problems with client wanting credit for 'helping to create' site

[LuxFX]

I have this extremely annoying client. If the project had gone like any other, it would have paid well. But not this client! They had me do ten times the number of mockups I normally do -- over 80 hours worth, when I had estimated 10 based on my time with other clients. But since the cost was agreed in an estimate before starting the project, I just got to eat those 70 hours. Plus, I would estimate that 70% of my entire time on this project has been communicating with the client -- more time I get to eat. It's these two middle-aged women starting a company, and they tend the ask the same questions over and over again -- on average of four times per question.

And now, they want design credit. They won't let me put "Designed by Birnam Designs" in the footer, but are insisting on "Designed by XXXXX and Birnam Designs" or some variation.

Yes, they are demanding that their company name gets top billing.

It really makes no sense at all. They have critiqued my mockups, yes, and drove the direction of the design. But they certainly didn't create anything. A very early evolution of my design was based on an illustration by a graphic designer that they had hired before me, but the finalized design is very different. Since that illustration, I have created over 134 MB of mockups.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to handle this?

[MG315]

give it to them if it will make them shut up. if the company name is Company name ABC and in the footer you put "Developed by Company ABC and Birnam Designs" they will know that it was really you who did the design (unless their company is somehow design related). Besides, does it really matter that much? if adding their name will save you 10 hours of headaches dealing with these people, its well worth it in my eyes.

[erova]

i agree with MG that if it's going to save you that much heartache, then go ahead and do it.

anyone who actually pays attention to site credits will probably smirk to themselves when they think how asinine it looks that a company's web site would put that they designed it. i think it should be generally assumed that the client had some input on it regardless of how much, thus making almost every single web site on the web designed by the company itself and the third party.

to comment on the endless mockups (which i'm in a somewhat similar situation), consider in your proposal/contract some language that delineates the difference between creative work and production work, and price each accordingly.

then, IF YOU WANT, you can charge up front for ten hours of creative time for mockups. If the client isn't happy with the results, you can drop the contract, since you're paid, and you keep the mockups, and they can take a hike.

If the client wants changes that are excessive but is willing to keep you around, charge the per hour creative rate. If the changes aren't killer, do them in the name of good client relations.

What do you guys think?

[LuxFX]

The problem with this project is that it's already had so much headache. Having them demand top billing on site design after all of the design headache I've gone through is just insult to injury.

Plus, the contract itself uses the phrase "Site designed by Birnam designs" when it declares my ability for recognition.

And, while this particular website is a new venture, the company is also a marketing company. I don't think they've had any success as a marketing company (or perhaps any clients, for that matter), but in my opinion that's what they're trying to improve by having top billing here.

[sk8Krog]

Go with what the contract states. If they try and break the contract with this, show it to them. They agreed to it when the project started, what makes this any different?

[timhlu]

LuxFx, this may sound completely random, but by any chance is the client you're referring to called "Too Crows"? If not, please excuse my post.

[LuxFX]

Originally posted by timhlu
LuxFx, this may sound completely random, but by any chance is the client you're referring to called "Too Crows"? If not, please excuse my post.

Nope -- but "Two Crows" would describe them pretty well....

[johntabita]

to comment on the endless mockups (which i'm in a somewhat similar situation), consider in your proposal/contract some language that delineates the difference between creative work and production work, and price each accordingly.

I'm not clear by your post if you are charging them hourly or at a fixed cost.

Since I use a fixed cost, my contract is very specific on this regard. I allow 2 rounds of revisions before charging extra. I've let clients push it to 3 or 4, but we've also had to get firm on a couple of occassions to keep from being taken advangtage of. I have it in the contract to prevent the exact type of situation you are in.

Also, I only create a single mockup. (I have a fairly detailed questionaire that helps me get into the client's head as much as possible, so I've only had one client ever ask me to create a second one.) However many mockups you decide on is up to you. The point is to have your contract be very clear on this point.

Back to your original question. If you feel that you are giving away too much, how about telling them that if you conceed on the design credit issue, you will have to charge extra for the additional mockups they required you to create?

[LuxFX]

Originally posted by johntabita
I'm not clear by your post if you are charging them hourly or at a fixed cost....
Back to your original question. If you feel that you are giving away too much, how about telling them that if you conceed on the design credit issue, you will have to charge extra for the additional mockups they required you to create?

I'm charging a fixed cost -- and yes, the contract should have specified an exact number of mockups. I should have never gotten myself in that particular situation, but hey, that's what learning experiences are for.

And my wife and I had the same idea -- to charge extra for concession on the design credit, in the amount of the mockup surplus. It might be worth a shot, but we're waiting until there are no other options.

I sent them a message to say I will accept "Produced by Company ABC. Site design and development by Birnam Designs." We're using a kind of movie analogy. Hopefully they'll accept this....

[LuxFX]

Thanks for the replies everyone! I finally got an acceptable compromise from the client:

"A [Company ABC] Production. Site design by Birnam Designs."

I can live with that. It's not quite as nice as getting sole billing, but at least it's not lessening my involvement at all.

Whew!

[Ultima Designs]

In the future, put this in your contract:

"The Web Design Project shall contain at least one clearly visible link to XXXXX's Portfolio Website and Client agrees not to alter, modify, or remove any copyright or proprietary notice placed by XXXXX on the Web Design Project."

[LuxFX]

Well, I did have a clause in the contract, that read:

.... This recognition will read approximately "Website designed by {Contractor's Name}" and wil linclude a link to the Contrtactor's website...

My problem was the "approximately" part. I had included it for my benefit, so that I could tweak the wording a bit if it called for it. But they were wanting to change it so that they were included in the recognition statement as well -- which the contract didn't explictly deny, even though what I was pushing for was the actual wording the contract used.

Next time I will know to call it "This exclusive recognition will read approximately" so that I can still tweak the text, but be assured that I have the only billing.

[Ultima Designs]

That clause means that more or less you can put your information without theirs. It's dangerous waters to tread, but you'd probably win in the end (at least from a legal standpoint).

[LuxFX]

The problem is, my recognition text was just a line down from their copyright statement. If they told a judge that they were adding their recognition line to their copyright statement and not to my recognition line.... well, it's a pretty fine line.