Ten Traps to Avoid
Between Artists/Designers and Clients in Interactive Media

It is nearly inevitable. Any time two groups of people work on a complex project, communication will get fuzzy. And when budgets, schedules, and quality are at stake, such confusion can be disastrous.

Specifically, the creator of a digital media project and the client requesting or funding the project are often caught in an “assumption mismatch.” Somehow, the two parties fail to fully communicate all of their expectations, or fail to make allowances for imperfections which inevitably develop during production.

Not every one of these conditions may apply to particular artistic or independent projects. But in my experience, one or more of these ten traps are almost unavoidable. If the creator and the client or funder of the project have not communicated clearly in advance about how to deal with these issues, the relationship can sour very quickly.

In these examples, I’m assuming the project is large enough to have several approval phases over a period of months. The term “creator” I'm using can represent a single artist, one-person production shop, or a design/production team.

Trap #1

Proceeding with work too soon.

The creator should only begin work on the next phase of a project when the client has...

1. Approved* all the work done in the phase just completed (and ideally, paid for it -- see #6 “Work without payment” below).

2. Provided enough information and source material for the creator to proceed into the next phase. (In the case of “templated” work, a designer can sometimes accept from the client an early submission of “typical” content, with the expectation that all of the remaining content submissions will be identical in format. But, see #5 “Exceptions”, below!)

*”Approval” can be given as...

a) “complete” or...

b) “approved-to-proceed, with minor changes as indicated”.

It may also be..

c) “not approved until changes are made”. (In that case, both parties need some mutual understanding about how many rounds of submissions-disapprovals are acceptable without additional charges.)

Trap #2

Changing or un-approving something previously accepted.

If the client wishes to make a change to an element already approved in a previous phase, the artist/designer should be able to add additional charges, since doing so may cause reworking of some part of the project.

This often happens when a committee is involved in the approval process, and not all persons on the committee saw the previous submission (bad!), or when client personnel are replaced in the course of a project (worse!). This problem can be moderated by agreeing in advance to have a single person assigned to be the client representative, empowered to approve-disapprove.

Sometimes this happens because the client was unable to fully visualize a finished result from the creator’s proposal sketches ...“Oh, I didn’t think it would look/work like That!”... Resolving this sort of reaction can be awkward. Who’s really at fault? The designer -- maybe the sketch/demo was not good enough? Or the client -- maybe they weren’t paying attention?

As with all of these traps, this understanding ought to be clarified before any work begins. It is also very helpful to the client if the artist/designer gently reminds them, during an approval meeting, that they consider anything now approved as unchangeable henceforth.

Trap #3

Needing to patch-up faulty supplied content.

In some projects, the client is providing factual content or imagery. In those cases, the artist/designer should not have to make significant edits or changes to source material submitted by the client, unless the possibility of additional charges has been discussed in advance.

Examples: Fixing typos in client-submitted documents, or retouching client-submitted photographs.

The extra cost of making these changes will become even higher if the errors in need of correction are in content that has already been incorporated into the project. This is common when the designer accepts content from the client on the assumption that the client has already proof-read or reviewed the supplied material. On a large, busy project, that assumption may be false! The designer can help here by confirming with the client that any newly submitted source is o.k. for publication as-is.

Besides actual content changes, the designer may also find the visual quality of client-supplied source to be unacceptable. Using such content can make an otherwise great design look substandard. But the work needed to improve the look of weak content might not be in the budget.

Trap #4

Adding new features, too late.

This is commonly called “Feature creep,” and everyone is guilty of it. Clients and creators often wish to add a feature or “enhance” functionality in the project after the initial plan is accepted. But the later they do this, the more likely are additional charges and delays in delivery. In some cases, even subtracting a feature can add extra work, if done too late.

Feature changes in an interactive media project will affect the programming. Programming changes, even simple ones, often create a ripple effect throughout other parts of the program. Hidden flaws from such changes will sometimes only be discovered with extensive testing. For this reason, tweaking features after the testing phase has begun can be costly and dangerous.

Trap #5

Not accounting-for exceptions.

The one component (media element, feature step, etc) that is different from all the others in a design will usually take longer to integrate or program-for than all the other similar elements combined. Examples: One image needs to be cropped vertically, while all the others are horizontal. Or, all the animations work as GIFs, but one of them has to be video.

During the optimistic start-up phase, the client will assume that special cases can be handled within the normal scope of work. Creators should know better, but usually agree. These exceptions are often only discovered when the client-supplied source material is delivered to the artist/designers’ office. (Example: All the visual material from the client comes as jpgs, as expected, but a few of the pieces are table-top models, requiring photography.) The difficulty is multiplied if a special-case element is introduced late in the process.

Trap #6

Delivering work without payment.

