Comments on The Confidence Game

Annie Archbold — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:57 GMT

This could apply in some cases, but roles are now changing. The Designer may now have moved onto the other side of the table and hiring firms to do this work. If so, the dialog begins to get far more interesting.

Brian R. Krause — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:57 GMT

Ron asked,

> What’s “competent design”? I sell the value of what my team
> has been able to accomplish in the past while suggesting we
> can do the same for the prospective clients’ specific situation.
> I don’t find much substance in talking about
> “competent design” and neither do my prospective clients.

Just like the designers on HGTV don’t say, “Now I am going to pick out paint samples with you so we can develop rapport,” UI designers don’t talk about “competent design,” but rather they, as Ron does, demonstrate that they have listened to a client’s problems and pull examples from their past experience to show that they have solved similar problems in the past. I can’t give generic substance. By “competent design” I meant the same thing I said in the introduction, a design that satisfies the client’s users. It may be obvious to us as designers, but reminding people that they are in business to satisfy their own customers should not be considered too basic to overlook in a sales presentation or proposal. Usually clients will give you good reasons for needing your services, but you’ll get different answers from different members of the team. Until they get into the process of hiring a designer, teams probably don’t have a complete list of problems and goals.

> Excuse me? Sounds like the so-called designers never gained
> the confidence of their client. Perhaps they don’t deserve it?
> Perhaps the client has serious misgivings about them?
> Where’s the substance?

Confidence is not absolute. Team composition changes constantly. I wish it were enough to convince one key person just one time, but in my experience, developers and other team members are enthusiastic about cooperating when they understand the benefit to their users, but it’s easy to lose sight of this in the middle of coding. For the reasons listed in the article (and probably some more), it’s not enough to just stop selling once the design is turned over.

Ron Zeno — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:57 GMT

Thanks for the response, Brian!

“It’s a con when there’s no substance behind it.”, says Brian.
Great! Where’s the substance?

Referring to the first paragraph of the “Conclusion” section of the article:

“Before the project starts, we are selling the value of a competent design.”

What’s “competent design”? I sell the value of what my team has been able to accomplish in the past while suggesting we can do the same for the prospective clients’ specific situation. I don’t find much substance in talking about “competent design” and neither do my prospective clients.

“As the project moves through construction, we are still selling the design’s particulars and the value of holding to a design and design principles.”

Excuse me? Sounds like the so-called designers never gained the confidence of their client. Perhaps they don’t deserve it? Perhaps the client has serious misgivings about them? Where’s the substance?

Brian R. Krause — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:57 GMT

Ron asked:

> When does a confidence game become just a con?

It’s a con when there’s no substance behind it. The title of the article is meant to remind us that in the extreme case, confidence can be won independently of whether confidence is deserved.

Certainly, designers have the skills to mislead and deceive. That’s not the only ethical concern we deal with. For instance, at a BayCHI talk, Jef Raskin pointed out that most computer-related repetitive-stress injuries are caused by mouse use and not keyboard use, so designers can even cause physical pain by making incorrect (or I suppose malicious) decisions.

As a profession, we understand what it takes to persuade and inform, but we often stop short of applying that knowledge to the business and practice of design. Possibly we think it’s not ethical. Maybe we think we can be “caught.” We like to think that since we can see through and dissect these techiques, so can everybody else. We are probably giving ourselves (and others) too much credit—people in the software field are not exempt from basic psychology or immune from proven sales techniques, even when we recognize them.

If you have the skills and knowledge and believe in them, using the means at your disposal to promote design is not just the way of business, but a fact of life.

Ron Zeno — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:57 GMT

When does a confidence game become just a con?

Michael Cummings — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

PS. twice posted (once edited) article result of 404 error returned by comments.cgi on “Post.”

Michael Cummings — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

I like this article, it emphasizes the normally under-emphasized CRM aspect of selling and providing design services. One good project manager made me realize (if not purposefully) that it was not design he sold, but confidence in the whole design project and its process. This kept us both plenty busy.
But what about the adage “Good client’s make good projects”? That is, while we’re always “selling the design’s particulars and the value of holding to a design and design principles,” this says nothing of a client’s ability to recognize, thus value, design principals or their application. Thus educating some clients, to whatever degree acceptable to them, continues to be an important part of this sales process, too.

Michael Cummings — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

I like this article, it emphasizes the normally under-emphasized CRM aspect of selling and providing design services. And a good project manager made me realize (if not purposefully) that it was not design he sold, but confidence in a designed solution. This kept us both busy.
Mr. Krause says, accurately; “As the project moves through construction, we are still selling the design’s particulars and the value of holding to a design and design principles.” But, wait… there’s a gap here. That is, a gap between the common client’s ability to recognize well applied design principals and the designers ability to do so. Afterall, designers have spent years learning, practicing and continually evaluating what principals to apply to which effect given each project’s context. Presumably so that clients will have the benefit of all that, without having to learn to do the same. Thus the addage, “Good client’s make good projects.” So while it’s important to please clients, often in their ignorance (if only for survival’s sake), it is equally important to continue to educate them to whatever degree they are receptive to (diplomatically, of course), as part of this sales process. So that their ability to evaluate a design and their appreciation of good design work will grow. As one designer, with a lot more experience and success than I, once put it to me, “Mostly we’re just talking to each other” (designers tend to want to please each other as much as their clients, who often simply miss the point). The bottom line, I would re-title this useful article: “If they don’t like you, make them trust you. If they don’t trust you, make them like you. But best is to do both.” Which is not bad advice either, is it?

Andrew — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

John, many articles at B&A have followed this convention of including references at the end. In this case, it seems especially ok, since it’s just a few links to Amazon.

John Rhodes — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

Design question related to the article: Why aren’t the links right in the body text? That is, why are the references (and links) at the bottom of the page?

ji — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:56 GMT

Hi Brian, Great article! I especially agree with the part about we (the designers) should be always selling and promoting good design process. ( we don’t do this enough – for variety of reasons)

Over the years as both designer and client, I have noticed some of the designers lack ability to communicate effectively to senior management or customers about their design decisions and proposals – I think this is due to not understanding the business and technical side well enough.