Starting a horror stories thread because I think we learn more from these than from success cases.
Mine: a packaging redesign project where we delivered final files to the printer, the client signed off, 50,000 units printed. The client then decided they wanted a different product name. They had known about the name change for two months. Did not mention it.
The cost of the reprint was deducted from our retainer for future work. We hadn’t included a clause for client-initiated reprints. After that, every contract had explicit language about who bears cost for reprints resulting from client-side information changes.
The lesson: things you assume a client would tell you, they will not always tell you. Build the questions into your brief process. “Are there any brand, naming, or regulatory changes planned in the next 6 months that could affect this project?”
What’s the worst project you’ve been through and what’s the clause or process change it produced?
A website launch where the client had already signed a contract with a different agency for the same scope. Didn’t tell us. We were two weeks into development. Now: project kickoff document explicitly asks if any other agencies or contractors are engaged on overlapping scope.
Won a branding pitch, signed contract, started work. Client’s other stakeholders vetoed the direction. Nobody had said the pitch needed broader approval. Lesson: establish decision authority in writing before you start, not in the contract signatures.
@w.moses.flint.54 the reprint situation is brutal. That specific clause is in every print-adjacent contract I’ve signed since a similar experience. “Reprints or corrections resulting from information changes provided after approval: client bears cost.”
Client who gave feedback contradicting an earlier approval, then disputed the additional fee for changes. No written approval trail. Now everything gets an email confirmation. “Please confirm your approval of by replying to this email.” Simple, non-confrontational, documented.