To restate it, we want the normal experience that most of us have with other vendors:

• Master Holding Account - Usually granted an "Owner" or "Primary Owner" role.

• Sub-Accounts can be assigned various roles: "Billing", "Manager", "Editor", "Content Manager", "Developer" and so on.

• PARTNERSHIP or COLLABORATION access that the Master Holding Account can grant.

That last part is the big one. Trying to monetize developer access is awkward at best, and well kinda offensive at the least. The desire to monetize is an impetus to create unfriendly systems to the user.

Webflow makes it very, very difficult for outfits like ours to create turnkey projects and then hand them off to the client, AND then still manage the account under retainer. By difficult, I mean Webflow is trying to charge $500+ per year for something that is normally understood to be free.

Developer and partnership accounts, especially the latter, are fundamentally designed to bring new business to Webflow. Making things difficult for that behavior is puzzling at best to me.

Regardless of Webflow's desire for monetization, Site hosting accounts deserve to have master ownership access for the client, management access for the agency, and billing access for accounting.

If Webflow insists on charging developers directly for access to the platform to work for the clients, so be it. At the very least just give us the access accounts we need to do our jobs effectively. Yes, preferably not for multiples of the site hosting fee.

Let another user perform management tasks—such as adding and removing users—by giving them an administrator role. When a user with an admin role signs in to their Google Account, they'll have access to additional management controls. www.rapidfs.com