Welcome Tan.

I follow the same system that your office does. I explain to my clients early on that I will only be presenting one concept of direction to them. Which is not to say that I might have several visuals of that concept - but they will be based on a single direction of design.

I find that working with the client on a certain amount of research, developing a storyline and feeling for the concept phase, removes the chance of surprise in the concept phase. The collaboration helps to involve the client in the design process. I think Tolleson has said something particularly succinct on this.

I find that the process is only difficult if I haven't done enough work beforehand with the client and we haven't been able to define the direction or story for the design.

I once found a website of a design firm that said that they had produced something like 30 design concepts for their client days before Christmas. I really wish I still had that to hand - as I could only imagine how overwhelmed the client must have been.

I've seen it done both ways. I used to work for a rather large design firm that would present a wall's worth of mock ups for a logo. They'd, of course, narrow down the formal presentation to a handful, but they felt that the 'wall of ideas' impressed the client.

At the smaller firms I've worked at, I've found things to be more productive when you narrow it down to the solution you feel is correct and show that.

That said, different projects may dictate different approaches.

I've done projects where the client specifically wanted lots of experimentation. As such, we'd show a lot of different approaches.

But for those clients who are coming to you with a specific need, and are able to articulate the specifics of that need clearly, then I think showing fewer options is almost always a better approach, as you allow the client to focus on one set of solutions.

Without a doubt, if your policy is to always show x# of layouts, you will ALWAYS be cutting and pasting different approaches together into one Frankenstein solution at the client's request.

Thanks for clarifying -- I should rephrase as you did. We present one design concept, and provide several visuals to support it.

When I tell other designers of our one design approach, they either assume we're cocky or lazy. On the contrary, it takes a lot of effort to engage the client intimately enough to be able to produce one thorough solution.

> removes the chance of surprise in the concept phase

I'm glad you said that. Very similar to something we also tell our clients (probably ripped off from Tolleson or Hinrichs): what we present is never a surprise, but it's always unexpected.

I once worked at an agency where one of the other designers presented 30 logo solutions to a client. When the client asked him which he liked, he said that he didn't have a favorite. Not surprisingly, the client eventually left for another firm, citing that they needed better leadership through their process.

Oh! way to bring the pain Tan.

I am of the belief (strongly) that designers should only show one option to a client. We have had a few discussions in here where I have been booed by saying this. Well... no more! Only one, if they take it: awesome! if they don't take it: good luck finding somebody better. There, I said it. Whew.

On the other hand I completely understand why showing a few options is good practice. As that is always the case, we obviously try to never show anything we wouldn't want the client to pick. But we do hope to be able to persuade the client into choosing our favorite. Our favorite is usually the one that is most on target with the client's need, so in reality, we just show up and let them choose without much broohaha.

I think it is important for designers to explore multiple visual solutions and then, whithin the team, come up with the strongest piece(s) to show the client whether it's one, two, four, eleven.

We tend to show 2-3 concepts depending on time, budget and the project. For logos we might show 5-6, if we love all the ones we make. I love all the ones I do, so, you know... We really don't see it as a major issue and to be honest coming up with different solutions to one problem is the single most rewarding part of my job. It is the challenge aspect of it that I find appealing and... well, fun.

>And what's the most design options anyone has presented (not just create) to their client, and why?

At marchFIRST we once showed a client 196 logos in three rounds during a span of two months at the most. This was when we were almost 30 designers and each and everyone worked on that stupid project. And this will sound cliché but in the end they settled for the first logo we showed. And that's God's honest truth. I'm not making it up. I know because I designed a whole font for the stupid logo in the first round and was completely bummed when they wanted more options. Oh, and why? Because the clients were fucking losers with too much money to spend. It was a dotcom.

And legend has it that VSA Partners once presented 500 logos to IBM.

When I tell other designers of our one design approach, they either assume we're cocky or lazy.

