The Real Cost of 'Good Enough' Nonprofit Websites

I recently spoke with an Executive Director who said: "Our website isn't great, but it's good enough. We'd rather spend resources on programmes than digital infrastructure."

Six months later, they lost a £180,000 grant because funders couldn't verify governance quality through the website.

The "good enough" website that saved £15,000 in infrastructure investment cost £180,000 in lost funding—plus ongoing credibility damage affecting future applications.

"Good enough" wasn't good enough. It was institutionally expensive in ways the organisation never calculated.

Through my nonprofit work building 100+ websites, I've learned that "good enough" websites create hidden institutional costs—lost funding, stakeholder confusion, governance opacity, missed opportunities—that vastly exceed the infrastructure investment organisations are trying to avoid.

Why "Good Enough" Feels Financially Responsible

The logic seems unassailable:

The calculation organisations make:

• Proper governance infrastructure: £18,000
• Current "good enough" website: Functional, adequate, costs nothing additional
• Better use of £18,000: Programme delivery serving beneficiaries directly

The conclusion: Investing in website infrastructure when current site is "good enough" diverts charitable resources from mission to vanity.

The Board conversation: "We're not a tech company. Our website works. Let's focus on what we actually do—serving communities, not perfecting digital presence."

This reasoning makes intuitive sense. Nonprofits exist to serve charitable purposes, not win website design awards.

The problem: "good enough" websites create ongoing institutional costs that organisations never calculate when making the infrastructure investment decision.

The Hidden Institutional Costs of "Good Enough"

After 7+ years specialising in nonprofits, II recently spoke with an Executive Director who said: "Our website isn't great, but it's good enough. We'd rather spend resources on programmes than digital infrastructure."

Six months later, they lost a £180,000 grant because funders couldn't verify governance quality through the website.

The "good enough" website that saved £15,000 in infrastructure investment cost £180,000 in lost funding—plus ongoing credibility damage affecting future applications.

"Good enough" wasn't good enough. It was institutionally expensive in ways the organisation never calculated.

Through my nonprofit work building 100+ websites, I've learned that "good enough" websites create hidden institutional costs—lost funding, stakeholder confusion, governance opacity, missed opportunities—that vastly exceed the infrastructure investment organisations are trying to avoid.

Why "Good Enough" Feels Financially Responsible

The logic seems unassailable:

The calculation organisations make:

• Proper governance infrastructure: £18,000
• Current "good enough" website: Functional, adequate, costs nothing additional
• Better use of £18,000: Programme delivery serving beneficiaries directly

The conclusion: Investing in website infrastructure when current site is "good enough" diverts charitable resources from mission to vanity.

The Board conversation: "We're not a tech company. Our website works. Let's focus on what we actually do—serving communities, not perfecting digital presence."

This reasoning makes intuitive sense. Nonprofits exist to serve charitable purposes, not win website design awards.

The problem: "good enough" websites create ongoing institutional costs that organisations never calculate when making the infrastructure investment decision.

The Hidden Institutional Costs of "Good Enough"

After 7+ years specialising in nonprofits, I've learned to identify the specific recurring costs that "good enough" websites create:

Cost 1: Lost Funding From Credibility Gaps

What this is: Grant applications rejected or deprioritised because funders can't independently verify governance quality, institutional capacity, or compliance adherence through website due diligence.

Why "good enough" websites create this: Funders conducting due diligence research can't find:

• Accessible governance documentation proving Board oversight
• Financial transparency demonstrating responsible stewardship
• Compliance evidence showing WCAG adherence or safeguarding protocols
• Impact data supporting effectiveness claims
• Institutional credibility signals justifying significant investment

Real example:£4.2 million charity with "good enough" website (functional but minimal governance documentation) applied for £180,000 multi-year grant. Application strong. Funder feedback: "We couldn't verify institutional capacity through your website. Governance quality unclear. Selected organisation whose digital presence demonstrated institutional maturity."

Annual cost: One lost £180,000 grant opportunity.

But also: 3-5 other applications weakened by credibility gaps, potentially affecting £50,000-£100,000 additional funding.

Total funding impact: £230,000-£280,000 over grant cycle

Compare to: £18,000 governance infrastructure investment preventing credibility gaps.

ROI: 12-15x if preventing single major grant loss.

Why this isn't calculated: Organisations rarely learn that website credibility affected funding decisions. Funders don't typically provide detailed rejection rationale. The connection between "good enough" website and lost funding remains invisible.

