In the US exhibition industry, it's a regular occurrence for clients to invite several exhibit design/build firms to bid on a single project. The client writes up a multi-page RFP (Request For Proposal) outlining specific requirements, and then the exhibition companies are invited to design and quote specific, detailed solutions for free.

Wow! What a deal.

For the client, that is.

They get multiple ways to solve their specific problems, sometimes from up to 5-10 companies, for no cost or commitment (typically says so right in the RFP). All design costs are covered by the bidders and recouped only by the winner. Depending on the size of the project and number of bidders, the process could easily burn through $1M+ in labor time, 3D printing, VR walkthroughs, travel expenses, etc. On top of that, many times language in the RFP specifically states that the clients own any creative submitted, meaning they can then take a concept they like and have anyone they choose build it for them.

Which may or may not be the firm who just spent $500K designing it.

Understandably, the bidding companies who participate in this process might grumble about it, but ultimately accept the situation for what it is. After all, it is possible to make money this way, since typically clients do not go to RFP every year.

And it's also important to note that nobody is making anyone do anything. The players are voluntarily playing the game the way it's been set up.

It's interesting, though, to examine related industries and see what their practices are in comparison. If Company A wants to build a new building, do they approach 10 different architecture firms, ask for free designs, and then pay the one who designed their favorite?

No.

What about someone with a new product idea...do they get 5 different companies to make them free prototypes, choose their favorite, and tell the other 4 sorry, maybe next time?

Nope.

But who can blame the clients? Reputable companies are offering free services that are useful...why not take them up on it? There's no downside for the client. The issue is with the way the design/build exhibition companies are set up, and how that has influenced the expectations and standard practices that have become widespread within the industry.

The design/build business model is made of two parts (obviously). And therein lies the problem. Most design/build exhibition companies are truly production houses who have hired designers and now call themselves agencies. Unfortunately, calling yourself an agency doesn't make you one. From the client's perspective they're working with multiple potential production houses who make money by building things. Why would the client pay a production house if nothing gets built?

The design/build exhibition company is a production house with it's own add-on design department. The way to solve the grumblings about "giving away free design" is to split the two apart. Allow the Thinkers and the Makers to function independently. That way the client gets the best of both. The client picks their favorite agency to design their ideal experience (and pays for it). Then that agency contracts with whatever production houses are needed to execute the project.

This way, the client still has a single point of responsibility for their contract, minimizing their risk, and each party involved in the execution can focus on what they do best...doing their best work and getting paid for it. Everyone is fully committed to the task and nobody's time is wasted on projects that will never materialize.

And that's the true benefit. So much brainpower, so much time, so much effort of talented people is wasted on each RFP. It's truly a shame. Think of how much benefit there could be if all that effort was re-directed toward efforts that are truly meaningful.