Annonymous sub-contracting makes sense, yes?

April 18, 2007 8:12 AM

What's the best way to handle sub-contract work when you're actually doing the work for a competitor?

I have a small design business (websites, brochures etc). I also do sub-contract work for another local design business, almost always acting as the main contact for their clients. When I meet with their clients, they present me as the staff designer and for the most part, things work out quite well. However, there have been two times when a potential client has contacted both of us to set up initial meetings. Obviously, we can't compete for the same client unless the sub work I do is completely annonymous, which isn't really possible, so one of us has to abandon the potential job - traditionally the one who was contacted last. My take on this is: if my name is connected to another design company, as well as my own, it has the potential to appear slightly shifty to a potential client. I'd prefer that when the competing company is also contacted, they decline without explaining the true reason, because this could jeopardize my chances of winning the job. I really think it makes sense for both of us to not disclose that we have a relationship. Is my view on this justified?

posted by anonymous to work & money (5 comments total)

Wait, do the two companies you work with know about each other?
posted by rhizome at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2007

I've been in roughly your situation, several times. It would take too long to recount them all. It's always a funny (strange and ha-ha) situation.

I think the thing to do in your case is to tell the company you sub-contract for "Look, I am bidding directly on this job myself. If you want to bid it and sub-contract it to me, and you win the bid, I'll be happy to take the work, but it would be awkward for you to represent me as your in-house designer." You can't justifiably ask this company to decline the job outright.
posted by adamrice at 10:48 AM on April 18, 2007

This is one of those questions that's tough to answer without more information, anon. Are you doing overflow work for this other company? Do they have any other staff or designer subcontractors or are you it?

In any case, it sounds like the problem is not clearly delineating which kinds of projects you accept for your own business (which I presume is a one man operation) and which kinds of projects are appropriate for the other design firm (which, from the description you've given here, sound as though they have more resources). Based upon the above assumptions, the decision as to who gets the client should be based on which firm is able to handle the work, not who got called first*.

Example1: Prospective client calls up looking for a brochure or website. Client needs a logo, has an idea of what he/she wants to say but needs minor copywriting help. That project goes directly to your firm, without any oversight or input from the bigger design firm. If the prospect happened to call the larger firm first, they would decline the job and refer it to you. In this case, it would not look shady at all to have your name associated with the design firm and your own sole proprietorship.

Example2: Prospective client calls up wanting to launch a product. He/she needs market research, branding, PR, and collateral (which may include print or electronic media). That one goes to the bigger design firm and it's quite likely you will handle the collateral end with oversight from the design firm. If the prospect calls you first, you should refer them to the larger firm as well as let the other firm know the prospect is on his way over.

*If I'm wrong about my assumptions, that indeed a) your company and that of the other company consistently do the same size projects and b) you are their sole designer, then you should not be freelancing for them. You should either join them as an employee/partner or not work for them at all.
posted by jamaro at 10:53 AM on April 18, 2007

No, I don't think your view is at all justified.

For one thing, it's logistically impossible: How could you possibly do your subcontract work anonymously, when your role is as "the main contact for the clients?"

Second impossibility: when they're contacted by a client, they have no way of knowing whether that client might have already contacted you as well. So even if they went along with your scheme, they'd have know way of knowing whether they're supposed to lie to the client and turn down the job.

You're looking for the best of both worlds, here: you want them to feed you work as a subcontractor, and at the same time to stay out of your way while you go after work as a solo designer. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation on your part.

The solution you've already got (if you both get contacted for the same job, whoever was called last bows out) seems like a generous and fair compromise.

If you're concerned that your subcontracting work looks sketchy to potential clients, then the solution is to stop doing subcontracting work.
posted by ook at 10:58 AM on April 18, 2007

I don't see why this is shifty, but then again I work in a field where jobs are often subcontracted and there's primary and secondary contractors. My current employer does a job for a 4 letter government agency and they only ever speak to us, despite the fact that we're the subcontractor and 1% of the size of the prime.

It's not really any of a customer's business what your arrangement is with this other firm. If you were a direct employee of that firm would you think they had a right to know what you make? If you're full-time or part time? What your benefits are? I don't think so, and I don't think there's any difference between those situations and this one.

Anyone who asks you can simply say "I do work directly for firm X but I've also got a firm of my own, a fact that they are aware of." If they ask beyond that simply say you're not comfortable talking about the specifics of your financial arrangements. Since you presumably have an agreement not to compete/siphon business already there's no need to be more secretive than that.
posted by phearlez at 1:14 PM on April 18, 2007