It Depends: Freelancing Ethics and Choosing Clients
My gut tells me that subjects that make me nervous - like this one! - are important to talk about, especially in a community of freelancers where we all learn and benefit from the experiences of our peers.
From the outside looking in, it’s easy to think “I’d never work on a project that’s related to (insert company or industry here)”, but through my own experience as a commercial lettering artist and conversations with industry peers… things often become less black-and-white when an actual offer is sitting in your inbox.
All this is to say that my take on business ethics and choosing clients is personal and imperfect. I’m sharing as a fellow freelancer & entrepreneur, to add to the conversation.
In other words, my goal is to put some information out into the world that might be helpful, not to tell you what to decide. Hopefully, it’ll be useful to understand the kinds of things I consider and contend with in my freelance business, and how my own personal ethics impact the ways I make decisions.
Background
When I first started talking with my agent about going to culinary school, licensing artwork came up early in the conversation. I hadn’t pursued licensing in my artistic career at that point, but it was a revenue stream that made a lot of sense if I was going to be out of pocket for larger chunks of time for school-related stuff.
Around the same time, a licensing inquiry came in from Erin Condren, a company most well-known for its planners. I wasn’t familiar with the company before this inquiry, but stationery and lifestyle brands are design-adjacent so their project seemed like a reasonable fit for me and worth considering.
Their inquiry included (this ends up being important!) a really interesting disclaimer about the former CEO - and the namesake of the brand - Erin Condren. The folks from the brand (I’m going to use EC Design to avoid confusion) included this info along with their licensing inquiry for transparency, so I could make an informed decision.
So the decision of whether to work with EC Design turned into a much more nuanced decision than it might have been because there was the complicating factor of Erin Condren’s behavior.
My agent and I did some investigating and I talked with people whose perspective I respect. Ultimately it ended up being a job I felt like I could do (this article covers how and why) but part of my signing on to work with them included the ability to share the whole decision-making process with you, my audience. Not only did it seem like a kind of educational situation, but also felt important to be transparent about how I choose to work with clients.
I think a lot of us will encounter client situations that aren’t black and white. In fact, the more I dug into this particular decision with EC Design, the more I realized how few of my own client decisions are pure “hell yes” or “hell no” situations.
Like money, this grayscale decision-making isn’t something that I’ve seen many discuss openly. And, like money, a lot of the mitigating factors depend on your own specific ethics, context, and environment.
So the way I ended up framing this is that I talk about each of the things I consider for (most) client projects and then use the decisions about the EC Design inquiry as a specific example. I ended up with three major consideration “pillars” - brand identity, project brief, and paycheck - and then dig into some of the complications of those pillars.
Every client situation I’ve ever had has been different, and there were times in my life where I cared about the pillars (and complications) differently. But hopefully, this is a useful tool to think about how and why and whether you choose client projects.
Brand Identity: Dark Grey… Sometimes
When I first started fleshing out my decision-making process for this article, I initially said that brand identity was the pillar that felt closest to a hard line or a black and white area for me. And that’s because there are a few brand types and industries that are *almost* always a no.
For example, I haven’t worked with tobacco companies (e.g. Phillip-Morris) because I don’t smoke and I’m personally not a fan of smoking. For those same reasons, I haven’t done work for meat processing companies (e.g. Tyson) since I’ve maintained a vegetarian diet for the entirety of my design career so far.
However, as I dug into the topic more, I realized that even the kind of “hell no” I have about working with certain industries isn’t quite as finite a line as I tend to think it is.
For instance, I’ve done work for alcohol brands because I personally consume it. Some people might argue that this product and industry are just as harmful as tobacco. I’ve also done work with brands that support the meat industry, like lettering for magazine covers containing photography of meat-based foods, and five years ago, I designed some social media content promoting McCafé, McDonald’s brand of coffee.
Though I personally wouldn’t eat this burger, this magazine cover helped me land dozens of other editorial projects. And honestly? I loved working on the lettering.
The magazine covers were an easier yes because the magazines themselves weren’t dedicated to meat, rather the individual issues were featuring restaurants and local food culture. McCafé was a much more difficult decision, but I ultimately said yes because I was having a slower month of business and felt like I needed the money. (Having diversified income streams for your creative business can help you avoid this feeling, but this was before I really started doing that.)
Looking back on it after completing the project, my ethical discomfort of working with a brand like McDonald’s outweighed the value that the paycheck (a few thousand dollars) brought to my life. If the same opportunity with the same budget came up again tomorrow, it would be an easy pass for me. However, that same project might be an easy ‘yes’ for someone else based on their beliefs or circumstances.
