“The fixed fee project with CB2012 was based on a pre-determined list of deliverables started in November of 2013. At that time, CB2012 was made aware of our project completion process, where text is created, revised per the client's requests and approved before beginning the design stage, and programming stage in the exact same manner. This process has been established over the course of 8 years and 375+ Elance projects to keep tasks from entering a permanent state of revision that results in multiple emails outlining different text, design and programming issues boomeranging between the client and provider with no organization or deadline.
To start, CB2012 received standard questionnaires requesting info on desired design, copywriting and site functionality as well as necessary login/security info. After receiving the partially completed questionnaire that failed to provide login details, but specifically outlined the “light blue, darker red and dark grey” color scheme and sample site that CB2012 wished to emulate, we began the project process. Initial text was quickly approved, and we moved on to design. When design mocks were delivered for review, the client went silent for over a month. The next message we received was the first of many accusing us of not properly interpreting the CB2012 requests, and demanding major design, text and site functionality changes be made. Such changes included a switch from the color scheme dictated in the questionnaire to a “dark blue, gold and white” design based on a brand new sample site, owned and operated by a billion dollar corporation.
We informed CB2012 that while we were happy to make these and other changes, they were contrary to the info originally provided at the beginning of the project, and therefore were not actually revisions of materials we provided, but a new request to supply a new deliverable. Since this was a fixed fee project and CB2012 was initiating project changes that were counter to the original info provided, we informed the client that the changes would need to be billed as additional charge to the project. Having already accused us of misinterpreting requests, the client was immediately angered by the idea of paying extra to move in a new direction, but begrudgingly agreed to the fees.
In the 4 months of sporadic hostile contact that followed, CB2012 received 7 versions of text materials, and 4 versions of design mocks. CB2012 also requested the creation of 3 additional pages that were not a part of the original deliverables be added to the site design, which we provided for no additional cost (even though the additional expense was discussed multiple times). Once design and text materials had finally been approved, we began programming and implementation, even though CB2012 had still not provided the necessary login/security info to access the domain or activate desired plugins. After another 2 months of endless vague criticism of site functionality, last minute design changes and adjustments to text, CB2012 then sent an Elance request to cancel the project and refund the full project amount. Our final negotiation included moving the site to the client’s domain and activating shopping cart software dictated by the client, in return the client would pay the agreed upon project amount. But when CB2012 was reminded of the missing plugin info that they had still not provided, the client was once again angered and blamed us for their error.
CB2012 only has themselves to blame for their unprofessional website. CB2012 constantly dismissed our expert opinions and process, and instead dictated the largest and smallest of details, down to the use of bolding on text. I highly doubt that when CB2012 hired the “expert” to critique the site they informed the person that it was CB2012 that mandated, revised and approved all parts of the project over the course of 9 months.
This project is what happens when a client demands to always be right.”