I hear this a lot. In some cases, people like to show they've had more than one idea. With the thinking that the more that is created in the concept phase the easier it is to justify the investment from the client - in all this work.

Though I must add that when working on identity projects, in particular logos, clients are less comfortable with the notion that they might only see one concept. Sometimes it seems perfectly reasonable to show more than one.

I do find producing one concept direction also minimizes the amount of frankensteining that the client can do from different concepts. Clients often find a way - and I put that down to not capturing that particular need or specification in the first phase.

> at marchFIRST we once showed a client 196 logos in three rounds

had some friends that worked at marchFirst in Seattle with similar stories. No wonder they folded.

> I think it is important for designers to explore multiple visual solutions and then, whithin the team, come up with the strongest piece(s) to show the client whether it's one, two, four, eleven.

I can respect this approach, and will admit that we've done the same. But it's usually instances when we've run out of time, and are unable to narrow it down to one.

But let's be honest here -- you have to admit that showing more than one solution from the team is also out of a desire to be nice to one another. Design democracy at its finest. In every project, there is one solution that is strongest, no matter how good the other options are. It's rarely the inability to choose, but rather an unwillingness to make the difficult, but right decision.

This goes back to the discussion about famous designers being mostly assholes. A great art director is decisive, confident, and fucking ruthless with his team. Nothing personal, but this logo is better than yours. Better luck next time.

There is no crying in design.

There is never only a single solution to any design problem. I will generally show 3-4 different design approaches (not showing any that I do not want the client to choose). These design directions do not demonstrate a final solution by a concept/approach at achieving the solution.

What inevitably happens is the strong points of all the designs begin to come together into the 'final' design anyway. Not by piecemeal — but a new whole being born out of the dialectic.

One big issues that is difficult to avoid when showing multiple is the 'frankensteining' phenomenon' that has already been mentioned above (we sometimes call it �Mr. Potato Head’). Sometimes as a designer the best thing to do is nod your head when the client starts ordering off the menu, and then come back with something that astounds them.

>But let's be honest here -- you have to admit that showing more than one solution from the team is also out of a desire to be nice to one another.

Aaaaaah... so, so true.

>It's rarely the inability to choose, but rather an unwillingness to make the difficult, but right decision.

Aaaaaah... so, so true.

I already said it's so true right? Seriously, I couldn't agree more with you Tan.

Jonathan said:

> There is never only a single solution to any design problem.

Agreed, there are a hundred ways to solve any design problem. But my point is that there is always one solution stronger than the rest. By presenting only the strongest solution, a designer is leading rather than following the client.

> What inevitably happens is the strong points of all the designs begin to come together into the 'final' design anyway.

I guess that's where we differ in approach. It sounds like you're comfortable showing clients solutions you know aren't yet 'final' -- whereas I believe it's possible to nail it the first time.

> Sometimes as a designer the best thing to do is nod your head when the client starts ordering off the menu, and then come back with something that astounds them.

I know you probably don't mean it this way -- but this approach sounds a little patronizing to your client. If you allow them to think that they have design input (ordering off the menu -- make this bigger, but use that color, etc.) when they really don't, then what's the point of giving them choices in the first place?

And if the client input is of real value to your process at that stage, then wouldn't it be even better to get that kind of information from the beginning? Of course it would.

I find that many clients don't fully understand their role in a design process. It's unfamiliar territory to many execs, so they try to put their hands into the pie as often as they can in an attempt to maintain control. As designers, we tolerate this behavior in our eagerness to please the client instead of serving their best interest.

I believe that a designer's primary role is to guide their client through the process -- letting them know where their input is crucial, and where it's problematic. And to me, by the first design presentation, you should know enough about the project and the client to confidently recommend the single, most effective solution. It shouldn't be a guessing game of choice at that point.

> I guess that's where we differ in approach. It sounds like you're comfortable showing clients solutions you know aren't yet 'final' -- whereas I believe it's possible to nail it the first time.

