Mistake 1: Who Needs Research?

‍Let's be honest. The client's task is to get a working product in the shortest time and with an optimal budget. That's just fair. Furthermore, clients often know precisely what they want, relying on their industry knowledge and competitor expertise. So, they present their vision to the contractor, who, eager to fulfill the request, takes this vision as a guide for action. Subsequently, both parties form a brief, outlining the project's objectives — essentially, a brief based on assumptions and ghosts — and proceed with their work accordingly.

In an ideal scenario, the client's assessment of the situation is generally correct, and the studio is experienced enough to provide the expected outcome. Fueled by optimism on both sides, the project proceeds smoothly along the intended tracks. However, sooner or later the tracks suddenly come to an end…

What’s wrong with this picture

‍Let’s face it. At the beginning of a project, no one knows what the end product should look like to be successful. We all may have certain hypotheses and a basic understanding of what's good and what's bad, but relying entirely on this is just naive.

Example: A client is experiencing poor sales on their website. They approach a studio with a hypothesis that the issue lies in small, inconspicuous buttons. The studio, on the other hand, suspects that the website has an inherently incorrect navigation system. After creating a new one, they decided to redesign the website's pages, which took three months. In the end, the new website performs even worse than the old one. Reverting the changes, the client started an investigation with our team – and we discovered that the real issue with the website was the lack of proper copywriting. Fixing this problem could have been done in a week.

To gain the real insights time must be dedicated to research. A project without this process is as effective as driving blindfolded. At best, you know the direction, but any obstacle can put an end to your efforts.

Why does this happen

Research is ungrateful, time-consuming, and doesn't yield tangible results. Clients rightly believe that they understand their business, and they carry this confidence into their project vision and objectives. The idea of spending time and money allowing the contractor to understand what's already perfectly clear to them seems dubious. Especially when the project is urgent.

On the agency's side, the situation is also uncomfortable. Even if a company knows how and why to conduct a specific research, the situation is still complicated. Allocating time and budget for research means consciously depriving oneself of the competitive advantage of a lower price — something many firms cannot afford.

What to do about it

‍The whole research situation is not straightforward, and there's no one-size-fits-all solution because every case, client, and agency is different. However, in cases where the studio understands that a project requires research and the client is not willing to invest time and budget in it, it's recommended to at least express the potential risks openly.

Most of these risks are anyway on the client's side, and articulating them soberly, rather than hiding them behind a façade of optimism, is the right thing to do. If, say, the initial positioning hypothesis is incorrect, or if some communication obstacle goes unnoticed, we are talking about the risks of foregone profit that can exceed the project budget by tens or even hundreds of times. So, at least, from the perspective of such risks research looks like a reasonable insurance policy.

Additionally, it makes sense to position the results of the research correctly, based on the insights obtained, how it affected the initial project objectives, and what consequences it helped avoid. This can help build trust and convince the client of the value of what's happening.

Mistake 2: Two Versions Are Better Than One

‍At the beginning of the project the client is typically unfamiliar with the studio and doesn't know what to expect. How good are they? How much can their choices be trusted? Do they genuinely know what they're doing?

In such circumstances, clients often feel that a higher number of design options — whether it's for a website, logo, or advertisement — can increase the project's chances of success. After all, if one option doesn't work, another might be closer to the mark. And in the worst case, they can somehow combine them and make it work somehow, right?

Studios, on their part, readily encourage this practice. Many of them routinely add additional design options to the default estimate. This not only increases the project budget but also, in a sense, allows them to maintain the client's loyalty and "zero in" on the design task.

What’s wrong with this picture

‍From a mathematical standpoint, two correct answers to the same query are simply impossible. In other words, if one of the options, when created, is correct, then, by default, the other is wrong, which already mean a wasted time and budget.

A corollary to this is that if multiple options can be created from the project brief, then the brief itself is not precise enough, and consequently, the project's objectives are somewhat "approximate." This diminishes the chances that any of the proposed options will be correct.

Is “approximate” is good enough? Well, it’s up to you.

Why does this happen

‍By purchasing a package with "additional options," the client believes that they are ensuring some peace of mind: if he doesn't like one version at all, at least there will be another.

From the studio's perspective, it is a direct benefit. They can genuinely "zero in" on the design task using the first version as a draft and the second one as the final version.

However, there is another scenario, where many studios intentionally create one version properly, and another (or two, or three) superficially, because the client certainly wouldn't choose those. And If the client does select one of the subpar options – because something appeals to them in it – 80% of the project's resources spent on proper version are immediately wasted, with predictable affect on the project’s success..

What to do about it

‍Up until this point, we've been intentionally talking about options that "appeal", and "do not appeal." So, that’s where it gets weird. “Appeal” based on what? What's the determining criterion?

A website, logo, or any design can be liked for a hundred reasons. A successful composition, a pleasing color scheme, a nice font, or trustworthy photographs — all are excellent. None of these, however, are a basis for making decisions.

