Adventures in Keyframes and Code

I agree with Gee on this it’s always been a problem and it is difficult to see a way round it as there is no one concept of “The Client” that can always be used as a model.

However, what may be a possibility is the establishment of a Fair Trading alliance. Whereby we set up a collaborative committee where all freelancers quote using a set of agreed guidelines that are made publicly available to potential clients. I’m not saying price fixing exactly, more a methodology fixing set of guidelines. Guru.com has some quite good guidelines for producing quotes and it’s well worth reading even if you don’t necessarily agree with it all.

Another consideration is when and when not to introduce the client to the notion of a retainer of some form. There are various retainer models that could be used when it is fairly obvious that the client is going to need repeat work.

Some examples:

• Fixed Monthly Fee: Fixed monthly hours with a discount on extra hours.
• Preferred suppliership: Nominal fixed monthly fee that grants a heavy discount on all hours bought. Essentially a subscription to a particular rate card. And a promise that the retaining client gets preference over your time above any of your other clients.

One thing that I’ve always struggled with when quoting is that in most cases the cost of the build is defined by the nature of the design. This makes it really difficult to give a comprehensive quote of design and build upfront. If you provide 3 different options for design then the build costs could vary as much. The best solution to this in my mind is to separate these phases as two distinct orders. So you produce the design for the design fee and this would usually include a variety of routes/options. An estimate for build goes with each of these options but is only an estimate. When given multiple design options most clients tend to treat it as a buffet and choose a bit from each option annoyingly. But as a result a final Build quote can only be accurately provided once the design spec is finalized.

This method also allows the client to process a series of smaller invoices that may not require as much internal approval as one big fat one at the end of a project. It also gives them the option to buy design and source their own build if they wish but maintains a relationship with the designer still.

Another option is packaging. Where we find ourselves creating similar functionality in sites then we may have built ourselves a functional base site that can essentially be re-skinned for the client. In this case the client isn’t buying build they are licensing the use of your content platform and the bespoke part they pay for is the design. If they then require functionality beyond the base then these are charged as add-ons. This is a common structure for people who build using opensource or homemade CMS based sites.

In general I think that designers often make the mistake of seeing themselves and their services as something different than hiring a plumber or a landscape gardener etc. (guilty here). I think it’s important to think about how you would expect to buy these services if you were the client. What would you want to see broken down in the quote etc. The other thing to always make clear to the client is whether they are buying a product or a service. Services on a running clock can tend to scare clients as they can’t perceive the boundaries to costs. Upfront quotes for service can lead to the designer to get screwed by the client in order to keep them happy. The benefit of selling our services as product rather than service means that the client has clearly boundaries of what they are paying for and how much. Then if they want to let the scope creep they can be easily made aware of the incremental costs.

The hardest bit in all of this though is placing value on design. In the client’s mind they can look at the work of two designers and ask why are you charging £400 a day and you only £200 a day when your work seems of a par to me. This is where added value comes in, and not in terms of how many years experience etc. as unless that blatantly manifests itself in the clients’ perception of your solution then it’s bullshit to them. If you are charging yourself out at the higher end then you may need to illustrate that you work quicker due to experience so that implications of change orders are dealt with more efficiently thus reduceing the required num of days etc.

Ok I’ve exhausted myself now and still don’t think I’m any closer to the answer but maybe some of this food for thought.

(oh and don’t forget that there are great docs on the design council site that can be stolen to help justify your costs to clients).