Cost 2: Stakeholder Confusion Creating Operational Inefficiency

What this is: Staff time managing stakeholder complaints, mediating internal conflicts about website priorities, repeatedly explaining missing information, handling friction from unclear navigation or inadequate functionality.

Why "good enough" websites create this: Without proper stakeholder navigation framework:

• Internal teams constantly debate website priorities
• External stakeholders can't find information they need
• Communications Director spends 6-10 hours weekly managing website conflicts
• Programme staff create workarounds because website doesn't serve their needs

Real example:£2.8 million nonprofit with "good enough" website lacking stakeholder navigation framework. Communications Director estimates 8 hours weekly managing:

• Internal debates about homepage priorities
• Stakeholder complaints about missing information
• Requests for website changes from competing interests
• Explaining why certain things can't be easily implemented

Annual cost:8 hours/week × 50 weeks × £30/hour (blended staff rate) = £12,000 in staff time managing website friction.

Plus: Opportunity cost of strategic work not done because time consumed by website conflict management.

Total stakeholder confusion cost: £12,000-£18,000 annually

Compare to: £15,000 one-time governance infrastructure investment establishing stakeholder navigation framework eliminating recurring conflicts.

Why this isn't calculated: Staff time costs are invisible. Nobody tracks hours spent managing website friction. The Communications Director's frustration is accepted as normal rather than symptom of governance infrastructure absence.

Cost 3: Compliance Remediation When Standards Change

What this is: Emergency compliance work when funders require WCAG verification, regulators expect transparency documentation, or safeguarding reviews expose digital gaps.

Why "good enough" websites create this:"Good enough" typically means:

• Accessibility claimed but never verified
• Safeguarding considered for programmes but not digital presence
• Governance documentation exists somewhere but not published accessibly
• Compliance assumed based on platform choice rather than verified

Real example:£3.5 million charity with "good enough" Squarespace website. Major funder requires WCAG AA compliance evidence for grant renewal. Organisation assumed template was "accessible." Accessibility audit reveals 67 violations. Emergency remediation costs £6,500 plus 6-week delay creating grant deadline stress.

Remediation cost pattern:

• Accessibility audit and fixes: £4,000-£6,500 (every time new funder requires it)
• Safeguarding protocol -£5,000 (when review exposes gaps)
• Governance documentation publication: £2,000-£4,000 (when Board or regulator requires visibility)

Annual compliance remediation: £9,000-£15,500

Recurring because "good enough" means compliance isn't architecturally embedded—each new requirement triggers emergency work.

Total compliance cost over 3 years: £27,000-£46,500

Compare to: £18,000 governance infrastructure with compliance verification built in architecturally, preventing recurring remediation.

Why this isn't calculated: Remediation costs are budgeted as separate projects addressing "new requirements." Nobody connects them to original infrastructure decision creating gaps requiring ongoing fixes.

Cost 4: Leadership Transition Knowledge Loss

What this is: Expensive rebuilds when new Communications Directors or Executive Directors discover they can't govern inherited website because governance rationale exists only in departed staff members' heads.

Why "good enough" websites create this:"Good enough" rarely includes governance documentation because it feels like unnecessary overhead. Current staff "know how things work." No institutional knowledge preservation because infrastructure investment was avoided.

Real example:£4 million organisation with "good enough" website. Communications Director leaves after 4 years. New hire discovers:

• No documentation of stakeholder navigation decisions
• No compliance verification protocols
• No safeguarding framework documentation
• Unclear what's institutional commitment versus previous staff preference

After 14 months managing ungovernable infrastructure, approves £16,000 rebuild creating governance documentation should have existed initially.

Transition cost pattern: Average Communications Director tenure: 3-4 yearsAverage rebuild cost post-transition: £12,000-£18,000

Cost per leadership cycle: £12,000-£18,000

Total transition cost over 10 years: £36,000-£54,000

Compare to: £18,000 governance infrastructure with documentation enabling institutional continuity.

Why this isn't calculated: Rebuilds are budgeted as "new leadership bringing fresh perspective" rather than connected to original infrastructure lacking documentation.

Cost 5: Opportunity Cost of Strategic Initiatives Delayed

What this is: Programmes, campaigns, partnerships delayed because website can't support them without significant modification requiring budget and timeline that don't exist.

Why "good enough" websites create this: Infrastructure built for current operations, not institutional growth. When new strategic priorities emerge, website becomes barrier rather than enabler.

