CMS White label feedback

@jdesign White label is a small feature, not “services”. Accusing me of wanting “free services” is not the best way to present what I’ve said. I’ve already clearly laid out that we pay for services here in the form of monthly plan fees, hosting fees, and CMS fees.

As for whether or not I am charging my clients is irrelevant. Yes, I am, but I won’t keep raising my pricing every time Webflow wants to charge me for new features. My plan is to keep my prices competitive as to not scare off clients, while at the same time earning a small amount for my time.

Whether I am delivering a custom WordPress or Webflow site, in the end, I’m not really going to get by with charging much more, if any more, for Webflow sites, all at a much increased cost for me. Currently, I am losing money with webflow. If I remember my results from my math, I would need three or more paying customers to start making a profit. Only because I am looking at the future am I even here building my sites. I want to build my business here but the nickel and diming is making me look elsewhere.

And it may be easy for you to say… go somewhere else but I have a paying customer who is happy. Can you not see how that puts me in a weird predicament? I’ve already told him about some of the debacle and he is it’s my choice but he said he does “love” his site here. And if I leave, then I have to rebuild all of that again somewhere else.

I don’t need white label for his sites but I’m not going to leave any sites here if I start using a new platform somewhere else. it’s looking like I will rebuild his sites with Adode Muse and use some of the 15 sites that I get as part of the Creative Cloud subscription.

With all of that being said… I’ve actaully started thinking about being upfront with the fact I use webflow and not white labeling. It is possible that it would’t hurt my business at all. I’m thinking that if people are hiring me to build them a site, then they don’t really “want” to build their own site. Therefore, it’s unlikely that they will see the webflow logo and want to go build and host their own site.

However… what really, really has me worried is how webflow nickels and dimes with new features. I am literally scared to see how much they shoot the price up with e-commerce or any other cool new feature, such as DWP (dynamic website personalization) or A/B testing if they ever come. Holy crap, I can only imagine how much this platform will end up costing to host sites here.

They need to give me and their customers some confidence in this regards, quickly.

1 Like

Just to clear what I’m saying. I’m not saying Webflow should charge for every feature. I’m saying they aren’t charging most features. And what they are charging us for are features every other platform charges its users for. Plus, the Webflow fees aren’t high and they aren’t obligatory. I always hope they will not raise the pricing for the plans, and we all want cheap or free stuff sure but, since i get upset with my clients when they acuse me of charging them too much or more for an extra thing they need, i wouldn’t act like them. I’m not encouraging Webflow to charge us more, I’m encouraging Webflow to give us more features that make our job easier.
We don’t have to agree, but let’s not bash. Let’s talk reason. The Webflow team listened to us when we expressed our opinion about the CMS pricing. They will take into consideration our concerns again, let’s just first say thank you, before we add our"but"s. We are a beautiful community, let’s keep it like that please.
Sorry, for my long comments. Respect to all!

1 Like

First my feedback to the community would be, stop assuming so much about other designers/users/webflow that you don’t know. I don’t like when people assume things about me based on me being a designer or even why I use webflow (among other things). I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if I or someone else did the same to you. That’s not directed at anyone… I’ve been seeing a lot of assumptions all over this forum. I just think it’s best to try to speak from you’re own perspective, and respect that others have their own. Just like all of us didn’t want whitelabeling, not everyone who wants whitelabeling wants it for free, nor does it mean that everyone who wants whitelabeling is afraid to let the world know they use Webflow. Humans = Diverse


You could have created a thread for Whitelabeling (pinned) once you knew you were going to do be releasing it. Get the community involved in the thread before the release, getting all the bull**** out the way, while promoting it too (Because regardless it’s still advertising). Then when you actually release it, less fuss. And everyone’s more knowledgeable and can’t complain as much. Plus… Webflow won’t have to explain as much, because a lot will have already been made pretty clear.

I’ve been freelancing since Frontpage was around and Macromedia still owned Dreamweaver/Fireworks/Flash… users/clients don’t ever stop complaining… and when they’re completely satisfied, it’s like your favorite holiday w/pay. You can’t stop it but you can get ahead of it sometimes, and benefit from it.

