What does “open call” mean if only those who are already familiar with the system can complete the form?
In January 2024, the European Parliament officially declared that Creative Europe’s administrative processes “discourage participation by less experienced applicants, small organisations and those from disadvantaged areas”. The institutional diagnosis was a damning user-unfriendly interface, an unjustified increase in procedural steps, and particular complexity for organisations with limited resources.
This is not an isolated problem with one call for proposals. It is symptomatic of a systemic design in international cooperation: we talk a lot about diversity, but we design platforms, forms and events for a “standard person” who does not exist. The result is mass abandonment halfway through the process due to language barriers, incomprehensible forms or unclear roles.
User experience (UX) applied to intercultural cooperation is based on a simple premise: if I want you to participate, I must make the path passable for you. It is not just a question of aesthetics or content, but of journeys: from the first contact to the follow-up. When we design well, the indicators change: the registration completion rate increases, language errors decrease, and the intercultural recommendation index improves.
The Creative Europe programme is the European Union’s primary mechanism for supporting cultural and creative sectors. Organisations from 40 countries can apply for funding for cultural cooperation projects, artistic mobility, audience development and distribution of works.
However, according to the European Parliament’s January 2024 resolution, the programme’s administrative processes are still considered highly time-consuming and cumbersome by a significant number of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries, despite some progress in simplification.
The European Parliament documented four critical barriers:
The interface is incompatible with widely used applications. The application platform may not work correctly with browsers, operating systems or applications that many users regularly use. For small organisations without dedicated technical teams, this means hours are lost resolving compatibility issues rather than developing the proposal.
Increase in procedural steps. Every year, the number of mandatory fields, required documents and validation stages grows. What should be simplified through digitisation becomes more complex. The Parliament points out that the application procedure needs urgent simplification, mainly due to the increase in the number of steps.
Discouragement of less experienced participants. Young creators, newly established organisations and those with no previous experience of European funding find the learning curve insurmountable. The form assumes knowledge of European institutional terminology, consortium structure, eligible budgets, and evaluation criteria that are not explained clearly.
Complexity for micro and small organisations with limited resources. Parliament recognises that the application process is particularly complex for individuals, micro and small organisations with limited financial and human resources. Spending weeks completing a form is not feasible when you have a team of two people running projects.
European Cooperation schemes under the Creative Europe Culture component receive an increasing number of applications each year, leading to a steady decline in the success rate. Between 2021 and 2022, the scheme approved 291 projects. The Media component registered 2,124 applicants in the same period, with an average success rate of 66%.
However, these figures do not include applications that are never completed. There is no official public data on dropout rates during the application process. Still, general UX studies show that users abandon forms when the process takes longer than expected: 36% say registration processes were longer than anticipated. On complex platforms, dropout rates can exceed 50%.
The problem with Creative Europe is itself a systemic pattern in international cooperation programmes designed for a non-existent “standard European person”.
Assuming prior knowledge of EU funds. The forms are written for organisations that already know how European calls for proposals work: what a “work package” is, how to structure eligible budgets, and what evidence of impact evaluators expect. For a small cultural NGO in Romania or Portugal applying for the first time, this jargon is an insurmountable barrier.
Failure to consider diverse profiles. A local company exploring an investment project in cultural infrastructure does not need the same form as an international consortium presenting a green project on sustainability at festivals, or a community network promoting a socio-cultural neighbourhood initiative. But they all fill out the same 40-page form with the same questions, many of which are irrelevant to their profile.
Ignoring language barriers and cultural codes. Although the form is available in 24 official EU languages, the translations are often literal renderings of institutional terminology that is not used in the same way across contexts. Cultural references, examples of successful projects and evaluation criteria reflect Western European codes, not the real diversity of the 40 participating countries.
Applying user experience principles to intercultural contexts requires going beyond mere interface translation. It is about designing journeys that recognise the actual diversity of participants: different languages, levels of experience, technological capabilities, cultural codes, and available resources.
Reducing institutional jargon does not mean simplifying content. It means explaining objectives, deadlines, and benefits in short, concrete sentences and examples.