So maybe I could refine the general “hell no” statement and say I wouldn’t work with a specific company, like Phillip-Morris. That seems more accurate because it’s not really smoking that I oppose (I know plenty of people who personally choose to smoke) as much as the corporate machine that makes money from promoting a deadly product.
However, brand identity is really only a hard line in terms of “hell no” situations. I can’t think of any brand that I would be like “hell yes” without doing some due diligence in terms of their history, their behavior, etc… And even the few “hell yes” companies that might exist are still going to be subject to other considerations like the project specifics and the paycheck. That being said, it’s unrealistic to spend a large chunk of time researching the history of every potential client, so at the end of the day, I have to do the best I can with the information I have.
Basically: I like to do work with and for clients that I agree with, ethically, and that I like, personally. The further out a brand is from my own ethics (and preferences), the less weight they have in terms of me saying yes, and the more I’m going to interrogate their actions and their motives.
Here are some things I think about when I’m considering brand identity:
What’s their reputation; what kind of stuff are they doing out in the world?
How do their values align with my own?
Does my work make sense in their space?
(Of course, this is all through the lens of my own practices and preferences. Your preferences will impact the way you answer these same questions. I’ll stop saying this so I don’t keep repeating the same line, but understand that’s true for pretty much everything I mention in this article.)
In the case of EC Design, they are a stationery-based lifestyle brand with a female-led company and a commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” So for their bare-bones brand identity, EC Design seemed like a good fit.
The issue they raised about their former CEO, though, really complicated things in terms of their brand. A leader’s behavior impacts and informs a brand’s identity! That’s one of the reasons EC Design included the issue in their inquiry and the main reason that I really spent a lot of time and mental energy considering this inquiry.
I’ll talk more about the specific issue (and how it affected my perception of the brand) later in this article, but it bears mentioning here because EC Designs made a clear distinction - both to me and in public - that Erin Condren (the person) did not represent the brand or its values. That’s ultimately why the EC Design inquiry survived my “brand identity” check.
The Project: Easy Yes
Another major consideration pillar is always the project brief. This is an area where there’s a LOT of fluctuation because a great project brief will make me consider ‘meh’ brands or paychecks. Conversely, a poor fit of a project can really devalue a wonderful brand or a fat paycheck.
One thing that was really interesting to realize as I was sifting through this whole decision-making process was how much my own situation has impacted the ways I value a project and a paycheck. In my early days of freelancing, I wasn’t nearly as attentive to the project brief as I was to the paycheck!
As I have continued to grow my business and become more successful, I have gained financial stability that lets me focus less on making money and more on finding fulfilling creative work.
I’ve found that projects that aren’t exciting to me end up being a true slog and really drain my enthusiasm and creative energy. Even though (now) I’m paid well for whatever I take on, that’s not the only consideration.
There are non-financial benefits and drawbacks to creative work. There’s only so far money can go in accounting for a shitty project and a great project can have a lasting impact long after the paycheck is spent invested.
Another interesting thing I’ve realized is that projects are way more important than either brands or paychecks in terms of the growth of my business. My experience has been that a key project at an ideal time can catapult a creative career.
So, yeah. Lots of fluctuation in how I weigh project briefs when I’m considering client inquiries.
So what do I consider for projects?
How does my style align with the project goals?
What kind of impact (positive and/or negative) will this project have on society?
Is it a type of project I want (or have been wanting) to do?
What kinds of doors could completing this project open?
In the case of EC Design, the project was a lettering art piece and a licensing gig, which I had wanted to do.
The project was also part of a diversity initiative for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. 35% of the first two months of net sales from the licensed product would include donations to Asian Americans Advancing Justice. As an Asian-American, this was an added bonus because the project supported something important to me.
The Paycheck: It Matters
Paycheck is most certainly a consideration pillar. The amount of money any particular client project makes directly impacts my life because my business exists to make money, provide for needs, make lives comfortable, and grant financial stability (not just for myself, but for my employees and contractors too).
I would still be doing passion projects no matter what field I worked in, so the business part of my business is less about fulfilling my creative needs and wants and more about my financial needs and wants.
After my financial needs are met, there’s a lot of wiggle room. We all know that financial stability greatly improves quality of life and - at the same time - there’s a lot of things we can live without if we have to.