Most clients want to see approved, completed work before they pay for it. That is understandable, but the artist/designer has already incurred costs during the work phase. It is reasonable to expect some kind of payment scheme that covers the value of work-in-process.

Occasionally, something worse happens. If the artist hasn’t received ANY money during the entire production, and they still give the client the final project, they have lost all power over the relationship (even if there is a contract). The designer and client must establish, up front, a payment schedule linked to milestones, and stick to it.

Trap #7

Not discussing charges for extra work as they occur.

If the creator accepts any request for unbudgeted-for work without informing the client that it’s an “extra”, the client will assume that it’s included in the original estimate.

The client will express (sometimes justified, sometimes fabricated) amazement if they are hit with overages after the fact. Indeed, some clients think that when they hire a designer, they’ve “bought-out the shop” for the duration of the project, 24-7. (“By the way, could you also retouch these photos of my cousin’s wedding?”)

The wise designer makes sure the client knows what the scope of work is, at the beginning! What is included, and what’s not? The whole project will flow much smoother for everyone, and the client will not be faced with embarrassing “extras” invoices they have to explain to their accounting department.

Here is a possible list of “not included’s” which might appear in an artist/designer's estimate:

• Cost for changes after approval is received for production work at each phase of the approval cycle. (Designer will advise Client in advance if change requests will incur additional charges).
• Any overtime, night, holiday, or weekend work as may be required to meet new deadlines revised from those already indicated in the production schedule.
• Any fees, royalties or shipping charges associated with asset licensing or rentals.
• Equipment rentals for Client-requested demos outside Designer offices.
• Any overnight travel expenses for review meetings or production except as noted.
• Special “demo version” preparation for any marketing or sample purposes or for Prototypes not specified in the agreement.
• Writing and/or production of User Manuals.
• Printing. Package design. Duplication. Site hosting. Technical support.
• Client is responsible for applicable taxes if any.
• Cost for hardware compatibility testing other than Designer's in house testing.

Trap #8

Not specifying the delivery platform.

When publishing digital interactive work, there are thousands of possible combinations of hardware, networks, file formats, and operating software. You must clarify, at the start, the technical specs of the systems expected to support what is being built.

Is the project being released to a wide audience? If the project will not run on a lowest-common-denominator system, users with low-end systems are going to be disappointed. (But of course, if the features and speed are dumbed-down to the lowest-level system, the high-end users will be disappointed!) Installations are somewhat easier to manage in terms of equipment requirements, but clarity in the equipment specifications is essential.

Also, what will happen if some new version of an operating system comes along during production? (Believe it or not, some clients may call the artist a year later, when a new version of Windows or the Mac OS or a new browser is released and expect them to upgrade the work to ensure compatibility... for free. Sigh!)

Trap #9

Assuming the both parties are equally tech-savvy.

The artist/designer is going to have a “client expectation failure” sooner or later, if they don’t clearly spell out how the finished product will look, run, and behave on the given platform they are designing-for. Some clients may assume everything will look like a Hollywood feature film, even if they only have a few thousand dollars to spend.

The client also needs to explain, up-front, what they are expecting. Never assume anything. Use plain language and talk-through potential technical limitations, early!

Also, who is going to be responsible for testing? You were planning on testing, right?

Trap #10

Assuming you own the work.

And by “you” I’m addressing both clients and creators. Intellectual property issues are tricky and tangled, and there is no way to cover every possible variation in a short article like this. But here is a quick summary of the most common issues.

Clients will typically want a “work for hire” arrangement, in which every element of work created for the project, even test files and preliminary designs, is turned-over to them. One client fear is that the creator may use one of these elements in someone else’s project, and then the client’s nice new original work will not look so original. (That’s a vast oversimplification, certainly.) Another client fear is that, in case of revisions, they would like to have the freedom to choose somebody else to work on the project, and having the work materials makes revisions easier.

In short, most clients (and their lawyers) like the simplicity and clarity of “owning everything, in all media forms, everywhere, forever”.

That, of course, is exactly what the creator is afraid of. An artist/designer’s position is usually that what the client is buying is only a working finished product, and -- most importantly -- they are only paying for the specified original use. For example, if the designer executes an illustration for a web page, and the client adopts the illustration later as their formal corporate brand, the illustration acquires a much greater value than it had as a simple page design. If the work agreement doesn’t cover this sort of thing up front, some clients will not feel compelled to pay the designer for the new use.

The challenge in any creator-client arrangement is to strike a balance of fairness. The independent artist needs appropriate compensation for the scope of the work, and the freedom to do similar work for other clients. The client needs to know they have the freedom to use the work free from disputes of ownership, and the freedom to work with other artists in the future.

Think about all of these traps before you begin the work, and have at least a Letter of Agreement describing your mutual understanding of the relationship. And don’t be afraid to negotiate! Ultimately, you both want the same thing: a great project.

-=-
Copyright © 2007 Peter S. Mackey