Dear Sean,

I have a client who won’t stop making changes. I’ve been in business for several decades and encountered plenty of “tinkerers,” but this is on another level—we’re talking 13 revisions on a door hinge. Here’s the twist: He’s an incredibly nice guy, he knows he’s difficult, and he pays very, very well for our time. On one level, this isn’t exactly a “problem,” but I’m finding myself occasionally getting frustrated, and sometimes a little bored. Should I politely end the relationship, or keep quiet and cash the checks?

Sincerely,
Feeling Fed Up

Dear Feeling Fed Up,

The answer to your dilemma is that there is no answer until I know the kind of designer you are—linear or pachinko.

The ultimate linear designer that I know of is Vicente Wolf. Vicente gives his clients one option when he presents his design, which happens roughly six to eight weeks after hiring him and only a few meetings together. It is mostly a take-it-or-leave-it endeavor. Vicente’s reasoning is that if he substitutes out what he chose, it will be his second (or third) choice. The last thing he wants is to have his design muted with elements that were not his first choice.

On the other end of the spectrum is Tim Corrigan. Tim is known for showing, say, 10 chandeliers, and if the client does not like any of them, he will keep going until they settle on one of his choices. That said, the order of choices is Tim’s to decide. His client would never be shown the sofas until they chose the chandelier, no matter how long it takes. Tim’s designs might take years to complete. Pachinko.

If you are closer to Vicente, then you should have a look at my column from last December discussing the idiosyncrasy of design and the Monty Hall problem. In short, your willingness to show additional items depends on identifying two categories: foundational and non-foundational elements.

The first involves elements of your design that are dispositive and cannot be substituted without forcing a complete redesign of the project. The reason it is idiosyncratic is because what those elements are, are iconic to you. Perhaps the door hinges are everything to you, and what you built your design on. To your client and maybe every other designer on the planet, they are interchangeable and will not undo design. Who cares? Your client is paying for your idiosyncrasy, and you have to own it.

If, on the other hand, the element can be swapped without undoing design (i.e., it is non-foundational), then my discussion about Monty Hall and making the consequences of the choice to swap plainly apparent to your client is everything. Are they willing to own the next option or not?

But if your business is constructed to look and act like Tim’s—which it clearly is, given that you are showing 13 choices for door hinges—then live by the sword, die by it. Your frustration and boredom is of your own making—do not punish your client for behavior that you not only condoned but encouraged with your business model. I presume you are getting paid by the hour, so your firm wants you to spend as much time as possible on a project. Perhaps you do not understand that hourly works in total but, at the margin, it fails. What I mean by that: Let’s say you work at $250 per hour for 20 hours on finding the first 12 hinges. Your client has really enjoyed the work and finds value in the $5,000 he paid. Let’s also say it takes you an hour to find the 13th hinge. Would you pay you $250 to see another choice? For sure. Do you as a designer want to show another choice? For sure not. You clearly do not appreciate value paid and delivered. Your client values the first 12 choices and the $5,000 paid for them. So now it is all about incremental spend, where you get crushed (i.e., bored and frustrated).

I can give you many tactics on how to stop your client’s behavior short of firing them (please do not—they did nothing wrong). Everything from Monty Hall to ever increasing the cost of the next choice to simply capping the number of options you are willing to give (yes, going against business interest).

However, you have to look at strategy and story first. Where are you on the Vicente–Tim spectrum, and do you want to stay there? You have been in business for decades, and that might mean you are set in your ways, or you would like to evolve. Only you can know.
So rather than blame your client for acting as you told them to act, ask yourself the question of who you want to be as a designer—what story do you want to tell? Then you can act accordingly first, your client second.

____________

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.