Free CMS Whitepaper
How to select the best Content Management System for your company
Commercial vs. Open Source Web CMS
The open verses closed controversy (commercial vs. open source Web CMS debate) is one that Falcon-Software continually defends and although it would be much easier for us to simply provide open source CMS solutions to our clientele, we feel that building long-term partnership with our customers is paramount to our future success. For this reason we do not recommend open source CMS solutions. Now, we do realize that we are primarily a .NET WCMS deployment shop that has aligned with mainly commercial .NET software vendors, but we also have a vast amount of experience developing with open source CMS solutions such as Drupal, Joomla and DotNetNuke. The opinions stated in this blog post are based on those experiences and deploying CMS solutions for well over a decade.
To clarify, the main advantage with open source CMS solutions is the source code (the code the program consists of) is made available to website integrators such as Falcon-Software, providing them with the ability to make customized changes to the software program as they see fit. An approach which is great for immediate updates, but is it wise for the long-term? Customized changes to the underlying code can severely limit the future support and growth of the application. This is because changes made to the core software program can impede the ability to apply future updates, fixes or additional modules that are developed for the improvement of the CMS platform. In the event of this happening an organization may find itself in the precarious position of having to remain with an outdated version together with any limitations or bugs that version may have.
Free does not mean inexpensive:
Free access to an open source solution does not equate to a free or cheap content managed website. The nature of open source implies that the product is not going to be as ‘out-of-the-box’ as you would expect in comparison to a commercial package. This could equate to longer implementation times and a higher level of expertise required when implementing and customizing website projects properly (successfully) and most likely will not be discussed upfront with most open source web developers.
If you can’t use it why have it:
When developing a commercial CMS package, usability and client support is essential for the survival of the product. For these reasons, CMS specialists take the time to ensure that the usability of the product is advanced and help and training guides are thorough, enabling non-technical staff to take control of their website. Conversely, open source solutions are developed around technically minded users. Arguably this defeats the purpose of a client’s investment in a CMS by limiting content management to those with technical expertise.
Plagued with an uncertain future:
Developers of open source CMS are generally not driven by commercial gain. Consequently the completion times for fixes and updates can be significantly longer than one would experience (or tolerate) when partnering with a commercial CMS provider. Fixes or updates that could jeopardize the effectiveness of an organizations online strategy are not necessarily prioritized efficiently.
Community support model:
Open source products rely on its community network to deliver support to its user base via forums and web blogs. For organizations looking for a basic support, open source solutions are unable to provide the responsiveness that a product specialist willing to take ownership of that issue is capable of. In addition, while the community aspect is an appealing argument for open source, many commercial CMS providers are offering that approach as well. The .NET CMS software we support (Kentico, Ektron, Sitecore and Sitefinity) all have full documentation and technical support while also managing interactive forum environments.
Final Word:
We strongly feel that the additional value and value-added services that commercial CMS software provides justifies the extra cost. That doesn’t mean that it’s the right solution for everyone — if you have a deployment budget of under $15,000, an open source solution is a more realistic option. However, drawing on our vast CMS experience, training and support simply cannot be understated when it comes to a successful CMS implementation and those are two areas where commercial CMS clearly wins when compared to open source.
As both a .net developer and an open source developer I was wondering if you could post the research/results that support your findings? I would love to be able to use it when I talk to clients but as it stands without the numbers to back this up this article is hearsay and useless.
Thanks for the comment Andrew. I don’t have stats… but it’s certainly not hearsay, rather based on my direct experiences . Anyone can toss around stats. The blog post is based on providing CMS services to companies since 1994. Way back then, we created our own proprietary solution since the market came up short on what our clients needed. Today, we have deployed well over 100 content management solutions both open and closed source for some of the largest corporations in North America. The fact that you find the post useless is your opinion… but not surprising coming from a Drupal guy
How do you feel about companies providing tech support for open source CMSs (like Acquia?)
In my opinion… it’s a no-brainer. One of the biggest drawbacks with open source is the lack of support, and Acquia is a step in the right direction from Drupal. But what our customers really appreciate is receiving support from both the software vendor that knows their software better than anyone else and the development partner that has a solid grasp of the client’s needs and issues. Together the customer receives proper customer service.
