously undervalue the writers skill. frontend and backend require different skillsets, but the average person has no knowledge of what either one is really worth.
Personally, I think it's because many clients are used to years of hearing "programmer" and "web designer" as two separate jobs. If you're writing desktop apps, well, you're a programmer. If you're doing web-based stuff, you must be "just" a web designer.
And yes, you can easily do non-trivial stuff with a little light HTML and Javascript, but once you start getting into serious CSS, PHP, etc. it ceases to be something that anyone can pick up in an afternoon. In essence it becomes the same sort of professional work that "programmers" do.
But to the client there's still "programmers" and "web designers", with the prestige and the dollars definitely being associated (in their minds, anyway) with the former.
The problem is that designers are, for some reason, measured by some odd metric of technical difficulty and are paid accordingly. Something about our culture doesn't let us value creative difficulty on a similar scale.
I come from more of a technical background, but I understand that high quality design is worth its weight in gold. The interface is the app, the design is the company in the minds of the customer.
Why you wouldn't want to pay for an outstanding designer is beyond me. When you pay commodity prices, you get commodity resources.
This is just a rehash of the old, "who is more important, the engineer or the marketer?" argument. If the marketer has nothing to sell, he's not very important. Likewise, if the engineer can't bring her work to the world, she won't be successful.
I look at good web design as a branch of marketing: you are branding your product and making it known. Great marketers are extremely valuable, yet there are also people who call themselves marketing experts who don't really understand what marketing is all about.
On the (published) advice of Tim Ferriss, I read Roger Dawson's Secrets of Power Negotiating. It's a highly enlightening view into the mind of a relentless game-player. One of Dawson's first recommendations is: When you are negotiating with someone and they name a price, always flinch. If you're physically present, you should literally flinch, at least slightly. If you're on the phone, you execute a verbal flinch. If you're in email... you could try saying something like "My god, that's a programmer rate. I thought I was hiring at designer rates." (If the price you're objecting to is a ridiculously reasonable rate for a designer, you could always say "Oh, gosh. The high school sophomore charged a lot less.")
And then you stop, and wait. In the best-case scenario, your opponent will immediately say "oh, I didn't realize you were used to paying so much less; I'll lower my rate". In the second-best scenario, your opponent will fret, wonder what you were talking about -- perhaps even writing a blog post about it -- and then lower their rates, or make other concessions (Perhaps they won't raise their rates in six months, the way they usually do? Perhaps they will agree to push up the delivery date?). This will happen because you will have subtly but effectively said "I think your rates are awfully high, relative to the competition; you had better deliver".
It's just gamesmanship. If you really want to know whether or not programmers and designers can make comparable salaries, you need to get actual data: Poll your colleagues, or try to hire some designers yourself and see what they quote you. Or just wait and see if you ever get a job at your posted rates.