UMI.CMS is now bigger than CMS

The thought put in the headline by the red line went through the presentation of the new version of the gradually becoming more and more known CMS from the Umisoft company. Last Wednesday, the press showed version 2.5 of the UMI.CMS package, moreover, I must pay tribute, it was made interesting. My interest was warmed up the day before, when I heard that "Umisoft will leave the CMS market". What does this mean?



As it turned out, it meant that the basis for the development of its UMI system is now laying a new concept, the “operating system of the site” ( SOS ), which should be something easily expandable, complemented, administered and almost not requiring developer intervention in its use by the user. . And this, in turn, meant the following.



In a dispute between supporters of “boxed” and “studio” CMS, the point of view was established long ago that a ready-made CMS is much less flexible and it is very difficult to tailor it to some specific needs of the website being created: you need to either finish it yourself, or it is unacceptable for a developer to wait will release the necessary addition. Hence the idea of ​​UMI: to put the customer feedback process to such a level that their developments in improving the CMS are not in vain, and new features are introduced into the system as easily as possible.



If a client, having acquired a CMS and working with her in his project, decides that he doesn’t have enough functions invested in it, now he has an incentive to work for himself and others. If his additions to the UMI system are deemed important, she is ready to offer him a partnership and include the module he created in future releases or make it available for download. At the same time, of course, the company is firmly interested in the fact that the module is distributed only through its website, centrally, and brings profit to it and its author. At the same time, in special cases, Umisoft will not be against the free distribution of the add-on if its author is fundamentally against the sale of his creation.

')

As a first step in this direction, the GeoIP module from CN-Software and the SEO module based on the Site-Auditor program from Ashmanov and Partners were included in the new version of CMS. Of course, also in version 2.5 other changes and additions were made, which its users will probably appreciate.



The second important point of the presentation was the report “How much does a website cost in Russia and what do web developers earn?”. According to the report, the trend is that by the end of the year we can expect an increase in the number of proposals in the price range from 90 to 150 thousand rubles and from 150 thousand to 500 thousand rubles. The growth of these segments will be carried out by reducing the volume of supply, primarily in the cheaper segment from 30 to 90 thousand rubles. Thus, the rise in prices for site creation services is expected to be more than double by mid-2009. Of course, low-cost offers will remain, but their share in the total mass will decrease significantly. This applies to Moscow and St. Petersburg. In the regions, the picture is similar, although there the corresponding prices should be reduced by 2-3 times.



It is also interesting to study the share of the cost of boxed CMS (1C-Bitrix, NetCat, HostCMS, ABO.CMS, Amiro, S.Builder and a number of others, without UMI.CMS) in the total cost of sites made on them. Excluding from the statistics of the most expensive developers, we are shown that quite a significant percentage of site builders invest quite a bit of their work in the final amount that they require from the customer. Taking advantage of the 50% affiliate discount, many of them are practically engaged in reselling CMS, but at its retail price. There is no point in fighting this, as such a “business model” ceases to be attractive as the web studio matures and there is a general increase in demand for more expensive websites, from which the customer expects to see some more invested work.



UMI sees a benefit for itself and its customers here at a lower price than its CMS compared to its competitors, which allows the site to keep its value at the same level, while reducing the cost of a CMS to an average of 25% of it.



I asked Mikhail Tokovinin, CEO of QSOFT, which, one might say, “ate a dog” to create websites on the CMS “1C-Bitrix”, to comment on this data.



"The average percentage of the cost of CMS (of the cost of the project) in the affiliate grid 1C-Bitrix - 10%," says Michael, "Depending on the experience and qualifications of a partner, this figure can vary from 1% to 50%."



On the indicators for UMI, Mikhail said that this company “is still betting on the lower market not so much from the point of view of the consumer, but from the point of view of the partner (that is, their partner network consists of small studios). This is explained by the fact that there is a Umistudio associated with them, that is, they themselves have not abandoned the development and are unlikely to be willing to give a large project for implementation to a third-party developer. ”



Conclusions from all this are obvious. Encountering strong opposition from web studios with a fairly strong development department, with their own CMS and generally not trying to “plant” all their projects on the same universal system, the producers of the “boxes” can only go to increase the flexibility of their products. What they, at least some, are already starting to do. How much this task is possible at all, only time will tell.