How to protect yourself from bad clients is a very important question. And although the basis of a good business relationship is also fairness and fair-play, in practice it turns out that not everyone does. The matter becomes particularly challenging when the boundaries described below are loosely set in a business relationship with a friend or acquaintance, as there is often a lack of awareness that although the relationship is personal, it is still a business arrangement. This can leave the designer unpaid for work done correctly, or facing a lengthy and time-consuming process of reconciliation via email, where the payment ultimately has to be recovered by enforcement action.. In such cases, wars of words can be lengthy and exhausting if the contractor does not protect itself from the collaboration And what can be done to prevent this from happening in the case of collaboration with bad clients?
A contract is a “filter” against bad clients
Working together without a contract is a naive decision, whether you know the client or not. Despite the verbal promises that many clients offer before implementation, we need to protect ourselves with a contract. No one will be able to “forget” or deny what has been written down later. The mutually signed cooperation contract is the main document that includes mutual duties and requirements, a description of the contractor's service, the time limit for completion and the amount, method and date of payment.
It is wise to include authorship, because it almost always gets complicated later when the client interferes with the copyright work and either defaces it or takes it for granted that it belongs to them because they paid for it. More detailed information about colours, choice of typography and other solutions is usually not written into the contract, as it is written in the project specification, corporate identity or design system, which are separate documents.
Prepayment is a condition
There is hardly a worse feeling when, for a project that has been completed correctly, the client does not pay. Pre-payment is a workable approach that separates the serious client from the frivolous one. Prepayment is a regular practice in many business collaborations. Without prepayment, there is no guarantee that the contractor will be paid for the work correctly carried out under the contract. Advance payments also ensure that running costs are covered, which is particularly the case for long-term projects that may last a few weeks or months.
The two most common methods of prepayment are 50 % of the value at the time of signing the contract and 50 % after completion of the work and for higher amounts 1/3 of the value when the contract is signed, 1/3 of the value when implementation is halfway through and 1/3 after completion of implementation. What constitutes a completed project must be recorded in the contract.
Validation and boundary setting
A collection of anonymous contributions of stories between clients and designers
The contract signed by the client and the contractor before the start of the project includes everything that both parties have to comply with. However, it happens that after the work has been carried out, the client claims that he wanted something different. Even that they have been “wronged” or that the project is “not yet” finished. We prevent the client from adding new tasks for free by validating the tasks on an ongoing basis. This way, the client follows the progress of the project and confirms each step on an ongoing basis, either by signature or email confirmation.
While the client should be able to add new solutions or modify existing ones, it is up to us to set the boundaries with arguments and determine what is included in the agreed price and what will have to be charged extra. The additional changes and innovations, written in black and white, are an annex to the contract, which must be signed by both the client and the contractor. This approach is professional and protects us from the negative consequences of working with bad clients. It should not and cannot be a burden in itself to the detriment of the contractor if the client is not informed in advance of the price of additional works which are not part of the initial agreement.
Documented communication
A common way of dealing with bad clients is to try to deal exclusively by phone, as this is untraceable. The most common excuse is that they are busy and have no time. If we accept such a client, we should ALWAYS send a summary of what we have agreed with a price by email after the phone call, and ask for confirmation before the execution. Do not execute the order without confirmation. Summaries and documented email communication are a transparent way of doing business for all involved. It also prevents the inconvenience that can happen if there is a complication with a payment.
“Trust will always be earned with working arguments that are driven by user experience, not by “I don't like it”.”
Documented communication protects the contractor, even when he has temporarily incorporated a solution or element into the project (e.g. a new logo), which the client has not paid for but which the club uses anyway. In such a case, the Customer must be informed in writing (e-mail) and sent an invoice. However, the client still has the option to remove the unpaid item within the time limit set by the contractor. Otherwise, you may rightfully request enforcement.
What about implementing the solution before deciding to participate, without payment?
The video shows the reasons why free pitching an inefficient way of working.
Would you like an architect to draw you a plan for your new house for free so you can decide if you want to work with them? Or a chef cook lunch so you can decide later if you want to pay for it? Certainly not. However, there is still the possibility of working with bad clients who “want to receive several implemented solutions before signing the contract”, on the basis of which they will decide to work together and assess if the contractor understands their wishes and requirements. This is very risky for the contractor, as the client does not commit to pay money for the solutions provided. More about free fattening.
““I like it” or “I don't like it” has never been an argument for deciding which solution works and which doesn't.”
It is therefore wise to offer the solution in writing as a quotation, including a description of the solution, the price and the deadline. The best way to get enough information about the project is to discuss the client's wishes and expectations in a meeting or via a video call. If we have worked with the client before, for smaller projects we can also carry out the questioning by email. Read more about the harms of spec work at nospec.com.
Calls for tenders
Similar to the above, this is also happening in public tenders. And why is this way of doing things counterproductive and harmful? Because the client, within the limits of his (in)knowledge, decides for himself a solution because he just likes something. By means of tenders, customers receive several solutions from different contractors, without prior two-way communication and contact with the contractor. This means that the contractor has to find out what the client likes, not set out a solution that will work for their clients who “give” them money. It also means that for the time spent and the knowledge offered, none of the participants, except one (if), gets paid for the solution.
When is it better to say “No” and reject the client + the project?
A great example is the “smart” and distrustful client who puts himself in the role of a leader. If you haven't experienced it, it works like this:
- feels he knows everything but has no reference,
- has it all worked out in his head, but doesn't have the time to write it down (let alone create it),
- is firmly convinced that what he has come up with is the best solution for him, because he likes it very much,
- needs a doer to guide him to do what he has set out to do,
- evades payment or sets unreasonable conditions for payment,
- believes they can order a service without checking the price, and then looks for ways to avoid paying when they receive the bill,
- is disrespectful and “all-powerful”.
This is a specific group of very difficult clients, who almost always turn out to be a bad decision when it comes to cooperation. Especially if they do not have a superior or if they are given a free hand by a superior. It is impossible to educate such a client. Often, they offer a “good” bouquet, which gives them the room to manipulate and exploit your knowledge and time. All this before the contract is signed, because they need to make sure you are really “good”.
If you do decide to work with such a client, you must and charge extra for an hour of advice as soon as you realise that you have not reached the task specification or brief after the second meeting. Explain to the client at the outset that meetings are not free.
This is almost always fatal because of a “good” butler, because in the end it turns out that you are not implementing a solution, but a work to order, which is constantly changing because it was never (defined). Such clients are also dangerous because of the length of the project. They are financially disadvantageous. And such a project is almost certain to end in conflict, because you have allowed the client to lead you from the outset, thereby devaluing your professional role in the project. You are the contractor in the end, even if you have carried out the work to order, which means that all the blame for poor performance will fall on you, and payment will also be complicated.
None of the things mentioned under this heading are worthwhile. So don't underestimate your gut feeling that something is not right. If you have doubts about whether you would accept a project or a client, it is a sign that something is not right. It is better to say “No” to a disrespectful client in a calm tone and spend your time on other things.
And finally
The above tips are not only helpful for practitioners - designers, but also for also to subscribers. They provide an environment for transparent cooperation, define the roles of the contracting authority and the contractor, and provide an environment for good project implementation. You can read them and integrate them into your way of working, or you can wait until you experience them. Experiences with bad clients are bitter, but effective if we have learned from them 🙂
