[bigiain]

> The problem is that marketing wants a website that

... they can publish and update content without having to get IT involved - just like they did at their last job where the website was WordPress.

Oh, and IT who thinks their company has a marketing department that adds zero revenue to the bottom line needs to go back to they mom's basement or academia. That's just not how the world works.

[bsder]

> Oh, and IT who thinks their company has a marketing department that adds zero revenue

Please reread. I said the website brought zero revenue.

The website for our company never broke 5 digits in total views. I could almost precisely correlate who was looking at our website with who marketing was currently talking to. Scaling was useless. Dynamism was useless. etc.

All resource spent on the website was worse than useless as it took marketing away from doing anything else which would could result in revenue.

A lot of businesses are in the same boat where the website brings in zero revenue. A static website would be more than good enough but somebody in mangement chain has a "Must Keep Up With The Joneses" streak. And then you wind up on WordPress.

[bongodongobob]

No they can't. You don't roll out technical solutions without IT involvement for obvious security and stability reasons from hosting, bandwidth charges, auth, security maintenance, cert renewals, https, etc, unless you don't care about any of those things. That's literally ITs job and why the dept exists.

[bigiain]

Those concerns are kinda the raison d'être for WPEngine.

For anywhere small enough to not have an IT department, or so large and where the IT department has effectively become obstructionist to other department's jobs, just buy marketing their own WPEngine subscription and let them do their thing.

I think people who work in an "IT Department" sometimes have a too narrow view of the rest of the world. Both ignoring that almost all small and most medium sized businesses do not have an IT department, and also that there are people and departments in their own organisations who's IT needs are real but are not considered a priority by the IT Department.

(Often understandably not the IT departments priority, the people in a bank IT department who're securing financial systems from continuous attacks almost certainly don't consider the HR departments need to set up a quick website for the company bbq or RUOK day to be a prioroty. But someone in HR is getting _super_ frustrated at not being able to do the "simple things" they know they could do if IT didn't keep pushing back.)

[bongodongobob]

I'll just ignore the "IT pushback comments", as if we don't have real actual reasons for pushing back against the stupid shit people with no experience think is a good idea.

The main problem, security aside, is when shit goes south (and it will at some point), IT will be asked to handle something they didn't set up, don't know anything about, and will be looked down upon when they can't get it working quickly.

As long as there is ownership of any problems by whomever set it up, yeah, go nuts, but experience also tells me that's never how it works.

[gg82]

And then people bypass IT for things that IT would be happy to help them with and end up getting called in to fix some non-standard thing that has become critical to their work.