The ‘starving artist’ trope sets the financial bar too low for creatives, in my opinion, leading us to believe we should be grateful to make enough to barely cover rent and groceries. Personally, my financial bar is set at the ability to pay for housing, groceries, healthcare, retirement savings, occasional wants, and donations (non-profits, mutual aid, supporting artists on Patreon, etc).
We live in a society where you need some money to survive and usually more of it to thrive. (We can absolutely critique this system and the rising cost of living vs. wages, but for the sake of keeping this article concise I’m not going to do that here.) I want you to get paid well for your creative work. I also want you to feel great, both ethically and creatively, about the client projects you choose to take on.
The reality is that these ideas rarely line up neatly each time an inquiry hits your inbox. At the end of the day, the only person who knows what your financial needs are is YOU, and these needs will affect your decision-making when it comes to choosing which clients to work with.
So the paycheck can be influenced by brand identity or by the project brief. In other words, I might consider a great paycheck even if one of the other pillars was meh, and vice versa.
If there’s nothing else in the mix, the “paycheck” pillar is where I’ll weigh my current commitments and resources against the project budget and decide if it makes sense for me.
(Tip: one helpful way to make your decisions easier in this category is to set a minimum project fee you’re willing to work with. I’m at a point in my career where I don’t consider 99% of inquiries below $3K and opt to refer the client to someone else instead because I have a lot more on my plate now. Of course, there can still be exceptions for projects that are super strong in the other two categories. Hopefully, most of you also have a semi-hard line in this category too; inquiries that offer “exposure” as payment are a great example of a hard no!)
What I consider in terms of paycheck:
Do I need the money? What tangible effects will this money have on my life and business?
How much money is being offered (and how does that amount align with the project/brand)?
Is the amount of money vs. labor significant enough to bring me financial stability and comfort?
Of course, the responses to these questions will vary by project and will also be affected by my current circumstances. Early in my career, I needed paychecks much more often! And sometimes I take on a less inspiring project than usual simply because it has a low labor-to-payout ratio.
In the case of EC Design, part of the payout would be extended because it was a licensing project (this was something I wanted). The budget was reasonable. And the labor commitment was relatively low since they agreed to license a piece of artwork that I’d already created.
Complications and Other Considerations
Sometimes, brand-project-paycheck all checks out, the decision is relatively easy, and I start the art or send regrets. But that isn’t always the case.
In fact, there’s often a hitch with at least one of those pillars. Maybe the payout seems a little low and we decide to counter. Or the project brief may be overly expansive and we ask to reduce or re-define my contribution.
In the case of the EC Design inquiry, there was an issue with the brand identity that made me pause and consider carefully. The person who started - and shares a name with - the brand (i.e. Erin Condren) behaved in a way that didn’t align with my own ethics, so for me, the brand identity was called into question.
Now, my experience has been that it’s neither realistic nor practical to refuse to do business with any brand that does something questionably unethical. That’s because most brands are made of people, and people are a collection of bests and worsts - both individually and as a group.
Ideally, I wouldn’t have to grapple with people and companies doing dumb shit. But my lived experience has been that the same imperfections that make us unique are also the ones that are behind some of our most royal fuck ups.
In other words, I have to be able to account for people fucking up sometimes in a way that isn’t absolutist, because absolutism harms my ability to do business.
The first consideration is the complication (or transgression, or issue) itself:
What’s the issue, complication, or transgression?
What was the impact?
Does it seem like a one-time thing or a chronic thing?
Is a single person doing it, or is it the (implicit) brand culture, or is it explicitly sanctioned by the brand?
What was the intent?
*Response matters too, but I’ll get to that in a minute. Sometimes the Thing is so egregious or so widespread that it’s a no for me without even having to consider the response.
Most brands are made of people, and people are a collection of bests and worsts - both individually and as a group.
In the case of EC Design, the former CEO and name of the brand (Erin Condren) was involved in organizing a large graduation walk for her kids’ high school class that subverted social distancing guidelines by equating the celebration with a march. (This idea was apparently inspired by a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest Condren’s daughter had attended the week before). This was also during the height of COVID restrictions and BLM protests in summer 2020.
I’m pro-COVID precautions and pro-BLM and I believe both are profoundly important to human lives and health. So Condren’s co-opting of those important things to justify a celebration for her kids was a huge red flag for me. Her behavior was an indicator that she cares more about her and her kids having fun than she does for the lives (and deaths) of others.
At best, these were the actions of a woman blinded by her own privilege (white and wealthy). At worst, these decisions were made with the intent to host a celebration under the guise of a protest.
