>I hate to be blunt but you got scammed. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but I feel like you're approaching this the wrong way if your first reaction was to schedule a call with the scammer and amicably discuss where things went wrong.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or if it's just easier for me to empathize with the agency having worked with them face-to-face, but I still think the events are explainable without assuming the agency was dishonest. Hanlon's Razor and all that. I think they overestimated their ability to scale down their workflows to a project of my size, and the rest was just a consequence of that incorrect prediction.
>Also the only mention of a contract I could find was at the end when discussing termination. It's one of the conclusions you drew, but it's crazy that the scope, deliverables and timetable were not clearly defined, especially if you are paying upfront.
Part of the problem was that the boundary between "rebranding" and "redesigning" is subjective. I suppose I could have said, "You're only allowed to change fonts, colors, and the logo, but you're not allowed to adjust layout," but that felt too restrictive. I agree with their argument that we should adjust the design a little bit to fit a new brand.
And if I wanted to, I could have scoped back down to a rebrand in December. In retrospect, that's what I should have done. But I felt like even though the designs went beyond the scope I asked for, they looked pretty good and they were 80% done, so we might as well just use them.
With regards to the difference between branding and web-design, it's fairly clear cut in my eyes. They should have been the ones guiding you and helping you understand that boundary as design professionals. Defining your brand identity and guidelines should have been their first priority, given what you asked of them, long before any development work.
I'm no expert myself, so take it with a grain of salt but I've been learning a lot about branding for my own company[0]. It's pretty much the same process everywhere, if you're interested in learning more and seeing how a project typically goes I'd recommend watching The Futur's "Building a Brand" on youtube[1], it's a great series and gives a good bird's eye view of the process. (It depicts a large project, but from what I've seen small projects follow the same process with less polish and back-and-forth.)
>I hate to be blunt but you got scammed. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but I feel like you're approaching this the wrong way if your first reaction was to schedule a call with the scammer and amicably discuss where things went wrong.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or if it's just easier for me to empathize with the agency having worked with them face-to-face, but I still think the events are explainable without assuming the agency was dishonest. Hanlon's Razor and all that. I think they overestimated their ability to scale down their workflows to a project of my size, and the rest was just a consequence of that incorrect prediction.
>Also the only mention of a contract I could find was at the end when discussing termination. It's one of the conclusions you drew, but it's crazy that the scope, deliverables and timetable were not clearly defined, especially if you are paying upfront.
Part of the problem was that the boundary between "rebranding" and "redesigning" is subjective. I suppose I could have said, "You're only allowed to change fonts, colors, and the logo, but you're not allowed to adjust layout," but that felt too restrictive. I agree with their argument that we should adjust the design a little bit to fit a new brand.
And if I wanted to, I could have scoped back down to a rebrand in December. In retrospect, that's what I should have done. But I felt like even though the designs went beyond the scope I asked for, they looked pretty good and they were 80% done, so we might as well just use them.