Instead of: “The project must demonstrate strategic relevance to sectoral priorities identified in the annual Work Programme through verifiable quantitative and qualitative indicators.”
Better: “Your project must connect with at least one of these priorities: [list of 5 priorities in plain language]. Explain how your project contributes to that priority with specific examples (number of people reached, specific activities, expected change, etc.).”
Clear language guidelines in the European public sector recommend sentences of no more than 20 words, one concept per paragraph, examples before abstract definitions, and a visible glossary of unavoidable technical terms.
Lightweight forms, mobile-friendly versions, offline options and visible human support.
Lightweight forms. If your call for proposals requires 40 mandatory fields in the application phase, you are asking too much too soon. The European Parliament requests that the costs associated with the application process be included in estimated project budgets, recognising that completing complex forms is a significant burden for small organisations.
Functional mobile version. Many organisations in areas with limited digital infrastructure access the internet primarily via mobile devices. If your platform only works well on a large desktop screen, you are excluding that profile.
Offline option. Allowing forms to be downloaded in editable PDF format, completed offline, and then uploaded removes the barrier of an unstable internet connection. It also enables collaborative work in organisations without simultaneous access to an online platform.
Visible human support. Automated chatbots are useful for frequently asked questions, but for complex queries about eligibility, interpretation of criteria or technical issues, users need to speak to a person. Creative Europe Desks offer this support in each country, but it is not always visible on the application platform.
This is the most transformative layer: different flows depending on the type of actor and project. A local company does not need the same route as an international consortium or a community network.
Practical example with three profiles:
Profile | Key information needed | Required evidence | Minimum steps |
Local company exploring cultural infrastructure project | Expected ROI, investment deadlines, technical requirements, and necessary partners | Basic financial plan, preliminary permits, letter of intent from public/private partner | 4-5 steps: idea, budget, partners, impact, submission |
International consortium presenting a green project on sustainability in cultural events | Specific environmental criteria, required partners (minimum three countries), and evidence of measurable environmental impact | Environmental impact study, letters of commitment from partners, and dissemination plan | 6-7 steps: consortium, environmental objectives, activities, detailed budget, impact, dissemination, submission |
Community network promoting neighbourhood socio-cultural initiative | Demonstrable citizen participation, small budgets accepted, and valid qualitative evidence | Letter of support from neighbours/local authority, simple budget, description of participatory activities | 3-4 steps: activity, participation, budget, submission |
Each profile sees a form tailored to its context. There are no irrelevant questions or empty fields because “it does not apply to us”. There is no confusion about what evidence to provide.
How to implement adapted routes: The user experience principles centred on this figure recommend starting with a segmentation question: “What best describes your organisation/project?” The answers determine which fields of the form are displayed next. Technologically, this is standard conditional logic on digital platforms.
Review images, codes, and references so that no one feels that “this is not for me.”
Diverse images and success stories. If all the projects highlighted as examples are from France, Germany or the Netherlands, organisations in Eastern or Southern Europe may assume that their projects do not fit in. Showing successful projects from different regions, sizes and approaches communicates that diversity is real, not rhetoric.
Cultural codes in evaluation criteria. “Innovation,” “excellence,” and “impact” are interpreted differently across cultural contexts. In some cultures, innovation means digital technology; in others, it means reviving traditional practices with a contemporary approach. Explaining what each criterion means with examples from different cultural contexts reduces ambiguity.
Sensitivity to different organisational capacities. Not all countries have the same ecosystem of professionalised cultural organisations. In some contexts, cultural collectives operate without a formal legal structure, with volunteers and no physical office. If your form assumes that every organisation has a legal registration number, a VAT number, a physical headquarters, and hired staff, you exclude valid organisational models.
When we design with an intercultural UX approach, the indicators of success change. We don’t just measure how many applications we receive, but how many are completed, who drops out and why, and whether users would recommend the process.
Percentage of users who start the form and complete it through to final submission. On well-designed platforms, the completion rate exceeds 80%. On complex platforms, it can fall below 50%.
