- There are some designers who present
only one solution to a client.
Their rationale is that there is only one right solution.
The best outcome is that the client loves it
and it's smooth sailing.
But if he or she doesn't, it's back to the drawing boards.
Other designers might present three or four options
following the same criteria, but visually different.
The chances are better that the client will approve one.
Unfortunately, this can lead to the Frankenstein effect.
The client likes the icon on option one,
but wants to mix it with the typography on option three.
If this happens, I have three options.
First, I can refuse and storm out of the room.
This rarely ends well.
Second, I can agree and combine the two.
This produces a watered-down version of the solution
that rarely communicates clearly.
Third, like dealing with clients who want to play designer,
I can find out why they want to combine the ideas.
Again, there's a reason for the suggestion.
It isn't made to be mean.
If he or she says "I like them both,"
find out why.
What do they respond to on option one and what doesn't work.
The same for the other solution.
From this, you can often determine
the need for the combination.
Let's say, I'm working on an identity system
for a new retail store.
One of my options, a simple sans-serif typographic solution.
Another has a classic typeface and icon.
The client likes the sans-serif type,
but wants to use the icon with it.
Why?
After discussing the reasons,
I found out that she likes the strength
of the sans-serif typography,
but it is too clinical and cold.
She likes the icon because it seems friendlier,
but the classical type seems fussy.
This is great information.
I don't have to slam two different ideas together
and make a monster.
I can refine the first option to be friendlier,
using more color and the icon as an optional pattern.
To be honest, I have had situations where
the client's suggestion merging two ideas was a good one.
I was so fixated on one idea,
that I'd ignored the client's previous logo.
She loved the new typographic word mark and visual system,
but asked if I could add her previous logo's flower.
My first response was to say no.
It would destroy the clarity of the new approach.
It would seem too sweet.
I would just be fixing the old idea.
Then, I understood
that the flower icon had equity with her audience.
Many of her customers aware that we were working
on a new identity begged her to not lose the flower.
Keeping it was the right choice.
I used the opportunity to refine it
and integrate it into the new visual system.
In the end, it was a success.
The difficulty with the Frankenstein effect
is how simple it seems to the client
and how damaging you know it will be.
There is no need to be secretive and angry.
If it is a change you firmly believe is wrong, explain why
in terms that relate to the message.
Tell the client why the solutions are different
and how each has its own communication.
Point out the details.
This typeface says friendly.
This layout is accessible, and so on.
And take the chance that they may be right.
Try it out.
It might need fixing,
but it could lead to a new and better solution.