Real example:£3.2 million charity develops new collaborative programme with three partner organisations. Launch requires coordinated digital presence. "Good enough" website can't accommodate:

• Multi-organisation partnership architecture
• Shared programme information with distinct institutional identities
• Collaborative impact reporting across partners

Programme launch delayed 8 months whilst organisation debates whether to modify website (insufficient) or rebuild (expensive). Momentum lost, partnership strained, funding timeline affected.

Opportunity cost:

• Grant funding conditioned on programme launch: £120,000 delayed
• Partnership credibility damage: Unquantified but real
• Strategic initiative momentum: Lost
• Board frustration: Creates hesitation about future innovation

Strategic delay cost: £120,000+ when quantifiable

Compare to: £18,000 governance infrastructure flexible enough to accommodate institutional growth.

Why this isn't calculated: Opportunity costs are inherently difficult to measure. Strategic delays are attributed to "complexity" rather than infrastructure inadequacy.

The True Cost Calculation Over Institutional Timeline

When organisations properly calculate "good enough" website costs, the economics look completely different:

Scenario 1: "Good Enough" Website (Current Approach)

Year 1:

• Infrastructure investment: £0 (using existing "good enough" site)
• Lost funding from credibility gaps: £80,000 (portion of applications weakened)
• Stakeholder confusion management: £12,000
• Compliance remediation: £4,500 (accessibility audit when funder requires)
• Year 1 Total Cost: £96,500

Year 2:

• Stakeholder confusion management: £12,000
• Compliance remediation: £3,000 (safeguarding protocol emergency implementation)
• Strategic delay opportunity cost: £120,000 (new programme launch postponed)
• Year 2 Total Cost: £135,000

Year 3:

• Stakeholder confusion management: £12,000
• Lost funding from credibility gaps: £60,000
• Compliance remediation: £5,000 (governance documentation publication when Board requires)
• Communications Director transition begins
• Year 3 Total Cost: £77,000

Year 4:

• Stakeholder confusion management: £12,000
• Leadership transition rebuild: £16,000 (new Director discovers ungovernable infrastructure)
• Year 4 Total Cost: £28,000

4-Year Total "Good Enough" Cost: £336,500

Scenario 2: Proper Governance Infrastructure Investment

Year 1:

• Infrastructure investment: £18,000 (Blueprint Audit + implementation)
• Funding opportunities strengthened: £0 cost (actually revenue positive—grants won due to credibility)
• Stakeholder confusion: £2,000 (minimal—governance framework prevents conflicts)
• Compliance work: £0 (architecturally embedded)
• Strategic initiatives: £0 cost (infrastructure enables rather than blocks)
• Year 1 Total Cost: £20,000

Years 2-4:

• Annual maintenance: £1,500/year
• Stakeholder confusion: £2,000/year (minimal ongoing)
• Compliance: £0 (verification protocols established)
• Leadership transitions: £0 additional (governance documented)
• Strategic flexibility: £0 cost (infrastructure accommodates growth)
• Years 2-4 Total Cost: £10,500

4-Year Total Proper Infrastructure Cost: £30,500

True cost comparison:

• "Good enough" approach: £336,500 over 4 years
• Proper infrastructure: £30,500 over 4 years
• Difference: £306,000

The "expensive" £18,000 infrastructure investment saves £306,000 over 4 years compared to "good enough" approach.

The "cost-effective" decision to avoid infrastructure investment is actually 11x more expensive when properly calculated.

Why Organisations Don't See These Costs

The institutional costs of "good enough" websites remain invisible because:

Cost invisibility 1: Attribution difficulty

‍Lost funding rarely explicitly attributed to website credibility gaps. Organisations never learn that stronger digital presence would have won grant.

Cost invisibility 2: Distributed burden

‍Staff time managing stakeholder confusion isn't tracked as "website cost"—it's just accepted frustration distributed across team.

Cost invisibility 3: Temporal separation

‍Compliance remediation happens 6-18 months after infrastructure decision. Nobody connects emergency accessibility fix to original "good enough" choice.

Cost invisibility 4: Sunk cost framing

‍Leadership transition rebuilds are framed as "new strategic direction" rather than failure of original infrastructure to include governance documentation.

Cost invisibility 5: Opportunity cost abstraction

‍Strategic delays have no invoice. The programme that launched 8 months late due to website constraints doesn't appear in budget as "website-caused delay."

