I had a call with a client where I needed to justify why we're using Astro instead of Next.js. The client was quite insistent, saying, 'but everyone uses Next.' I ended up spending 20 minutes explaining the differences between static site generation and server components, but all they really wanted to know was if the website would be fast. Do you typically break down your technical reasoning for clients, or do you just tell them to 'trust me, I'm the developer'?
5 Answers
Just a heads up, Next.js can also do static site generation. Personally, I think unless there’s a compelling reason not to, it’s best to go with what the client prefers.
I usually just throw out terms like 'faster' and 'cheaper,' then add in some buzzwords like 'flexibility' or 'robustness.' After doing this for 20 years, I find that it works pretty well!
You really don't need to dive into technical specifics. Focus instead on the business value. When I get asked about the stack, I say something like, 'This choice ensures the site loads in under 1.5 seconds, which improves user conversion rates and cuts down on our server costs.' If they push back with 'But everyone uses Next?' I respond that Next is great for complex apps, but for this project, it would be overkill and just waste development time with no real benefits. Just give them the reassurance they're looking for!
You should definitely explain things at a level they can grasp. Highlight why the chosen technology benefits the user instead of getting lost in technical jargon.
I keep it focused on the results rather than the tech. I’d say, 'We chose Astro because it delivers a faster, simpler site with less to manage.' Non-tech stakeholders want speed, cost efficiency, and reliability, not the nitty-gritty of server components.
Plus, Astro is great for SEO and can deliver websites almost instantly!
But on a serious note, learning to connect your technical choices to cost can be a game changer in your career.