I believe it is important to have client input from the beginning, rather than going away and coming back weeks/months later with a �final design’ that you have pulled out of a black box (from the client’s perspective). I agree with you that we can nail it the first time (meaning the first time the client sees the work, not our first attempt), but the education of the client of the design process is a valuable part of the relationship.

> I know you probably don't mean it this way -- but this approach sounds a little patronizing to your client.

You’re right — I didn’t mean it that way, but it probably sounded like it. What I meant is that it is important to listen to client feedback, but that feedback may be incorporated into the design process in way that the client may no anticipate — sometimes it is not a direct application of feedback but rather an interpretation of the feedback.

Clients are not going to know how to critique design and feedback like: “I don’t like orange” is very little use. There must be conversations with the client that gives them a vocabulary for discussing design that will allow them to walks that fine line between subjective (personal tastes) and objective (does this solve the design problem for our audience?)opinions.

I am probably pointing out the obvious, but it depends on what type of work we are showing.

If it is a logo, show one. As a designer, I have been hired to consider things the client is incapable of, like what it looks like on a business card, the side of a truck, at the top of a building, embroidered on a golf shirt, on the 100th generation through xerox, on a fax, in the 72 dpi world of the web, a tattoo, whatever. Each of those environments has unique restrictions. So, in that case show the one that you know is the right one.

If showing a web site design we show three. We will then narrow it down to one with the client and go through three iterations (tweaking the chosen one) to nail down the final. But there are many more vairiables to a web site that go beyond the expertise of a visual designer. Usability, acessability, integration with content management systems, functionality, information architecture, taxonomy, etc. Three comps may be necessary to show different ways of addressing some of those issues. Behind the scenes we usually develop 10 comps (up to 30 in extreme cases) before presenting the three.

The only consisent thing I have noticed, is that sales guys believe in quantity over quality. Sales guys would show the client every turd you ever made if it was up to them.

> Jonathan: but the education of the client of the design process is a valuable part of the relationship. There must be conversations with the client that gives them a vocabulary for discussing design.

I couldn't agree more. That's probably where I should've started off the discussion -- talking about the importance of educating clients. I've seen lots of designers who either dismiss client feedback or become adversarial at the first sign of pushback. Educate them from the beginning, and the relationship will be mutually beneficial.

> griff: If showing a web site design we show three. We will then narrow it down to one with the client and go through three iterations. But there are many more vairiables to a web site that go beyond the expertise of a visual designer. Three comps may be necessary to show different ways of addressing some of those issues.

I mostly agree with your points here, griff. If you're showing 3 site designs that are different design concepts -- then I still think it's wrong. But if the 3 options are different variations of functionality or architecture all supporting a single concept, then I agree that it's definitely necessary.

But that brings up another point -- interactive design is often more engineering than design. And we must be careful. Usability and functionality is used as a crutch to compensate for bad design far too often.

> Sales guys would show the client every turd you ever made if it was up to them.

Yup. You can't blame them, we live in a society that believes more is better. That's why I have a love/hate relationship with our account directors. Whenever we present, it scares the crap out of them that we only present one concept. But after three or four happy clients, they understand the purpose and its efficiency.

I have many questions. So:

--I wonder first if it makes good time-management, return-on-investment sense to go through the process of including the client on the story-making/concept phase so that you can get them to go along with the one-logo presentation. (Talking about logos here.) Wouldn't it actually save time--and aggravation, unless your clients are saints--to work up 5 really strong logos and have one meeting? Maybe I'm not understanding the way you work the client through the process, but it sounds like several meetings prior to the presentation.