How to measure it: Basic web analytics tracks how many users create an account, how many start the form, at what step they abandon it, and how many submit it. Tools such as heat maps show where users spend the most time, which fields confuse, and which sections lead to abandonment.
Critical segmentation: Completion rate by geographical region, interface language, organisation size, and previous experience with EU funds. If organisations from certain countries or with specific profiles drop out more often, you already have evidence of a particular barrier.
Number of technical support queries due to misunderstanding of instructions, applications rejected due to misinterpretation of criteria, and incorrectly completed fields requiring correction.
How to measure it: A support ticket system should categorise queries. “I don’t understand what this field means” “Is this evidence sufficient?” “Is my organisation eligible?” is an indicator of unclear language or a lack of examples. Segmenting by user language reveals whether translations are problematic.
Realistic goal: In calls for proposals with clear language and abundant examples, queries due to misunderstanding should not exceed 10% of applicants. If 30-40% of users contact support with basic questions, the information design is failing.
Recommendation index adapted to multicultural contexts. Standard question: “On a scale of 0-10, how likely are you to recommend this application process to colleagues in your country/region with a similar profile?”
Why “intercultural”: Recognises that the experience may differ depending on the cultural context. Allows NPS to be segmented by region, language or organisational profile to detect equity gaps.
How to calculate it: % of promoters (9-10) minus % of detractors (0-6) = NPS. Result between -100 and +100. NPS above +50 is excellent, +20 to +50 is good, and below 0 indicates serious problems.
Hypothetical example:
The first step in applying intercultural UX can be as simple as visualising the entire journey a user takes from discovering the call for applications to receiving a response.
Contact: How do they find out about the call for proposals? Where do they find information? Do they understand whether they are eligible within the first 2 minutes? Can they access examples of successful projects similar to theirs?
Participation: How do they create an account? How many steps are there in the form? Can they save their progress and come back later? Is there contextual help for each field? Can they contact human support if they have questions? What evidence must they provide and in what format?
Follow-up: Do you receive confirmation of receipt? Do you know when you will receive a response? Can you see the status of the evaluation? Do you receive a detailed response explaining why you were rejected? Can you reapply with improvements?
Take three real people from your audience with different profiles:
Profile 1: Director of a small cultural organisation in a medium-sized city in Eastern Europe, with no previous experience in European funding, mainly accessing the internet via mobile phone, and whose native language is not an official EU language.
Profile 2: Coordinator of an international consortium based in Western Europe, has already managed Erasmus+ projects, a team of 5 people, and access to a consultant specialising in European funding.
Profile 3: Independent artist from Southern Europe who wants to apply for individual mobility, works alone, without a formal organisational structure, and has intermittent connectivity in a rural area.
Ask each person to go through your platform/form while verbalising aloud what they think, what they understand, where they have doubts, what frustrates them. Record the sessions. What you discover in 3 hours of testing with real users is worth more than a thousand assumptions about what they need.
The European Parliament has officially recognised that Creative Europe processes create barriers for less experienced participants, small organisations and disadvantaged areas. This institutional recognition is an opportunity for call managers, platform coordinators and communicators in international cooperation to implement concrete changes.
This is not about lowering quality standards. It is about designing pathways that allow people with talent, valuable ideas, and commitment to participate without administrative, linguistic, or cultural barriers that exclude them before their projects are assessed on merit.
The four pillars (clear language, accessibility, adapted routes, cultural care) do not require huge budgets or complete redesigns. They start by testing with real users, listening to where our current designs fail, and making iterative adjustments based on evidence, not assumptions.
If you manage calls for proposals, coordinate platforms, or design participation processes in international cooperation, the first step is simple: map out the user journey from three different cultural perspectives. Test with real profiles. What you discover will transform how you design inclusion.
Are you interested in this approach? Let’s continue the conversation on LinkedIn!
The EU AI Act for communications teams is about more than learning new tools. This guide explains the 2026 requirements and how to turn them into clear rules for use, review and transparency.
A decision may be well-founded yet still come across as poorly explained. This happens in a call for proposals where many organisations are left out.
A campaign can carry a responsible message while being distributed through an experience that pressures people. Trust is also designed.