We're tackling a topic that I know hits home for a lot of designers - the responsibility and challenges around design quality and client input.

As designers, we pour our hearts and souls into the work we create, always striving to deliver something exceptional. But the reality is, we don't work in a vacuum. We're collaborating with clients who have their ideas, preferences, and constraints. And that's where things can get a little tricky.

I've certainly been in situations where I've looked at the final design and thought, "You know, this could have been even better if we'd been able to take it in a different direction." But the truth is, we're often working within parameters set by the client. Their budget, their timeline, their specific requests - these all play a role in shaping the result.

That said, I firmly believe that as design professionals, we have a responsibility to push back when we see things heading in a direction that's going to compromise the quality or effectiveness of the work. It's a delicate balance, but one that's crucial to maintaining the integrity of the design.

In this episode, Alan and I dive deep into this topic. We share real-world examples of projects where we've had to navigate tricky client dynamics and discuss strategies for setting expectations, providing valuable guidance, and knowing when to draw the line. We also explore the broader context of how design and illustration are often undervalued compared to other professional services.

It's a thought-provoking conversation, and I'm sure many of you listening can relate to the challenges we're discussing. So grab a pen and paper, and get ready to jot down some insights that could help you navigate these waters more effectively in your design practice.

• The importance of understanding customers’ problems, refining sales copy through collaboration, and focusing on progress over perfection in design
• How understanding client needs, managing design expectations, and setting clear briefs can prevent scope creep and enhance marketing materials
• How to set boundaries with clients, keep design simple, and focus on what really matters
• The key to successful client relationships through clear design explanation, setting boundaries, and using effective client qualification strategies

Are You Responsible for Bad Quality Design?

As designers, we pour our hearts and souls into the work we create. We strive to deliver exceptional results that not only look great, but effectively communicate our clients' messages and achieve their business goals. However, the reality is that we don't work in a vacuum - we're collaborating with clients who have their own ideas, preferences, and constraints. And that's where things can get a little tricky.

In a recent episode of the Real Magic podcast, my co-host Alan and I dove deep into this topic, exploring the delicate balance between respecting our clients' wishes and upholding the integrity of the design.

One of the key issues we discussed is the tendency for clients to request design elements that may not actually be necessary or beneficial. Alan shared a great example around copywriting for marketing materials:

"A lot of people write copy for brochures and the headline is product centric, not customer centric. Yep, understood. So it might be how great their product is not, not what the benefits are to the prospect, or whatever we make the best XYZ widget. Well, you know, what? What does that widget do for me?"

This is a common problem we see across all areas of design. Clients get caught up in showcasing their own products, services, or brand, rather than focusing on the real needs and pain points of their target audience. As a result, the design can become cluttered, confusing, and ultimately less effective.

Another example Alan provided was around poor-quality graphics and diagrams being used in marketing materials. He recounted a situation where a client insisted on using subpar visuals, despite the design team's recommendations to improve them.

"The client's not willing to put the extra effort in to really bring that in line with the messaging that they've got, because that makes sense."

This highlights a key challenge we face as designers - balancing our expertise and professional judgment with the client's desires. It's not uncommon for clients to have a very specific vision in mind, even if that vision doesn't align with best practices or proven design principles.

So, who is ultimately responsible when the end result falls short of expectations? Is it the designer's fault for not pushing back harder? Or is the client to blame for refusing to listen to professional advice?

In my experience, it often comes down to a combination of factors. As designers, we have a responsibility to set clear expectations upfront, communicate the rationale behind our recommendations, and be willing to respectfully push back when we see things heading in the wrong direction.

But clients also need to come to the table with an open mind, a willingness to trust the expertise of their design partners, and an understanding that great design doesn't happen by committee. As Alan eloquently put it:

"If you go and hire a lawyer, you're not going to tell the lawyer how to do his job. You know, the lawyer is going to ask you a series of questions that he needs information for. You're going to give him that information honestly. He's going to make a recommendation, and you're going to you're going to go with that recommendation. You know, if you go in for brain surgery, you're not going to be sitting there right up. Until the last minute saying, you know, I want you to do it this way, right? You're going to take the advice of these professionals. Yet in design, for some reason, you know, either it's designed by committee from the client's point of view, and everybody has to put their two cents worth in, or it's people wanting design. And because they're constantly exposed to great design. They think they know great design, yet they're asking for elements that draw away from great design, not towards."

One strategy we discussed for navigating this challenge is the concept of a "red velvet rope policy" - setting clear qualifying criteria for the types of clients you're willing to work with. This might involve asking probing questions upfront to gauge a client's openness to guidance and their willingness to trust the design process.

We also talked about the importance of having a clear system and process in place, with defined milestones and checkpoints to identify potential issues before they spiral out of control. For example, at Pixel Partners, Alan has implemented a "three revision limit" rule - if a project reaches that threshold, they stop and re-evaluate the brief and goals before proceeding.

Ultimately, great design is the result of a true partnership between designers and clients. It requires mutual respect, clear communication, and a shared commitment to achieving the best possible outcome. By setting the right expectations upfront and being willing to have tough conversations