That’s just my two wooden nickles and a lint ball. Thanks for the dope tool, much success.


@GodlessGlen Feature vs service is semantics in this situation. You want something for free but are planning to charge your client regardless? And charging your customers is not irrelevant, you are trying to make money by charging for a feature the same thing that the Webflow team is trying to do.

Adobe Muse has it’s place but the development process is slower and CMS/blog integration being a little cumbersome so I’m not sure it’s the best comparison to Webflow but I do understand what you are saying.

Being upfront with your client is the only way to go ever…in my opinion and your contract should cover the use of “tools” and what moving a site later or adding additional functionality could potentially mean or cost a client. It makes for better long-term clients and helps them understand features/benefits cost and what value they are receiving, You don’t have to provide existing customers with every new feature if it’s a cost related change or takes your time…just like you wouldn’t change a client’s site for free just because there is a new cool functionality or conversion strategy moving through the web and they want it added to their site - you don’t have to White Label if you haven’t charged for it.

Hmmm…if you are losing money on building with Webflow that’s an issue for certain and I could see why any change in pricing makes you upset and anxious about future features! From my perspective it’s just as easy or even slightly easier to make a decent profit when designing custom sites with Webflow because Webflow is a time saver and it’s certainly easier to respond to client’s custom design requests, the ease of the CMS also seems to be a hit with clients moving from Wordpress. I understand that every designer/developer approaches contracts differently and maybe you are locked in somehow with the client at a fixed price and that’s a difficult situation. The Webflow pro plan is $420/year (annual billing) or $504/year plus the domain or CMS hosting. It’s pretty easy to spread that annual overhead across even just a few projects and then setup a maintenance plan that includes the monthly domain or CMS hosting or give clients the option to just pay for the hosting.

I’m completely confident and comfortable with the direction Webflow seems to be headed. I much prefer the buy as you need plan over a large hike in the base monthly plan fee.

1 Like

@jdesign I’m not trying to charge them for the white label feature. I’m trying to avoid having to do that. You make it sound as if I want white label for free just to turn around and charge for that. That’s not the case.

Like I said in a previous comment, I want to provide a seamless uniform look to what I offer and keep my prices where they are.

Now, as for Adobe Muse, in some ways it is more time consuming and in other ways it’s not. But just like weblfow, they are constantly improving and adding new features… and remember, these new features do not drive up the cost of their platfrom. That’s the whole reason behind SAAS. You pay them month after month and that money in part goes to developing new features. However, webflow doesn’t seem to be on the same page as Adobe.

It’s their company and they can and will do what they want, but I had to speak up, because I want to continue to be here. Not to sound like a broken record, but it seems like “nickel and diming” in an unfair way. That’s just my take on it. You can disagree.

1 Like

@GodlessGlen If Adobe drops a full blog platform into Muse without increasing the price I’d be impressed. Anyway, both our opinions have been expressed…moving on.


As I have more than once requested this whitelabel feature throughout the forum and to Webflow support. For some reason I feel I like I should voice out my opinion just so Webflow could gain more feedback and grow even more.

My thoughts:

  1. I agree that Webflow should be charging for the whitelabel feature… in fact I was never expecting it to be free. In reality, the cost of such a feature should go towards business expenses instead of the clients. It is the business’s choice on how they want to present their brand. If Webflow were to make this free … the feature won’t be used by the ones who need it but the ones who use it just for the convenience that this feature is offered at no cost.Thus and only then will Webflow unnecessarily decrease in exposure and revenue. Resulting in no ROI. With no finances … Webflow won’t even be around.

  2. With that being said. I have to disagree on the pricing structure of the Whitelabel. Currently it is $5/month/site. At this cost our business’s expense easily goes up high. IMO, this shouldn’t be per month/site but per account, because different from the hosting … you are targeting one client (the business) and not the clients of the businesses. Therefore, it is unfair to treat it as a feature for our clients when it is in fact for your users. If the expense for the need of such a feature gets too high… but this is the level of customization we need or provide … we won’t be able to sustain ourselves either.

