Designing at a Crossroads: Deconstructing Value in the Industry
Amsal Sitepu’s corruption scandal has opened the public to realise the vulnerability of creative work in Indonesia, which ultimately shines light onto the operations within graphic design. It has awakened those who work in the creative industry, and raised questions about “what is fair compensation?” and “what are the means of protection to ensure the security amongst creative laborers?” The answers we see are unsatisfactory, and are exacerbated by witnessing how the state has failed to understand the “value” of work–inevitably sparking a collective frustration and unease about the future of its workers; most especially in an increasingly volatile landscape as creatives face rapidly evolving technological dynamics, which subjects workers to more reduction, and erasure c through the process of quantifying output.
Amid an increasingly complex industry, the position of creative workers becomes ever more fragile: on one hand, they are expected to continuously innovate; on the other, they are confronted with a system that has yet to recognize–nor protect–the invisibilities of thinking, exploring, and time invested in a creative project. As a videographer, Amsal stands as a living proof of the failure of recognition: creative work is expected to bring color into a bureaucratic system that operates in black and white.
In an attempt to weigh in on this case, we spoke with Ritchie Ned Hansel, Chairman of the Indonesian Graphic Designers Association (ADGI), who sees this incident as a ticking time bomb. Ritchie clarified that government officials have an “unusual” approach in determining value for “goods and services”, and oftentimes, there is a lack of empathy, particularly when it comes to evaluating concepts. “From an auditor’s point of view, assessments rely on tangibility in order for goods and services to be quantified. But according to our industry, there isn’t a reliance on a tangible mechanism, so value becomes subjective to the output,” Ritchie explained.
This is precisely the potential issue within the design industry: the absence of a formal mechanism to evaluate “intangible” value leads many government projects to overlook the creative processes in between. What is deemed tangible (and gets recorded) is only the final output, as they are seen as “real” products or deliverables. The irony is that it counteracts the design process, which typically resists quantification. How do we assign value to thinking, ideation, exploration, and time? All of it isn’t made legible by the system –and therefore, remains unvalued.
However, efforts to bridge this gap have been made. ADGI, for instance, has pushed for the inclusion of pitching fees in design service tenders through the Government Procurement Policy Agency (LKPP) Regulation No. 5/2021. “Within that regulation, ADGI advocates for design-related tenders to include pitching fees, because under current rules, design concepts are not recognized (as of monetary value),” Ritchie stated. “For example, designers working within government environments still go through a conceptual phase within a certain timeframe, and then they produce outputs like brand guidelines or design products. But there is an ambivalence throughout the in-betweens and this causes a difficulty for the system to recognise it. As a result, those elements are automatically excluded, simply because there are no concrete regulations covering them.”
The lack of protection for “intangible” value inevitably fuels anxiety among designers. There is a growing sense that hours, sometimes days, of work, involving energy and thought, are treated as if they hold no value. Yet behind every design lies a long process that cannot be reduced to a “final product.” Ritchie expressed this frustration: “We spend hours, days, thinking things through to create something meaningful, something that can elevate a client’s image, and yet that work is not guaranteed to be of value. It’s truly infuriating. There’s something deeply inhumane about the way (our) work is being evaluated.”
The lack of legibility remains a systemic challenge for ADGI and the broader design industry to address together.
The reality is that working with the government requires greater consideration, as there are parameters such as man-hours, man-days, and man-months that must be understood and implemented within their systems–even though these are not necessarily sufficient to capture the complexity of creative work.
As an alternative, ADGI has developed a competition-based mechanism derived from existing regulations. Within this system, “intangible” aspects can be accommodated through more flexible evaluation processes, but this solution comes with its own consequences: more complex mechanisms, the involvement of associations as additional stakeholders, and, oftentimes, longer timelines. Based on ADGI’s experience, not all government institutions are aware of–or willing to adopt–this mechanism. In many cases, projects are expected to move quickly, while ideal administrative processes require time. “Sometimes the process takes too long, even though the project needs to begin by tomorrow. So there are a lot of designers who need to prepare in advance if they want to work with the government. The knowledge on how to navigate this is already outlined in LKPP Regulation No. 5/2021,” Ritchie added.
When it comes to “value” or “price,” there seems to be no fixed standard. This leads to another equally important issue: how do industry practitioners assess their own work? In business, competition is inevitable. But without collective awareness, it can quickly turn into a race to the bottom. Many designers–especially those early in their careers–fall into low-paying arrangements, often lured by promises of long-term collaboration. “A lot of designers slip into this, being tempted by future opportunities and agreeing to undervalued projects. Indirectly, this damages pricing standards and creates price wars among ourselves,” Ritchie noted.
These individual decisions have broader implications, as they shape pricing standards that can ultimately harm the ecosystem. This is where education and business literacy in design can offer support in negotiations. Through its code of ethics, ADGI has emphasized the importance of valuing one’s labor and process. However, translating these principles into everyday practice remains a challenge.
On the topic of pricing, Ritchie highlighted one issue to address: compensation for ideas and concepts, regardless of whether they are ultimately used. In practice, advocating for pitching fees is far from simple. Even so, ADGI has continued this effort to this day, and that persistence is an achievement in itself. In advocating for pitching fees, a common yet problematic question arises: why should we pay for something that isn’t used? This question reveals a fundamental gap of understanding between practitioners and clients, where, in creative work, value does not lie solely in the final outcome, but also in the thinking that precedes it.
Bridging this gap requires continuous dialogue. ADGI plans to hold another business forum to equip designers with negotiation skills and a deeper understanding of value. At the same time, education efforts are directed toward clients, particularly procurement divisions, which play a key role in determining project value. “This is our momentum; our voices are being heard. We must not let them become fragmented or misdirected. The agenda we need to push, regarding free pitching and the evaluation of design services, must have clear rules and calculation methods,” Ritchie emphasized.
Amid all this complexity, there are a few simple yet crucial reminders that arise for creative practitioners: do not be easily swayed by vague promises. Ritchie advises designers to study working mechanisms, understand procurement structures, and build clear communication with relevant stakeholders, including commitment-making officials (PPK). Because once a project enters the legal domain, they must face a system that operates in black and white, which leaves no room for interpretation, most especially towards what is not explicitly written. And it is precisely here where the invisible becomes the most vulnerable and becomes overlooked.
