We need to talk about this. If you're at all observant of trends in the Web Development space, you might have noticed that people are increasingly building static pages using CMS solutions. Does that make any sense at all?

When I first noticed this trend it was because people were building static informational-type websites for clients using Elementor and WordPress. That didn't make any sense to me.

Yes, it makes it convenient for the person building the site, but does it make any sense from the perspective of the client business? Wouldn't they get a better deal with a static website?

When i first observed this trend, I used to say "That's like using a forklift to transport groceries from the store". My views on this have evolved since then, but let's talk about the "illogicalities" of creating fully static pages with a CMS.

• Maintenance is a lot more costly. The client has to constantly be on the lookout for security patches or updates, or pay for maintenance. If it were a static HTML site, they wouldn't need to.

• Hosting is infinitely more expensive. You can host static websites for free on GitHub pages and many other places. A WordPress website costs money to host. Does it make sense if it is 100% static and you're not using any CMS features?

• Performance is often an issue. This is especially the case when people use a visual builder to build the site or tack on a bunch of plugins. The client then has to either accept a slow-loading website or hire a performance optimization expert. But if they had gone the static route, this wouldn't be an issue.

I'm using WordPress as an example, but the same could apply to hosting a fully static website on WebFlow or any other CMS where you're paying a premium price to host something that can essentially be hosted for free.

So, in conclusion, it never makes sense to host static pages on a CMS, right?

Well, not so fast. Our dilemma here is about whether it ever makes sense to use a CMS when an entire website is static. That is to say when every single page across the entire website is static.

If there are any dynamic pages on the website, it is usually better to use a CMS for said website. The obvious example is if you have a /blog page where it shows your latest company news and articles.

It makes sense to place your entire website on a CMS, even if the blog page is the only non-static page on your entire website. This is even if your site has 80 static pages and one dynamic blog page.

So then websites that have zero dynamic pages should never be hosted on a CMS then?

I might have said something like this many years back, however, my views are a bit more nuanced these days based on real-world experience with how businesses and their needs grow.

The part that you have to factor in is that businesses evolve and grow. Just because a business doesn't need dynamic pages now, it doesn't mean that it never will. In fact, in the real world businesses grow by gradually adding more complexity to how they do things.

So an assessment needs to be made based on how soon that business might start adding dynamic aspects to its web presence. If it is unlikely to be any time soon, then they should create the website in HTML and get it hosted for free.

If however, they plan on starting to blog and do automated blog-to-social media syndication shortly, it might be worth building on a CMS from the get-go. This also allows them to budget in chunks.

• Initially, they only need to cover the cost of creating a static website on WordPress.

• Then, as the need for adding functionality arises, they can fund and budget for each feature, one at a time.

The same logic applies to something like WebFlow or any other CMS.

One notable and special exception is Hubspot CMS

If your business is fully committed to the Hubspot ecosystem and you're doing everything from advertising to sales to customer support inside of Hubspot, you might decide to also host your company's website presence through Hubspot. This makes sense for many different businesses.

In this case, it makes sense to use the Hubspot CMS to host your website, even if it is fully static from the get-go. All Hubspot accounts include enough functionality to host static pages with the Hubspot CMS at no additional cost. And they take care of security.

So you can commission someone to build you a static business website with the Hubspot CMS, and then gradually over time, you can upgrade that website to support the dynamic functionality of Hubspot CMS, such as blogging, visitor personalization and other really useful features that integrate with the CRM.

Does that mean there are no downsides? No, there are some major downsides. Hubspot pricing increases are quite steep. So the fact that lower tiers are either free or cheap might look good at the start, but if you need more of the more advanced features later on, it might be outside of your budget.

You could build a similarly advanced website using something like a super-customized WordPress or a fully custom React solution with a headless CMS like Strapi. You could then integrate those with the Hubspot CRM and get much of the same advantages as using a higher-level Hubspot CMS plan.

Does that mean it always makes more sense to create your own alternative to avoid the higher costs of higher-tier Hubspot plans? No, not really, it depends on your business and many different factors. It's just something that you have to assess on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion: it depends

In an article, I have to speak in sometimes more general terms because every business is different. If you want more custom-tailored advice, feel free to reach out to me personally. I'm currently growing my Linkedin network, so feel free to add me if you need any advice.