  3. Another factor that should be consider is the value of this feature, which at the current state is not enough for the pricing you offer or any other higher pricing / ROI you could potentially receive. At the moment all we could do is change the Webflow logo and Company name … as well as some reference in the code. That is not enough. I don’t mind paying to have Whitelabel … in fact I’m happy to do so, I could support Webflow … but only for a true and professional whitelabel, so this could be mutually beneficial. Right now, after paying for the Whitelabel feature, there are still Webflow instances in the code (eg. W’s, WF’s …etc). It is disappointing that we can’t customize that even after willing to pay the fee to do so. If it is just half whitelabelled … then whats the point?! Some could argue something like bootstrap is bootstrap, but that’s comparing apple and oranges. Webflow is a professional SaaS … not a framework, therefore if they could offer something that could be true whitelabelled for the people willing to pay … then why not?!

  4. As I’ved said a lot of times already, thank you for the amazing work done and the future ahead is bright for you guys. Webflow is doing great with some mistakes but nothing is perfect, as long as you guys learn … you guys are UNSTOPPABLE!!

PS. Planned for 2 sentences. Got paragraphs. :stuck_out_tongue: :blush: Thanks for reading. These are my own thoughts. Hope they’re helpful. :wink:

Cheers. :beers:



Hi All,

There has been some excellent comments in this thread from the two parties conflicting. One looking at the business perspective (need the whitelabel) and one looking at the designer / production work perspective (does not need it). But these are 2 different situations and positions … therefore shouldn’t be conflicting in one thread. As a business … we want to offer the client and have them feeling they are getting a customize and unique product from us. As a designer … we see a beautiful, amazing tool and wish to share it to everyone. As both, when I’m in the business mode I would use the whitelabel and do just that. But when I’m in the designer mode … I’ll go around sharing with my devs, photographers, friends, family members … etc this amazing tool. Therefore, when this featured was requested … we weren’t trying to hide Webflow’s brand but in fact wanting to run our business side with a designer’s heart hoping to support Webflow. Meaning Webflow WILL NOT lose exposure. @thegrafiqlyfe Made a great point! Don’t make assumptions and put yourself in other people shoes.



There is no other way to handle software development. Something is ready when it’s ready and promising things is only getting you anger when you can’t deliver. So that’s not going to change, and here I’m not even talking about Webflow alone. The whole software development world works like this. What service or software company discloses their roadmap? IMHO the updates are handled as good as it could be.

It took time for the CMS to come but have you seen how insanely good it is? And how fast the updates on it are coming, following user requests?

You said WF is the best, but it’s the best by very, very far, there’s not the beginning of a competition here. And the CMS is only on par with that quality.

Let’s do the maths. Hosting a CMS+WL+hypothetical E-commerce. 10+10+… let’s say I don’t know, 20. That’s 440 a year for an incredible business front and back end. With no server admin to pay. With no server admin to pay. With no server admin to pay. With no server admin to pay. Oh, and with no server admin to pay. If I’m going to host e-commerce websites on Webflow for my clients, I’ll still have room to make profit on hosting+maintenance.

What I am trying to say is when you have a sense of what things really cost and what is the cost of being a reliable developer, designer and webmaster, Webflow is cheap, very cheap.


The biggest problem here is that WebFlow pricing does not scale for agencies. WebFlow indicates white labeling is for larger agencies. If an agency has 100+ sites this means they are paying $500/month + just to remove the WebFlow branding. Not really reasonable, especially as this feature does not tax either the WebFlow R&D team or WebFlow’s hosting cost.

It’s the same issue with the per site CMS pricing, it works fine for a few sites, but isn’t realistic when scaled.

@DesignerDiana had it right, if WebFlow wants to add pro features for Agency clients, they need to incorporate that price into the Agency plan pricing, not the per site pricing.

We’ll keep using WebFlow for now, but WebFlow is not breeding loyalty with their agency clients by hitting them with a per site price every time they add a new feature.

WebFlow, we need a pricing model that scales.