In reality, "liking" is purely individual. You like one thing, your marketing manager likes another, your finance director likes something else. This is normal. However, the project's success is determined by how well it resonates with your audience's needs. We can only speculate about what it will "like," but we can accurately understand its needs based on research results and the client's expertise in their field.

So, instead of wasting time on multiplying entities, focus on high-quality research and task development. Ensure that you dot all the i's and create an optimal, internally consistent brief. And if data-driven criteria are applied to the project, and both sides, the client and the executor, are genuinely engaged in the process, no one needs second, third, or fifth versions. One correct version is enough.

Mistake 3: Closed-Door Process

‍We've all been there. It all start nice, the project goes into production. After the kick-off, the manager sets a date for the next review, more or less corresponding to the first key milestone. When review time approaches, the studio presents a slideshow, the manager delivers a prepared speech, work is displayed on the screen, everyone is optimistic, and so they part ways until the next meeting to present another milestone.

This way, during the project, there are, say, four meetings over three months. And each of them showcases a specific result in the best possible light. Where’s the problem?

What’s wrong with this picture

‍Let's take a look at a typical project. Normally, the time between client meetings is two to three weeks, which is convenient for both sides. However, this creates two problems:

1. For reviews, especially infrequent ones, the studio is inclined to embellish the results, diverting the focus from the project's reality and substituting it with a sugarcoated version, often masking imperfections that the team sweeps under the rug for the time being. (However, they will probably surface later – maybe right before the release.)
2. Also, Infrequent reviews create the risk that in the three weeks between meetings, the project may veer off course, requiring an additional couple of weeks to correct. Consequently, the project misses the deadline or turns out half-baked, which is also the big risk for the client.

Why does this happen

As we mentioned, the review situation is convenient for both parties. The studio can prepare the project for presentation, polishing some areas by a specific date, and can be relatively certain that the client will be pleased.

It's also convenient for the client. Instead of worrying about the project's fate, they receive review time and can rest assured that by a certain date, they can expect a specific result presented in an understandable format, with necessary explanations, presentations, and people present at the meeting.

And this is all, in fact, true. However, the version for review, unlike the real project, is always a bit more refined than the “work in progress”. This means that the client usually has only an illusion that everything is going as it should.

What to do about it

‍The issue with the closed-door process can be addressed by opening doors. If the studio is working on website design, development, or copywriting, it should offer the client a transparent system where the client can always view the current, raw project status without any buffers or embellishments — in Figma, Webflow, Notion, or any other tool.

This will reduce the distance between the client and the executor, potentially improving communication and the overall project's level of development. For the studio, this will help earn additional trust from the client. For the client, it will provide a certain peace of mind, because they will allow to see how the project is progressing.

N.B. Also, by the way, all of this is not an alternative to reviews. They should still take place. However, instead of explaining in detail each time where everything is and how it is intended to work, both sides, being equally informed on the project status, can immediately focus on the aspects that matter.

Mistake 4: Project Manager Only Communication

‍Most studios heavily rely on PM’s (project managers), who serve as an intermediary layer between clients and the actual executors (designers, developers, copywriters). This way, instead of explaining their idea directly to the specialist, clients outline it to the manager, who records all the details in a brief and passes it on to the real executor.

If the real executor encounters any issues with the brief, they go to the project manager, and if the manager lacks expertise in design, code, or text, they schedule a meeting with the client, and the process starts over.

What’s wrong with this picture

‍Such back-and-forth through the manager is problematic for three reasons:

1. First, it consumes a significant amount of time that could be spent on solving real issues. In some cases, about 40% of the project's time is spent on hold: the designer, say, waits for the manager's response, the manager waits for the client's response, then the discussed changes are getting pushed into an updated brief, and so it goes, every time.
2. Second, it creates a game of broken telephone, where every thought or concept the client had initially must pass through the manager before reaching the executor. Sometimes this can be beneficial since the manager can translate vague requests into specific tasks, yes. However, important nuances can be “lost in translation”, and addressing them later will require even more time.
3. Third, such a situation can directly harm the project. Without precise knowledge of the intricacies of processes, project managers often agree to suboptimal solutions. In cases where the executor could propose a better alternative to the client, the project manager takes the questionable decision as a go-to, which doesn't benefit the project.

Why it happens

Many studios see PMs as a kind of safety net between clients and technical specialists. A solution that a developer might call "harmful" reaches the client as "suboptimal," and general criticism from the client about the website design becomes – after two hour long discussion – a request to make "buttons should be larger."

Studios also prefer not to burden executors with the responsibility for client communication and simply want them to "do their thing." The impact on the final result can be guessed.

What to do with it

‍Specialists responsible for the physical execution of the final result should always be involved in client communication. Only in this case can the discussion be genuinely constructive, and important details won't get lost in translation. PMs (if they lack expertise and a background in the execution field) should focus on project timeline management and client communication that doesn't directly relate to the work results.

Note: At Shafran Agency, we don't use project managers at all. We believe that a specialist who understands their task can better explain their opinion to the client in a language they understand than any external manager. This allows us to achieve predictable, confident solutions as originally conceived from the beginning. Want to see how it works? Contact us.