In the time that I’ve been building websites, web technology has changed dramatically. I still remember fondly the days of learning HTML and building basic sites in Notepad. Then I found Macromedia (then Adobe) Dreamweaver and Fireworks and built some fun stuff.
Those were good times.
Today, Webflow and Framer are two of the more popular website building and publishing platforms. They’re fast, very capable, and can be used to produce some gorgeous designs.
On the surface, I very much like what each provides. Both Framer and Webflow present an excellent all-in-one platform for designing, hosting and managing websites and content. Big and small.
But there’s one critical reason that I don’t use Webflow or Framer.
The Webflow and Framer advantage
At first glance, one of the obvious benefits of these platforms is the fact that they are self-contained. There’s no need to get hosting or plugins or mess with domains. It’s all together in one place.
When I build a WordPress site, I have to factor in a hosting plan, a domain, make sure all the plugins we need are installed and keep everything up to date to make sure it all runs as smoothly as possible.
With Webflow and Framer, it’s all built in. And that’s impossible to not like, in my book. Whether you’re new to building sites or have been doing it for more years than you’d care to admit, having everything all in one place is beautiful.
These builders answer a common source of anxiety I hear when building websites for clients. Typically, there are a lot of moving parts that all have to come together perfectly for a site to work.
With these platforms, there’s really just one.
But there’s a big drawback.
You don’t own the land
I’m a big believer in owning the platform you build on in today’s world. Yes, there are lots of great places to build. Lots of great places to write and host content. But any platform you don’t own is just rented land, and you could lose access to it at any time.
Both Framer and Webflow provide excellent platforms on which to build, but they also reserve the right to ask anyone to leave at any time.
Both Webflow and Framer have an acceptable use policy, which is very good. They need to have something like that in place as a warning that if you do something you shouldn’t, your site could be toast. And should be, honestly.
I’ve read no few stories of people losing access to their sites or their clients’ sites built on Framer or Webflow. Some, no doubt, were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.
But I’ve seen others that seem to have been disabled in error or by an overzealous automated system or issues with contact forms. That sort of thing.
That happens all the time.
And it’s a big concern to me.
It’s the same concern that makes me reluctant to depend too much on writing sites like Medium or Substack alone. They’re great sites. Don’t get me wrong. But I know that no matter what kind of audience I build there, it could all disappear in an instant.
Framer locks you in forever
To make matters worse, Framer doesn’t allow exporting sites out of Framer. What you build in Framer has to stay in Framer. That means if I built you a website and you decide in a couple of years that you’d really like to switch over to Webflow instead, we’d have to completely rebuild the site. There’s no way to export the site to another platform or even to basic HTML.
Fortunately, Webflow does allow exporting a site to HTML so it can at least be reuploaded somewhere else, albeit without some of the more advanced functionality you might have added to it.
In my opinion, that’s a strong vote for Webflow over Framer, as much as I really like Framer’s editor and design tools. Webflow at least offers a lifeboat.
What I prefer instead
Personally, I use WordPress or a similar CMS for building sites, coupled with a good page builder plugin. No, it’s not the only way to build a site, and there are lots of great alternatives. But here’s the thing: If I woke up tomorrow and my web host decided to turn off my website, all I’d have to do is point my domain to a different host and restore from a backup.
Right? I don’t have to sit here and twiddle my thumbs hoping against hope that my web host decides to reinstate my site or my client’s site.
Whether the action was taken in error or by a human having a bad day, I don’t have time to play games. I need it fixed, so I’ll just get it back up elsewhere if I need to.
With Framer, that’s not possible. With Webflow, it’s only possible to a limited extent and only if I’ve exported my site to HTML first.
Personally, I know that no matter what I built in Framer or Webflow, I’d never be 100% comfortable. I’d always be watching for a “Dear John” email.
I know well that moderation mistakes happen, and I don’t fault anyone for that. That’s true on YouTube, Medium, Substack and anywhere else. But if they happen, I don’t want to put myself or my clients in the unfortunate situation of having to scramble to rebuild everything.
Own what you build
I strongly believe having a website or a place you call home on the web is important. No matter where you build it.
But one of the main reasons for that is the very risk I bring up here. If you don’t own a platform, you risk losing it at any time. A website is, or rather should be, something you own and control even if every other platform kicks you out.
Even if Medium or Substack or Behance or Dribbble or Webflow or Framer or any other service decided you’re no longer welcome, for whatever reason, you’d still have your own site.
Building using Webflow and Framer, you can make some really excellent looking sites that perform well. But you’d be depending again on a platform you don’t own.
Maybe you’re reading this thinking, “you’re over thinking it, Michael.” And maybe you’re right. Maybe so.
But personally, I’d rather risk building on land I do own instead.