Hmm…White-label should be targeted at agencies and should be one-time payment. Not recurrent. That is my advise on this. Going forward, just to make a reference, Adobe Business catalyst charges one-time fee for white-labeling the platform with a free complete site (When I mean complete site, with ecommerce feature, but you can’t sell consumer goods on it except your digital web business-your company website. And it doesn’t expire. BC keeps hosting it for you so long you are building websites and hosting more websitrs under BC). All sites you build under your white-label is seen by clients as if you are the one providing the service-Not Adobe BC/Webflow.Your brand logo is displayed every time the client logs into the admin. However you continue to pay your regular monthly subscription for using Webflow designer to build websites for your client with all the CMS features and ecommerce*(when released in the case of Webflow)*, and depending on the requirement of your client. If your client is not selling any consumer goods then the site is pushed on a hosting plan that do not cover ecommerce, and so on. Am glad to help. Please once again feel free to send me a PM so we can share. I’m passionate about Webflow!


In addition, all new websites created will only be hosted with BC and will be charged to the agency, if the agency is upselling or invoiced to client directly. However, a 20% commission is paid to all white-labelled agencies as motivation for their sales efforts on every website hosted.


@jdesign Adobe might not ever integrate a blog into it, but Muse Themes just did. It integrates tumblr and is even SEO friendly.

@topelovely Doesn’t BC charge a per site hosting fee though How much is Adobe’s white label fee?

@GodlessGlen Yeah, I think that’s been doable for a while but can’t remember for sure. I stopped using Muse because Adobe was too slow in getting a truly responsive design option in place and the “alternate” designs for tablet and phone weren’t consistently delivered to the right devices.’

I still keep Muse in the mix (still part of Beta group as well) just in case along with BC but found support to be absolutely awful from the BC team. The Muse team is great but it just didn’t seem to move fast enough with the responsive issue.

1 Like

Muse has several Blog widgets. Installed/Opened it for the first time the other day after the updates. Not sure what they are like though. Never used Muse before.

Blog is on the emarketing plan. ABC kept hosting separated from design/development tool. This is what I think the Webflow team should learn.

White-Label: targeted at digital agencies (Whatever size)

  • One-time fee of $2500-$3,500

  • (Custom domain for sites under white-label, while agency is still
    developing (instead of =

  • Forever Corporate Website for digital agency (No annual payment on
    hosting till end of time)

  • Privileged Support

  • 20% commision on each website hosting renewal.

  • Agency keep position as long as they selling, I mean adding new
    customers to Webflow hosting. Building more websites

  • Agency do not pay for design tool (Perk not offered by ABC but could be a good deal, since Webflow is currently flooded with freelance designers/developers/Small agencies, etc. This could be a value for those who can throw in the big cash for R & D), while the monthly subscription keeps Webflow engine well lubricated.

  • 10 email addresses or more + other things ABC is not doing for partners such SSL, etc

On Muse, it was created for designers who don’t care about the code.


@jdesign Did you not the see latest update for Muse? It’s a preview release but it’s now responsive.

And you are right about the support. It’s not good. I’m very picky when it comes to support and most companies fail, but webflow gets high marks from me with support. They have just caused me to lose confidence in them because of the issues we were discussing previously.


In some cases, I’d like to have the option of using my own company name instead of but not for $2,500 - $3500 isn’t there also a per month fee associated with each individual client domain?

I think the structure you highlighted is potentially why BC’s support is poor, fixes or new implementation slow and hosting speeds were just okay (has been a year or two since I put anything new on there). I don’t want Webflow to take on Adobe’s development or business strategies…I’d prefer to see Webflow continue to be responsive to the needs of users and moving design and development of the web forward. I don’t want Webflow introducing a range of features or test products/services into the mix that then stagnate or die.

On Muse, not sure why you commented about the code…I’m familiar with the product.

@GodlessGlen Yep, I played around with the responsive release but it still just seems so cumbersome. Picking and choosing what’s responsive and what isn’t. I’ll give it another look if the need arises but I’m happy with Webflow and knowing how the divs are structured makes me happy (even if I don’t always get it perfect the first try).

1 Like