In the current web economy, so much is provided to the user without charge that people are not used to paying for media and content. Certainly there are those that wish to fight this trend, but in the end most have found other ways to fund their business so that the access to content is still free. The content represents value, but the user does not want or expect to pay.
Architects are often faced with a similar contradiction – the architect feels that their ideas are of the most value, whereas the client is most willing to pay for deliverables. The client will pay for deliverables partially because they are something tangible, but also because they are something that is concretely useful for advancing the project. The architect will point out that the end result varies greatly depending on the quality of the ideas behind the design.
So how can an architect address this? Should an architect be overly protective when it comes to their intellectual property? At PLACE, we freely give ideas in verbal format, even loose sketch format, realizing the ideas (while valuable) are truly ineffective if the client does not proceed with the project using the same designer. I have been meeting with clients in the proposal phase of projects for 12 years now, and while I have had a few cheapskate clients take my ideas with them in search of a savings, I have never seen them be successful in truly using them. Demonstrating the ability to truly listen to clients and produce great ideas for their project is the strongest selling point we have, and I won’t stop doing it out of fear of the occasional theft of idea.
The confident designer knows that while they will never run out of ideas, getting exposure for their ideas is the best way to reach a broader audience and ultimately the clients most suited to their sensibilities.
More to come soon. If you want to get in touch please let me know! Thanks for reading!