Why fixture lists, calendars and newsletters stop getting updated
A fixture list only helps if the dates on it are the dates actually being played. A newsletter only gets read if the last one wasn't sent in March. Most clubs and societies get this right for a while because one person takes it on: a secretary who updates the calendar after every committee meeting, a treasurer who drops in a note before the AGM. It works until that person stops doing it, whether because they've stepped down, moved away, or simply got busy with something else.
What happens when nobody notices
The trouble is that a site going stale rarely announces itself. Nobody gets an error message when a fixture list stops matching the fixtures. Members find out when they turn up on the wrong day, or when a newsletter dated two seasons ago is the first thing a new visitor sees. By the time the committee notices, the gap has usually been there for a while, and whoever is asked to fix it is often not the person who built the page in the first place.
Why this keeps happening
This is the same problem that shows up whenever a committee changes hands: the person with the knowledge and the access leaves, and nobody has written down what they knew. The handover checklist covers what to get from someone before they stop answering emails, and it's worth reading alongside this if the site's current state suggests nobody has asked those questions in a while.
Ways to keep a site current, compared
The same three questions are worth asking of any option: how much time it takes from one person, what happens if that person leaves, and what tends to go wrong first.
| Approach | Volunteer time needed | Survives a change of committee? | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|---|
| One person keeps it going informally | Falls on whoever last agreed to do it, in whatever time they have spare | No. It leaves when they do, often without notice | No record of the logins once that person steps down |
| A written rota or named role | Split across two or three officers, with the work agreed at committee level | Sometimes, if the role is written into the governing document. | Needs someone to chase it each season, or it lapses quietly |
| Moving to a simpler platform | Lower once it's set up, but someone has to do the setting up | Better. Less depends on one person's particular technical knowledge | The move itself takes time nobody has budgeted for |
| A site someone else keeps updated | Minimal. Updates are sent to whoever keeps the site current. | Yes. It isn't tied to any one committee member's time or memory | Carries an ongoing cost, so worth checking what it actually covers first |
This sets out typical approaches, and leaves out costs, which vary by organisation and by what's already in place.
What the Living Site is, what it costs, and who it suits
The Living Site is a maintained version of a club or society website: someone keeps it working, so fixtures, calendars and newsletters get updated without a volunteer having to learn the software each time a committee changes. It is built and kept current by the practice at webdesign.uk, and it is set up for exactly this problem: a page that needs a new date or a new name in it every month or two, indefinitely, regardless of who is on the committee.
What it costs
There is a build price for setting the site up.
There is a separate monthly price for keeping it updated, and that monthly arrangement can be cancelled at any time.
Who it is for
It suits a club, society or parish body whose site mainly needs the same few things changed on a regular cycle: this week's fixtures, the next meeting date, a newsletter attachment, a committee list. It is not a rebuild of a site that already works well on its own, and at present it is offered for sites the practice builds rather than as a general fix for any existing site. If the site was built elsewhere and the trouble is a departed volunteer or an unclear domain owner, what to get from whoever is leaving, before they stop answering emails and the guidance index cover those questions directly.
Deciding between this and keeping the update job inside the committee is really a question of volunteer time: whether there is someone reliably willing to make small changes on a schedule, or whether that has already stopped happening once and is likely to stop again at the next handover.