--Second, I take issue with the desire to push the designer's favorite. No matter how researched and educated about their business you are, it's still their logo and their business card. I feel as strong personal creative ownership of my work as anyone, but if they pick crap or frankstein it to crap, I can live with it. I like the way Felix shows killed work--I've started doing that. It's the least aggravating way of dealing with clients not picking my personal favorite. Also, I truthfully doubt that one's favorite is a matter being "usually the one that is most on target with the client's need." Just as likely, it's your favorite because you finally used Rockwell Bold, or dashed lines, copied some artist you like, or came up with a clever visual pun. I have strong favorites, and clients ask which and I tell them (after they've commented first), but I also balance that with rationales for non-favorites.

--What is wrong with surprising the client? They love it. Especially if you give them what they thought they wanted, then see you came up with something else that's better (or cooler or smater or prettier--doesn't matter).

--"If they don't take it: good luck finding somebody better." WHOA! (Sorry to single you out, Armin.) I don't know what competition is like in Chicago, but try this kind of bluff in New York and you can starting packing your bags for Chicago.

-- Finally, I'd like to suggest that frankensteining is its own kind of design problem that can be addressed with creativity rather than reluctance or bitterness. When I've done it, I always remind myself to make any changes to my little pieces to make that final assemblyt works as it should. There's no reason to literally cut and paste.

-- Fianlly, can anyone speak to the differences in practice as they relate to the size of your firm?

I am one guy, starting out, and therefore show LOTS of work. My first job I showed 25 logos. I've gotten two subsequent jobs from the same people because they respect my hard work and appreciate the range of stuff they see. Someday I'll have the track record (and pricing scale) to show less work, but for now I believe this works best for me. My sense is, when a large company (my clients are relatively small) hires a large design firm, the financial investment is a token of trust, and the firm has therefore been given license to do what they do and come up with a smaller number of solutions. I know the large firms do just as much work--I'm just talking about what the clients sees.

--Welcome, Tan. Great topic.

But my point is that there is always one solution stronger than the rest.

Oh one more thing. The idea of one solution being the better solution--the better representation of a concept, or the better fit with the client's story--necessitates the client having a story. Not so easy with a new business.

One of my restaurant jobs is a modern French restaurant. The finalists for the logo were one that very much said "French" and another that said "cool" (the owner's word, not mine)--simple, urban, not-too-French. At that point, they didn't know exactly what their restaurant would turn out to be--we were all figuring it out along the way.

There was no single correct design solution. In fact, picking the logo helped them decide which direction to take the whole feel of the place. During a presentation I even said (I swear) something like "This logo is for a French menu, but with a twist to bring it up to date; this logo is for a modern restaurant and the name alone refers to the French element. They're different restaurants, not just different logos." They picked the latter and it's turned out that the modern feel is more important (in food terms) than the French element.

This would not have happened without exploring and sharing many solutions. I felt a little like I'd helped them in a larger way than just giving them a visual representation of the story they'd given me. If I had decided which one I thought it should have been, well no matter how informed I thought I was, that would have been a disservice.

>-"If they don't take it: good luck finding somebody better." WHOA! (Sorry to single you out, Armin.) I don't know what competition is like in Chicago, but try this kind of bluff in New York and you can starting packing your bags for Chicago.

Actually, this is all in my head, I have not yet put it to practice. All talk. No walk yet. But like any good scientist, this is only my hypothesis, I still have to make a few experiments. Probably get bitch-slapped in the process, but it will all be worthwhile if I can prove it in the end.

Great questions Sam. I'll try to answer them brief as I can.

> Wouldn't it actually save time--and aggravation, unless your clients are saints--to work up 5 really strong logos and have one meeting?

You may work differently than me, so if this is more efficient for you, then great. But I feel that by meeting thoroughly with the client early in the process, the design portion afterwards makes up for the time spent beforehand.

> What is wrong with surprising the client? They love it. Especially when you came up with something else that's better.

You're right, there's nothing wrong with good surprises. But the key here is that it's always smarter to stay one step ahead of the client and lead them to that better idea, instead of leaving it to chance.

> Finally, I'd like to suggest that frankensteining is its own kind of design problem that can be addressed with creativity rather than reluctance or bitterness.

