Government brief demanding ‘unlimited changes’ irks Singapore design community
A Singaporean designer has taken issue with a government brief posted on procurement portal GeBiz that insists that the supplier must be prepared to make unlimited changes that are completed within two days.
Kelley Cheng, a designer with publishing and design consultancy The Press Room, posted on her Facebook page this afternoon: “Multiple Demands for Unlimited Changes for Design Services on Gebiz. As a designer, I Protest, Do you? Please share this post if you are against Unlimited Changes – Be the Change you want to see in the world.”
The top image she posted from GeBiz is as follows:
Commenters on Facebook also pointed out the tenderer’s insistence on looking for a design company “with creative ideas, not a printer”.
The word ‘unlimited’ was used a number of times by the client to demand an unending number of changes to the graphic presentation “if so requested”.
A third screengrab of the tender posted by Cheng again shows the word ‘unlimited’ used liberally to insist on complete flexibility.
Cheng’s post has been widely shared just one hour after it was made. Local blog Mothership.sg picked up the story, using as the slug the words: “We cannot eradicate slavery if this sort of thing continues.”
The response in social media turned to the plight of designers in Singapore to earn a decent living. One Facebooker noted: “These are retrograde procurement procedures emanating from a mindset based on street market practices inconsistent with an economy heading towards value creation.”
Another wrote: “I thought Singapore Design Council is looking into educating gov agencies in best tender practices for the design industry. Maybe they should advise whoever wrote this.”
The issuer of the tender was Whitley Secondary School, online news site The Online Citizen has reported after a search on GeBiz. The project the school had sought design help for was for its 2016 school magazine, handbook for school rules and newsletters.
Well said Kelley.
Apart from this being a ridiculous request by the government, they should be asking whether they would want to work with a designer who is so willing to devalue their training, craft, experience and expertise. Actually, they probably do which means the people should ask if they want to deal with a government body who thinks they’re experts at everything … but that’s a whole different can of worms.
ReplyHow about giving them an unlimited F.U.
Let’s show some backbone here.
ReplyOh, and to be absolute clear who my comment (above) is from, it’s Rob Campbell.
ReplyThe hyper aggressive tone of the brief itself screams dictation. I wouldn’t be seen anywhere near such an aggressive client.
ReplyNote that the designer can quote the cost of the service.
ReplySaw an interesting comment on the original Facebook post.
Man: “…goes against Singapore governments intent to move towards value creation…”
Singapore was about value creation years ago….now it has embraced the cheapest labour model that does nothing for value creation…even vietnam and indonesia make better advertising these days.
The entire system of tendering is FLAWED.
I can certainly see why the client wants unlimited changes….tendering does not screen applicants and you can end up with some real incompetent individuals working on your business. Too often, they are nothing more than monkeys with a mac….they know nothing of how to build a piece of communication. They’re obsessed more with design and fonts…..they aren’t experienced at reading or acting upon a brief….so, they have to keep re-doing stuff till they get it right….whose fault is this?
ReplyAbsolutely nonsense. They should hire CHINA
This sounds far worst than “spec work”
ReplyDude. It’s not the government. It’s the regular joe like you and me working for the government
ReplyI think there is a bigger issue here. My view is that this is commercial and if you are an agency you have the choice. Don’t bid for it if you don’t want to. There will be ridiculous requests and there is a price for it. You can compete if you want to at the ridiculous levels. Is it fair? Is it healthy? Definitely not. My issue is with the fact that the Government has the audacity to use public funds and expense it this way. If we ask Ogilvy to bid for this, the price will be ridiculous because the ask is ridiculous. You can have a company from India or China bid at 10% the price and win this and provide ridiculous service. So either the Government will use tax payers money to buy Ogilvy at a ridiculous price or buy a ridiculous service at a low price. In both ways, tax payers will lose out. This is terrible guardianship of money.
Reply“Dude. It’s not the government. It’s the regular joe like you and me working for the government”
Stoopid lor who do you the government are? That’s right. People.
ReplyI’d quote them a fee of ‘unlimited dollars’ for their ‘unlimited changes’.
See how they react when they’re confronted with the logic of their own stupidity.
(I suspect whoever wrote the brief didn’t actually think about what their words actually meant).
ReplyHave your say