These costs are real—they affect institutional success, consume resources, limit impact—but they don't appear in "website investment" budget category making them seem disconnected from infrastructure decisions.

The Board Conversation That Changes Everything

I've seen one conversation consistently shift how Boards evaluate "good enough" versus proper infrastructure:

Instead of asking: "Can we justify £18,000 for website infrastructure when current site is good enough?"

Ask: "What's the total institutional cost over 3-5 years of maintaining 'good enough' website versus investing in proper governance infrastructure?"

When properly calculated:

• Lost funding from credibility gaps
• Staff time managing stakeholder confusion
• Recurring compliance remediation
• Leadership transition rebuilds
• Strategic initiative delays

The "expensive" infrastructure investment becomes the cost-effective choice preventing vastly larger recurring institutional costs.

The Questions That Reveal True Costs

When I conduct Blueprint Audits, these questions consistently expose hidden costs of "good enough" approach:

"How much grant funding have you applied for in the past 2 years? What percentage required due diligence research?"

Then: "Could funders independently verify your governance quality through your website?"

If not: Calculate potential funding affected by credibility gaps.

"How much Communications Director time goes to managing website stakeholder conflicts weekly?"

Then: Multiply by 50 weeks and staff hourly rate.

Reveals: Annual stakeholder confusion cost.

"How many times have you commissioned emergency website work to address compliance requirements?"

Then: Total remediation spending.

Reveals: Recurring compliance costs from non-architectural approach.

"What strategic initiatives have been delayed or complicated by website limitations?"

Then: Estimate opportunity cost of delays.

Reveals: Growth barriers created by inadequate infrastructure.

The Blueprint Audit True Cost Assessment

This is why Blueprint Audit process includes true cost calculation—comparing "good enough" continuation costs versus proper infrastructure investment.

The cost assessment includes:

Current state cost projection: What will maintaining "good enough" website cost over 3-5 years including lost funding, stakeholder confusion, compliance remediation, transition costs, opportunity costs?

Infrastructure investment comparison: What's total cost of proper governance infrastructure over same timeframe?

ROI calculation: What institutional value does infrastructure create beyond cost avoidance—funding opportunities enabled, strategic flexibility, credibility enhancement?

Board decision framework: Clear financial comparison enabling informed infrastructure investment decision versus "good enough" continuation.

The output shows that "expensive" infrastructure is actually cost-effective when properly calculated—and "good enough" is institutionally expensive choice masquerading as fiscal responsibility.

The Core Insight

"Good enough" nonprofit websites aren't cost-effective—they're institutionally expensive in ways organisations never calculate.

The hidden costs—lost funding, stakeholder confusion, compliance remediation, transition rebuilds, strategic delays—vastly exceed the infrastructure investment organisations are trying to avoid.

When properly calculated over 3-5 year institutional timeline, "good enough" websites cost 5-15x more than proper governance infrastructure investment.

The £18,000 that feels expensive prevents £100,000-£300,000 in recurring institutional costs that feel unrelated but directly stem from infrastructure inadequacy.

The Board conversation shouldn't be "Can we afford proper infrastructure?" It should be "Can we afford the institutional costs of continuing with 'good enough'?"

When you calculate the true costs, the answer becomes clear: "good enough" is the expensive choice. Proper governance infrastructure is the investment that saves money whilst enabling institutional success.

Your funders, stakeholders, and institutional effectiveness all pay the price of "good enough"—whether you calculate those costs or not.

Want to understand the true institutional costs of your current website approach? The Blueprint Audit includes comprehensive cost assessment comparing "good enough" continuation versus proper infrastructure investment over 3-5 years—revealing actual financial and institutional impact. £2,000 for true cost analysis preventing expensive "good enough" choice.

Learn more about the Blueprint Audit

‍

Further reading:

• Hidden governance costs
• Hidden costs of cheap development
• Rebuild vs remediate
• Website credibility audit

What Moving Past Good Enough Actually Costs — and Saves

Organisations that invest in moving past good-enough describe a pattern that's consistent enough to be predictable: the first 90 days feel expensive and disruptive. By month six, the comms team is publishing content they couldn't have published before. By month twelve, the website is generating measurable outcomes — grant applications that advance further, donor journeys that complete more frequently, staff time recovered from workarounds.

Good enough is a position that feels stable and turns out not to be. The website either grows with the organisation or falls behind it. There's no version where a static, underpowered website remains adequate as the organisation's ambitions and accountability requirements increase.

