Scope Creep Examples — Web design
The same design, requested again in a different format
The approved design was delivered as Figma files and exported web assets. The client separately asks for the same design rebuilt as print-ready PDFs.
The proposal scoped a web design deliverable: Figma source files and exported web-ready assets (SVG, PNG at web resolutions). After delivery and approval, the client asks for "the same thing" as print-ready PDFs for a trade show banner — same visual design, but print requires different color modes (CMYK vs RGB), different resolution and bleed requirements, and layout adjustments for a completely different aspect ratio, none of which is a matter of just re-exporting a file.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Deliverables clause→ — Specifies the delivered format(s) — a different medium with different technical requirements is a new deliverable, not a re-export of the one already scoped.
Suggested change-order wording
Suggested change-order wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Our agreement scoped web-ready assets, which don't translate directly to a print-ready format — print needs CMYK color conversion, higher resolution, bleed margins, and layout adjustments for the banner's dimensions. I can produce the print version as additional scope, estimated at [X] — want me to send a quote?
How this usually resolves
Naming the specific technical reasons a reformat isn't a quick task (color mode, resolution, bleed) helps here, since "same design, different format" sounds trivial from the outside — once the client understands it's genuinely separate production work, the pushback is usually minimal.
Related reading