A client wants to swap one photo. They log into the content editor they last saw at handover a year ago. The left column holds twenty items, five of which unfold into more. They open the one that sounds most like pages and find a list of a hundred and fifty entries with names like page_home_v2.
They close it and e-mail the supplier to ask whether they could swap the photo instead. They paid a serious sum for the site and are afraid to touch it.
That is not their failing, and it is not an unavoidable price for a proper website either. It follows from one decision taken at the start of the project that nobody discussed with them.
Short answer
- Ask to see the editor before you order and try swapping a photo and a paragraph with your own hands. Ten minutes inside somebody's content editor tells you more than their whole portfolio.
- The difference is not between expensive and cheap systems. It is between a general one that does everything for everybody and an editor built to hold exactly the fields your site needs.
- Mark of a good editor: you cannot break the design with it. If it lets you set font sizes, colours and spacing, sooner or later a page will drift.
- Second mark: a preview before publishing and a change history. Without them people never stop being afraid, because they have no way to undo anything.
- The most expensive consequence of a bad editor is not an annoyed owner. It is a website nobody has updated for two years because nobody dared.
Why most content editors frighten people
A general content management system has to serve a café's website, a tyre shop, a blog and a property catalogue. To manage that it offers everything to everybody and leaves the decision about what matters on your site to you.
The result is a menu of twenty items when you need three. An editor with thirty buttons when you use four. And fields with names that make sense to a developer, not to somebody who touches the company website twice a year.
An editor built to measure starts from the other end. It knows your site has service pages, references and news, so the menu has three items. It knows a reference has a title, a photo, three paragraphs and a figure, so the form has five fields. What the site does not need is not in the editor, which is why it cannot be broken.
Twenty menu items, an editor with thirty buttons and fields you cannot guess the effect of. Swapping a photo is half an hour of hunting and a fear of breaking something.
Three menu items, a form with five fields and a preview beside it. Swapping a photo is uploading a file and pressing save, ten seconds, and nothing can break.
The test you run in the meeting
This is the only part of the article you genuinely need. The rest explains why it works.
Ask the supplier to show you the editor on a real website, not as a screenshot in a deck. Then sit at the keyboard yourself and try five things. Not have them demonstrated, but done by you while the supplier stays quiet.
- 1Swap the photo on the homepage. Time it until the change shows on the site. Over two minutes is a bad sign.
- 2Rewrite one paragraph and add a link to it. Watch whether the editor offers only what you need, or font sizes and colours too.
- 3Add a new page or news item. Note how many fields you have to fill in and whether each one says what it is for.
- 4Try to preview the change before publishing it. If there is no preview, every edit will be made live in front of customers.
- 5Ask how to undo a change. „We would restore it from a backup“ means you are right to be afraid.
If you need the supplier's help at any of those steps, that is your answer. Not because they are bad at their job, but because you will use this editor twice a year and in twelve months you will remember none of it.
Six marks of an editor people actually use
All of them show up during that test and none of them needs technical knowledge.
| Mark | How you spot it | What it means when missing |
|---|---|---|
| The design cannot be broken | Nowhere to set a colour, a font size or spacing | Pages drift apart and nobody knows when it started |
| Preview before publishing | You see the change as a customer will, before saving | Every edit happens live on the running site |
| Change history | You can see who changed what and roll it back | Mistakes get fixed from a backup, so with the supplier and a delay |
| Only the fields the site needs | The form has five fields, not twenty five | Half stay empty and nobody knows whether that is wrong |
| Labels written in plain language | Each field says where that text appears | It gets filled in by trial and error |
| Works on a phone | Open the editor on a mobile and it is usable | A small fix waits until you are at a computer, so until Monday |
Four traps that only surface after a year
These do not show in a meeting, because on handover day the editor is empty and tidy.
An editor that lets you set anything. It sounds like freedom. In practice it means that two years on, every page has different spacing, different heading sizes and three shades of blue. The site drifts gradually and nobody notices when it started.
Content glued into one text field. When a whole page is one large block of formatted text, nothing can be pulled out of it or translated, and every design change means rewriting it by hand.
No roles or permissions. One account for the whole company means the password is also known to somebody who left last year. And when something changes, nobody knows who did it.