The response by EC Design is what held me back from an immediate “hell no.”
Making Up is Hard to Do (Well)
Remember when I mentioned, a few thousand words back, that EC Design included a disclaimer about Erin Condren in their initial inquiry? That ended up being important in my decision-making because it clearly and definitely condemned Condren’s actions and drew a distinction between Condren’s actions and the brand identity.
The way a brand responds is always important when there’s an issue to contend with. In this case, the issue was a transgression by an important figurehead of the company. When a company or client responds to transgressions, I’m looking at what the brand is doing in terms of actionable steps towards apologizing and making amends.
Is the apology appropriate and adequate? How tangible and equitable are the amends?
These things can get rabbit-holey really quickly (because of the many examples we have of people and brands doing them both well and poorly). So here’s what I look for, specifically.
Apologies:
include a clear “I’m sorry” statement / express regret
don’t include qualifiers (i.e. excuses)
acknowledge the transgression
acknowledge the impact (show empathy)
Amends:
commensurate with the transgression
includes those impacted
equitable
lasting (i.e. not co-opted for short-term good press)
In the case of EC design, both the company AND Erin Condren issued an apology after the transgression. The company’s apology hit most of the notes I look for and stated plans for making amends; Condren’s didn’t.
So then I needed to look and see if the brand was doing anything other than the initial apology to differentiate itself from its namesake and actually make amends.
And that ended up being the deciding factor for me because EC Design did - I think - a solid job.
Not only did EC Design issue a decent apology, but also worked (both immediately and longer-term) to make amends for the transgression. AND they made sure to be transparent with me about the situation so that I was able to make an informed decision.
Some of the ways EC Design worked to make amends:
Acknowledged that Condren was deeply connected to the brand and condemned her actions
Put Condren on an indefinite leave of absence
Took responsibility for making amends
Put money where their mouth was (both immediate and long-term donations)
Immediately moved to improve equity by focusing efforts on launching collections with diverse groups of artists
Waited to promote new initiatives
The two things that really stood out to me were 1) how clearly, swiftly, and publicly the company’s current CEO, Tonia Misvaer, condemned Condren’s behavior and 2) how, almost a year later, the company was still working to make amends.
So I ultimately decided that I wasn’t willing to work with a brand that chose to protect or defend Erin Condren and her actions. I was, however, willing to work with a company that removes problematic figureheads, condemns unethical actions, and works to make appropriate amends.
All that being said, I don’t believe Erin Condren is a bad person. I think she made bad decisions, and I also think she’s capable of growth, change, and positive action.
TL;DR It depends (on you)
The decision to work with EC Design on this project was complicated in part because my participation was an actual part of their plan to make amends: a commitment to commission artwork from a diverse range of artists. The more I noodled on it, the more I kept coming back to these ideas:
What’s the tangible impact of me declining to license my art to this brand? Not much. I might feel good about saying no to a company associated with a problematic figurehead, but their business would likely go on as usual.
What’s the tangible impact of me saying yes? Money for my business. A step towards licensing more of my artwork. Money being raised for an AAPI non-profit. The ability to write this blog post.
Ultimately, I decided that if EC Design was willing to put their resources and platform behind collections with Black, Asian American and LGBTQIA+ artists, then I was willing to work with them to be part of the change they said they wanted to make.
(If you’ve made it this far and would like to support my work via this collection, click here to view all the products available with my design. 35% of the net proceeds from this collection support AAAJ through the end of May 2021.)
There aren’t many black and white issues in my life; I tend to think that most things are nuanced and need to be considered (or interrogated) carefully. And I believe my ethics are my own - they’re both my right and my responsibility - and no one else’s. If you run a creative freelance business, you’ll likely be confronted with these grey-area decisions on a consistent basis.
That’s why I started this article the same way I’m going to end it: this was a decision that was made based on two things: some pillars of consideration and my personal ethics. I think most of us have similar consideration pillars, but we all have our own ethics.
So the point of this article is to share how I consider client inquiries, the ethical standards I use in those considerations, and provide an illustration of a decision-making scenario from my own experience.
Hopefully, it’s been (or will be!) helpful to you in navigating your own creative business.
I’d love to know: What are YOUR consideration pillars when it comes to vetting client projects? Are there any questions or filters you use to determine if you’ll take it or pass on it? In hindsight, are there any client projects you’ve worked on that you wish you hadn’t?
Leave a comment below and join the conversation.