Gary, thanks for your post and support of Sitecore. We also believe there is additional and unique value when utlizing commercial CMS software — especially when proven technology is combined with talent and passion from firms like Falcon Software. If you’re interested in blogging about CMS-related topics like this post, I invite you and members of your team to consider our new best practice blogging initiative to be launched soon. Here are some details:
http://www.sitecore.net/Community/Marketing-Blogs/Focus-on-Community/Posts/2010/08/Best-Practice-Blog.aspx
We also value opinions from the community at large in terms of how best to blog about best practices, to provide the most value for both business and technology practitioners. I’m working on a post right now regarding this topic.
Gary,
Excellent article, although you are preaching to the choir in my case. E-Cubed along with Falcon and a few selects understand the real value in commercial CMS offerings. Comparing the revenue models of both platforms from a design/development perspective I’d say that there is 20% – 40% more profit in an OpenSource solution for the same project budget. OpenSource CMS solutions costs clients more for virtually every aspect of their project, especially in terms of unmentionables such as risks of data security and integrity.
The only people loving OpenSource as far as I can ascertain are technical teams (internal or external) whose livelihood relies on controlling
a publishing environment or marketing types who got sold the OpenSource magic bag of beans and do not want to admit that they did not do enough research into the long-term implications of their decision.
Just my $.02 and no statistics to go along with my opinions but, like Gary, over a decade of experience designing and developing .Net based commercial solutions including Ektron, Kentico and Sitecore.
Kyle Bailey – Da Big Cheeze
WordPress is a good CMS alternative. I found that other CMS scripts can be difficult and confusing to work with. WordPress is user friendly. All you need is plugins to suit your needs.
Thanks for your article, and I hope the following is helpful for future comparisons.
Background: We use Drupal and SharePoint, and will probably being installing SiteCore next year (primarily for the way it does active responses to client input- marketing focus).
When reading your article, one huge issue jumped out at me immediately, and gave me grave concern:
In relation to Open Source anything being able to make adjustments to the core code is NOT “the main advantage with open source CMS solutions”.
There are many other ways of changing the behavior of Drupal or Linux or Apache, without hacking the core- that is dangerous in any situation.
You would not hack Microsoft’s/Falcon’s code – especially if there were elegant methods to create modules that enhanced the core CMS, without breaking its ability to be upgraded. Open Source is so many people can work on a project together- it is not for cost savings. The moment the core is hacked, it is no longer part of the project- please do not do this to your customers- just use your software and do what you like to it.
This one point got me all riled up, so apologies, but I read the rest of your article with a very critical eye:
On other points you make in your article:
You say, “The nature of open source implies that the product is not going to be as ‘out-of-the-box’ as you would expect in comparison to a commercial package. ”
Well neither is SharePoint nor SiteCore- all products take resources to integrate them into the business’s model.
—
You say, “… the completion times for fixes and updates can be significantly longer than one would experience (or tolerate) when partnering with a commercial CMS provider.”
My experience is very different (although limited to Drupal/Linux and SharePoint/Microsoft). Drupal patches very often and quickly- it has never had a successful zero day attack made against it. SharePoint is fine too, although I worry more about it, because it is sitting on Windows servers, and I have found that there we have had more risk from that, than from anything else.
—
You say, “Open source products rely on its community network to deliver support”
Sort of… I have tried hard to find any SharePoint meet ups in my area, although one is being promised- I guess it must be horses for courses, but the community here is much better than any support I have had from Microsoft, and much cheaper.
Other support: I have a library of 12 Drupal technical manuals (three SharePoint, although there are a lot more SharePoint manuals than Drupal, in general) and access to many professional who have worked on large projects (ie The state of New South Wales- (where Sydney is located), its government is moving all of its website to Drupal (probably following the lead of Prime Minister’s website, who probably followed the USA’s Whitehouse website- although it is probably a coincidence of timing, rather than one site leading another.)
—
So, where does this leave us, with our opposite views? My guess is that your view is created from a successful business model that has helped many business achieve great successes- but your successes have been better with your own product, than with open sourced CMSes. My view is from a situation where I have an easier time with the Open Source side, than with the Microsoft side (although I think SharePoint is pretty amazing, but expensive and bloated).
I will end with the thing that set off this rant in the first place: please do not touch the core of any Open Sourced system- with Drupal write a module- and better yet, share the module with the rest of the world- you would be surprised how much business is generated by giving something useful away.
Thank you for your Drupalish point of view… I always enjoy a good debate, but maybe you should consider that when someone comments on Open Source products they do not necessarily mean Drupal. There’s other open source solutions on the market that are far worse and in my opinion a few that are far better than Drupal. My comments and experiences are not only from deploying many different CMS solutions for well over a decade, but primarily based on comments made by the end-user/customers, which always carries more weight than what you or I think