Plugins as the answer to everything. Each one adds its own menu items and its own settings. After a year there are fifteen and the menu has forty entries. This is the main reason a tidy editor turns into the one described at the top of this article.
The most expensive consequence of a bad content editor is not an annoyed owner. It is a website nobody updated for two years because nobody dared
When a general system is the right choice after all
A bespoke editor is not always better and there are cases where building one is wasted effort.
- When you publish a lot and have several authors. A newsroom of five people needs approval workflow, scheduling and roles. General systems do that and rebuilding it makes no sense.
- When you need something standard, fast and cheap. A blog or a personal site on an existing platform takes days and costs very little.
- When the company has its own IT person. Somebody who knows their way around, updates plugins and is not afraid. Then a wide editor is an advantage rather than a trap.
- When the scope will keep changing. A company that invents a new content type every month can click one together on an existing platform. Bespoke would mean an order every time.
The rule that follows: the less often you will open the editor, the simpler it has to be. Somebody who sits in it daily can handle a complicated tool. Somebody who opens it twice a year needs five fields and a preview.
How we handle it
A bespoke editor is part of our company website package rather than an extra. In practice that means four things.
- The fields match the site. If a reference has a figure, a photo and three paragraphs, the form has exactly that many fields, and each one says where that text will appear.
- The design cannot be set from the editor. Colours, sizes and spacing live in the design, not in a toolbar. That is why nothing can be broken.
- A video guide recorded on your own site. Not a generic manual but a recording from your own editor. You come back to it a year later when you want to change something, and you do not have to call.
- Small changes in the first month after launch are not billed. That is when it becomes clear what the editor is missing or what is labelled unclearly, and it is the best moment to fix it.
And the other side, with no attempt to hide it: a bespoke editor cannot do what you did not order. If you invent a new content type a year later, that is extra work, whereas on an existing platform you would click it together. It pays off for companies whose website is meant to last and whose content changes rather than its structure.
Frequently asked questions
Which CMS should I choose for a company website?
Do not decide on the name of the system but on what your site's editor will look like. Ask to see it on a real website before ordering and try swapping a photo and a paragraph yourself. If it takes more than two minutes or you need help, you will not open it a year from now.
How do I recognise a good content editor?
By six things: the design cannot be broken from it, it previews before publishing, it shows a change history, it holds only the fields the site needs, its labels are in plain language and it works on a phone. All six can be checked in ten minutes and none needs technical knowledge.
Why are people afraid to touch their own website's editor?
Because a general system offers everything to everybody: twenty menu items, an editor with thirty buttons and fields that do not say what they do. There is no preview and no undo, so every edit happens live. The fear is a reasonable response, not incompetence.
Is a bespoke editor more expensive than an existing platform?
At the start yes, because it gets built. It pays back through the site actually being updated and through nothing being breakable, so no repairs get billed. It does not pay off for companies that keep inventing new content types: that is a click on an existing platform and an order every time when bespoke.
What is the biggest trap in a website's content editor?
Plugins. Each adds its own menu items and settings, after a year there are fifteen and a tidy editor turns into one nobody dares open. The second trap is an editor that lets you set anything: two years on, every page has different spacing and three shades of blue.
When is a general CMS the better choice?
When you publish a lot and have several authors, when you need something standard fast and cheap, when you have your own IT person, or when the scope of the site will keep changing. A simple rule applies: the less often you open the editor, the simpler it has to be.
Summary
- Ask to see the editor before ordering and try it with your own hands. Ten minutes says more than a portfolio.
- The difference is not expensive against cheap, but general against built to hold exactly the fields your site needs.
- A good editor cannot be broken, previews changes and keeps a history. Without those three, the fear stays.
- Plugins are the main reason a tidy editor turns into an unusable one within a year.
- A general system makes sense for a newsroom with several authors, for a cheap standard site, and where there is an IT person in house.
- The most expensive consequence of a bad editor is a website nobody updated for two years.
Want to see what a bespoke editor looks like
We will show you one on a real website and let you try what you would actually be doing: swap a photo, rewrite a paragraph, add a news item. Half an hour, no commitment, and you judge it yourself instead of taking our word for it.