Dear Sean,

As a designer who does mostly new residential construction or meaningful renovation projects, I have been working with architects successfully for most of my career, and my clients really respect what I bring to the table. Recently, however, more architects are bringing their own interior designers to projects, and I have begun to lose work to these design-build firms. In many cases, this is even happening with clients I have worked with before. I am at a loss—any advice?

Losing Out

Dear Losing Out,

Indeed, the roles are shifting when it comes to custom residential architecture and design. Today, interior designers who focus on construction are as well versed in interior architecture as any architect. These designers are the only professionals who see everything all at once—architecture, interior architecture (including materials and finishes), and decor—on the way to creating the house that will ultimately transform clients’ lives. Technology, both CAD and AI, has given designers the chance to be as technically capable as just about any residential architect. Oh, and designers are far less expensive than architects when it comes to interior architecture because their fees are spread out over the entirety of a project.

Architects, of course, have responded to this new challenge by bringing designers in-house. I will leave for another column why this strategy might not be the best for architects; today is about you and what designers can (and likely must) do to stay competitive.

What you get paid to do—and how—dictates perception and value. I have no idea how you work or charge, but I am supposing it is some sort of back-end structure like hourly plus commission on decor. Architects and GCs, on the other hand, are paid on construction for the most part—as in, before you are. That matters, because they are heavily incentivized to take up the air in the room while they occupy it. If none is left for you, why would they care?

The reality of this new boundary-blurred, AI-driven landscape—where designers become more architecturally able, and architects and GCs become more design able, either through a human or artificial intelligence, or likely both—is not so much that it creates competition for you as it diminishes you. If architects can say they do what designers do, then (at least to clients who don’t know any better) designers will not really matter. These clients will believe they’re getting a two-for-one deal on the architecture firm, whether or not that’s actually the case. This is not a you problem, this is an industry problem. You can have as many great partners as you like, but if these partners can find a way to either regain or maintain their alpha position, they will and they should.

In this case, perception is reality. So long as designers persist in working and getting paid the same way they always have—by deriving their value from product and charging for work after architects and GCs do—change, if any, will be incremental. And incremental change is an oxymoron.

What is needed is a joint effort by the industry to redefine designer value and charging methodology, and to educate consumers on why that value matters; to make the leap to redefine what it means, at the core, to be an interior designer.

If designers persist in being paid for the physical (by making money on a client’s money), they will lose the opportunity to be paid for what’s inherently less tangible but far more valuable: the experience. The experience is the journey to better—for your client to be able to feel better about themselves and who they are because of your work in how they experience home. Your gift is that you see the path to joy for your clients, and they cannot. Your ability to manifest that path is the very reason your business exists.

An architect can only go so far in the effort to better, and a GC is the very definition of the physical. When it comes to residential work, designers should be the first call, the first decision, the first professional relationship. We all know that. Consumers do not.

The challenge ahead is how to reconstruct the industry to reflect what matters to so many today—how to better ourselves, in this case through lifestyle and surroundings.

Get paid before undertaking work, ahead of the cash always. Be unrelated to a client’s money. Get what you need—no more, no less. Be paid for design first, production second. Define the path to joy and get paid for the singular moments on that path. Take proper design, financial and time risks and be rewarded (or punished) for it. Do not take risks you did not accept. Make the end inevitable, not the definition of success.

The opportunity is a disruption of a world order that has been for generations. So, make no mistake: That world order will not go gently. But it is a freer, more empowered and self-determined future for designers—including when it comes to residential construction projects involving architects. I, for one, hope it is the very challenge the industry accepts, and you do your part to embrace all that can be by letting go of the current structure that, for the most part, will just keep you stuck where you are.

____________

Sean Low is the go-to business coach for interior designers. His clients have included Nate Berkus, Sawyer Berson, Vicente Wolf, Barry Dixon, Kevin Isbell and McGrath II. Low earned his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and as founder-president of The Business of Being Creative, he has long consulted for design businesses. In his Business Advice column for BOH, he answers designers’ most pressing questions. Have a dilemma? Send us an email—and don’t worry, we can keep your details anonymous.