At the other end of the spectrum are the companies just starting their Web presence. They may argue they don't need a content management system, because they'll have a small Web site with just a portfolio and some content information.

Does this sound familiar? I'll look at the pros and cons of static pages and a content management solution and examine the "what ifs" and resulting consequences.

When the "wild, wild Web" was young, it was a publisher's dream. Anyone with a mouse and an Internet connection was authoring Web pages. However, the content was ugly and unstructured, and most of it wasn't even true. The Web has been tamed a little and has settled into corporate America with some degree of reliability.

With that new respectability comes the "save the day" content management applications. Some are basic and inexpensive, whereas others can be extremely robust and quite expensive. Basic functionality of these applications includes security, groups and roles, workflow and approval process, development and production environments, templates and content entry forms, metadata structures, versioning and rollback capabilities, Web page caching, launch capabilities ... the list goes on and on. Each of these attributes plays an important part in building and maintaining a highly structured, scalable, changeable, and usable Web site, which wasn't possible with a static Web site, at least immediately after its inaugural launch.

Unstructured, flat HTML and its pitfalls

My nieces are building Web pages at the ages of 8 and 9 using some online tools that utilize templates and forms. Sounds kind of like a miniature content management application. The truth is there's nothing wrong with static HTML in general; it's just that I find myself making the case over and over again on why organizations should steer away from static sites. Probably the biggest pitfall is the amount of redundancy that goes into a static site. I'm not just talking about information in general -- I'm talking about the code. Each page has a table framework that holds together the graphics for the site, and because the basic look and feel of the site has to be consistent, each page has the same top nav, left nav, and footer. Yes, a bypass to this may be an Active Server Pages (ASP) Include or an iFrame, but that can only take you so far. Making a small change to the look of a static site usually means hunting through several pages, if not all of them, to make the changes throughout.

The other main pitfall to static Web pages is the lack of metatdata attached to the content. This metadata includes the keywords, security, or any other relevant attribute you want to attach to a piece of content that makes it usable and easily repurposed throughout a company's Web site or sites. The lack of structured data leads to many pages falling into the depths of a Web site never to be seen again unless someone accidentally stumbles across them at some point by clicking on links all day. This isn't to say that the content is no longer relevant or useable; it's just that you can't find it by intuitive navigation or a keyword search function. I could go on for days about such shortcomings, but instead I list them in the matrix at the bottom of the page.

So what do static Web pages do better than managed Web pages? Well, they initially cost less and go up quickly. Other than that, there are no real incentives to go this route. More often than not, though, these factors alone make up the argument against a content management system, not only by small to midsize businesses, but surprisingly also by Fortune 500 companies.

So how do you convince a company that no matter how small its Web presence it should consider some sort of content management system? It's easy. Just ask management one question: What would happen if the Web master were struck by lighting tomorrow? All kidding aside, it brings up an important point. Having one all-knowing "key master" for your company's Internet, intranet, and extranet is probably not a good business practice. It's like having only one key to the office and everyone having to depend on one person for access. What happens if he's late or, worse yet, doesn't show up at all?

Unfortunately, this problem usually doesn't convince a CEO to crack open his corporate wallet for a content management system. He needs cold hard numbers demonstrating a return on investment (ROI). Showing ROI isn't as easy as it sounds. I wish I could provide you with a standard formula to just plug in the numbers, but it's not that simple. You have to look at and explore each case. Factors such as time spent looking up resources on intranets, tangible leads from a Web site, or even an increase in sales on an existing e-commerce site are all measurable. These areas are great places to start, and it won't be long before you're able to show major profits not too far down the road. Also try to get the company to look as far down the road as possible. This will be the greatest return on investment you can show. Planning and scalability are the two major factors you'll have to address if you want to convince your organization to go with a content management solution.

And if none of this information works to sway the company into a content management system, I know a couple of young but promising Web masters who will work for Gumi Bears and Barbie dolls.