Q1: What is a 'good enough' nonprofit website?

A good enough website is one that functions minimally — it's not broken, it has basic information, it accepts donations — but doesn't perform the institutional functions a well-governed website should. It has outdated content that staff know is inaccurate but haven't updated. It has accessibility failures that go unaddressed. It has a donation journey that works on desktop but fails on mobile. It's good enough to avoid being a crisis but not good enough to do the institutional work the organisation needs it to do.

Q2: What are the hidden institutional costs of a good enough nonprofit website?

The hidden costs include: staff time spent answering queries the website should resolve, grant applications that advance more slowly because due diligence reveals website gaps, major donor relationships that require more relationship management because the website doesn't build credibility independently, compliance risks from accessibility and data protection failures, and the accumulated cost of the organisation being less effective than it could be at every external touchpoint. These costs are real but rarely attributed to the website investment decision that caused them.

Q3: Why do nonprofits tolerate good enough websites for years?

Because the costs of good enough are diffuse and invisible while the costs of improvement are concentrated and visible. A £25,000 website investment appears on a single budget line. The £8,000 of annual staff time spent on avoidable enquiries, the £15,000 grant that advanced slowly due to website friction, the £4,000 in developer maintenance costs — none of these appear as a 'website cost'. The accounting structure systematically produces underinvestment by making the status quo appear cheaper than it actually is.

Q4: What is the difference between a website that looks fine and one that performs well institutionally?

A website can look professional, load quickly, and contain accurate content while still failing institutionally. Institutional performance means: funders can verify governance claims independently, beneficiaries can navigate to services without staff assistance, the board can reference the site with confidence, grant reviewers find what they need without asking for it, and accessibility compliance means no user group is excluded. These are governance and operational metrics, not design metrics — and they're the ones that matter for an established nonprofit.

Q5: How do you calculate the institutional cost of a good enough website?

Estimate: monthly hours staff spend answering queries the website should resolve (times annual day rate), annual developer maintenance costs, value of grant friction attributable to website gaps (even a conservative estimate), compliance risk quantified as probability of enforcement times likely penalty, and the fundraising delta between current conversion rates and what a well-built equivalent achieves. Sum these over three years. Compare with the investment required to close the gap. The ROI case for improvement is almost always compelling.

Q6: What triggers a nonprofit to move past good enough?

Usually an external catalyst rather than internal recognition: a major funder raising concerns about the website during due diligence, an accessibility complaint that reaches leadership, a significant grant failing at the verification stage, a media enquiry revealing outdated information, or a new leader who arrives with expectations set by better-resourced organisations. The trigger is almost always reactive rather than proactive — which is why the project that follows is almost always more expensive and more disruptive than it would have been if planned earlier.

Q7: Is there a version of the website where good enough is genuinely acceptable?

Yes — for early-stage organisations with simple stakeholder relationships, minimal compliance obligations, and a website that is genuinely a secondary channel to in-person relationships. But most established nonprofits passed this stage years before they acknowledge it. An organisation with institutional funders, complex programme delivery, GDPR obligations, and a board that is publicly accountable cannot sustain a genuinely good enough website without taking on institutional risk that grows over time.

Q8: What does the institutional performance gap look like in practice?

In practice: the fundraising director sends supplementary documents to major donors because the website doesn't provide adequate credibility evidence. The programmes team fields calls from beneficiaries who couldn't navigate the site. The comms coordinator spends three hours a week manually routing enquiries that the website's navigation should resolve automatically. The grants officer prepends each application with an apology for the website and a promise to update it. These are not marginal inefficiencies — they are institutional performance failures at scale.

Q9: How does a good enough website affect staff morale and confidence?

Staff who work for organisations they believe in but whose external communications don't reflect that belief experience a specific kind of institutional embarrassment. They hesitate to share the website. They apologise for it in external meetings. They feel the gap between the organisation's internal quality and its public presentation. This affects recruitment, retention, and the confidence with which staff represent the organisation externally — all of which have real operational costs that are almost never attributed to the website.

Q10: What does moving past good enough actually require from nonprofit leadership?

It requires leadership to acknowledge that the website is underperforming institutionally (which often means overcoming the 'it's fine' defence), commission an independent audit that documents the gap objectively, make the investment case in governance and risk terms rather than design terms, and ensure the project that follows is governed properly rather than delegated entirely to the communications team. Moving past good enough is a leadership decision before it is a communications project.