Editor access pricing prohibitively expensive for simple brochure sites
C
Charlotte Cumming
For small businesses and freelancers, the current pricing is very hard to justify. Taking one potential client example - their simple portfolio site that only needs light content updates ends up jumping from roughly $350 per year (current cost on Wix) to around $1,320 per year for 3 editors. That’s a huge increase for what is essentially light-touch content management.
I’m struggling to understand how this pricing has been benchmarked against other platforms, many of which don’t impose such restrictive editor limits and are far more accommodating of freelancer and small business workflows.
In reality for me, this unfortunately makes Framer a difficult recommendation for many of my clients who require more than one edit access, as they simply won’t commit to that level of investment for a brochure-style site.
In addition, I feel the Framer pricing table is misleading (on framer.com/pricing). It states that the Basic plan includes 2 seats “with edit access,” which I understood to mean that two users could edit the site on this plan. However, I’ve since been told this isn’t the case - that while two users can be added, you still have to pay separately for the second editor.
I genuinely love the platform and would love to encourage more clients/prospects to switch to Framer - but unfortunately the pricing structure is a real blocker with small business conversations.
Log In
A
Alan Schapke
Unfortunately, I was also surprised there. I would have liked to use Framer as a tool in our agency for small but nice web projects. I am very excited about the possibilities and understand that there must be different plans with features. The application scenario often looks like this: A designer builds the page and the customer maintains the content. If something goes wrong, the designer comes and fixes it from time to time.
Autopilot
Merged in a post:
Feedback on editor pricing in the Basic Plan
A
Alan Schapke
Title: Editor Pricing Feedback
For my online game, I built a website in Framer with baktinet3.com and was very impressed by the possibilities. Workflow and quality were quickly convincing.
A programmer was invited for some custom code (animated characters). It was then surprising that a full additional editor seat should be calculated for this. The idea was to run the live site as a basic subscription and work on other features such as a high score in parallel on a cloned version.
From an agency perspective, this seems impractical. In everyday life, it is quite common for a customer to adapt texts himself and, in case of doubt, bring the agency back in if something goes wrong. The fact that even this very typical use case does not allow a second editor in the Basic Plan feels unnecessarily restrictive.
In this context, the unexpected email with the cost announcement seems rather highly priced and stands in contrast to the otherwise very positive product perception.
Perhaps it is worth reconsidering the current editor policy.