The fact that we all have a derogatory term for "Frankensteining" is a sign that it's a problem we all cope with and wish didn't happen. So all I'm saying is that rather than deal optimistically with it, why not eliminate the possibility of it in the first place?

> Finally, can anyone speak to the differences in practice as they relate to the size of your firm?

This has worked for me in large agencies as well as my own small studio. Like human nature, the client dynamics doesn't change unless you decide to change it. Size and budget has little relevance. Believe me when I say this, the perception of a large firm vs. a small firm is only that, a perception. I've seen 3 man shops manhandle giant corporations, who come back many times asking for more. Empower yourself, Sam!

But you know, I will back off a little on this. The whole point of presentation style is up to you and your client, Sam. It's important to establish trust and intimacy between a designer and a client. How you do it best is up to you. I just brought up this topic in an attempt to dispell a long-held practice that many endure, but find futile.

If it works for you, and you enjoy it -- then God's speed, mon frére.

Sam —

My conclusion to present one (or fewer than normal) direction for concepts came out of wanting to be profitable and having better time management. At large firms I watched projects consistently go over budget and finish often massively over budget because problems were being worked out in the concept phase or worse still, the design/development phases. When I was in a position to change the process of working, I was able to also see how it was possible to drive a much more profitable and almost problem-free project through than before.

If design issues and problems are worked out after you produce visuals, then it can mean a lot of 'going back to the drawing board' to get a final result. This is often quite expensive, especially if you didn't budget for it.

Often I saw that since discovery work or initial definition work was not adequately conducted, this meant that the scope and schedule of the rest of the project were also inadequate. As invariably the client had more input than expected at phases where the organization hadn't budgeted for.

Also — unless your working on your own. It often needed more than the designer to fix issues that arose in changing a concept, because things could have an impact on functionality, application and so on.

So I learned that even as a studio of one (sometimes a few) that unless a client was simply going to pay an hourly fee for all the hours chalked up, that I could only really scope and budget the project profitably if I ensured that I worked everything out, with the client, in the initial research phase and minimized the rounds of revisions and 'frankensteining' needed. It might mean more meetings up front, but they are both collaborative with the client as well as paid for. I liked your French restaurant example — I think this 'rule of thumb' has to apply where it fits. But I also think that its up to you and what you might find more enjoyable.

Interesting, thanks. Something that seems to also be creeping in, so to speak, is scope creep. As described on A List Apart. Peronsally I hate working on an hourly rate, but have often felt tempted to impose such a thing late in the revisions stage. However, what I have come to do is be very clear with clients that their project consists of both x number of concepts and y number of presentations. I have even had to explain that they are hiring me for my labor over a specific course of presentations, not to work open-endedly until I come up with something they like. Time and labor are things that businesspeople seem to understand better than if they think they are hiring me for my creativity (which they seem to think they can tap off of endlessly). That sounds antithetical to the whole idea of design, coming from a creative (uh, ostensibly) person, but it's sort of true in my experience. It's a matter of speaking their language and certainly building trust.

Also, I would love to see the day Frankensteining is eliminated completely, but the fact that we all have a word for it also means it's a nearly universal experience. Alas, alas.

Very interesting, all in all. I think finally I come to feel about multiple-logo presentations like I would about my (hypothetical) children: how can I pick a favorite when they're all so lovely and smart and related to me?

Choosing a good logo is is like choosing from your own children. But if you don't do it, then a strange client who doesn't know them as much as you do, will.

ok, now the analogies are getting a little creepy.

Let's get back to the discussion here. I'm not suggesting that we should cut the client out of the entire design equation. My best work have come out of client feedback. I'm just advocating that we should resist the urge to try and impress the client with quantity, and instead, impress them with accuracy and strength of design leadership,

A designer I know once termed the difference between approaches: you can try to hit the target with machine gun fire, or you can be a sniper. It's a violent analogy, granted, but it's accurate (no pun intended).