Leading the Client Journey w/ Mikon van Gastel
with Mikon van Gastel
Mikon van Gastel and Chris Do examine how listening, participation, and trust turn creative work into partnership.
Chris Do
Founder, The Futur™ · May 13, 2026
The Thank-You That Ends the Conversation
A beautiful presentation can end with a rejection disguised as gratitude. Mikon van Gastel, who describes more than three decades in the creative business and his work building Sibling, has learned to distrust an especially enthusiastic thank-you. His perspective matters because it comes from both sides of creative leadership: making the work and maintaining the relationships that make the work possible.
In conversation with Chris Do, van Gastel describes a pattern that unsettles the familiar definition of a successful pitch. The presentation looks impressive. The client acknowledges the effort. Everyone leaves on courteous terms, and the job goes elsewhere.
His interpretation is blunt: sometimes the client is thanking the team because there will not be another opportunity.
That is an observation from his experience, not a universal test for predicting a decision. Its usefulness lies in the distinction it exposes. Appreciation for a presentation is not the same as investment in an idea, and a room that offers no resistance is not necessarily a room that has been persuaded.
For van Gastel, the more promising response is participation. Clients ask questions. They explain what happened when they tried something similar. They identify a concern, challenge an assumption, or begin discussing how an approach would work inside their business.
Engagement matters more than applause.
That distinction cuts against a habit Do recognizes in creative education. Students spend years sharpening their craft, then enter a workplace where the person leading the room is not always the strongest designer. The apparent mismatch becomes easier to understand when that person starts presenting ideas attached to substantial business decisions.
The gap is not simply between good and bad work. It is between producing an idea and helping another person understand, evaluate, and support it.
Van Gastel does not dismiss craft. He describes the investment designers make in their work as one of the privileges of the profession. But that investment also creates a blind spot: the details that demanded the most effort can become the details the designer assumes everyone else should care about.
The client arrives with a different set of concerns.
That difference is the starting point for this conversation, and the reason its advice extends beyond presentation technique. The central issue is not how to sound more impressive. It is how to stop treating the client's attention as a stage for demonstrating expertise and start treating it as an opportunity to understand the decision being made.
A polished pitch can display competence without establishing that understanding. Van Gastel's experience suggests a harder standard: the work has to connect with the person responsible for saying yes, not simply satisfy the person proud to have made it.
The Assignment Is Not the Whole Problem
A brief tells a creative team what has been commissioned. It does not necessarily reveal everything that makes the commission difficult for the client. Van Gastel directs attention to what worries the person across the table, including concerns that sit outside the formal assignment.
Those concerns are not distractions from the design problem. They help explain why certain parts of the design problem carry more weight than others.
A designer can become absorbed in a frame, a poster, or a painstaking visual detail. The client can appreciate that effort and still be preoccupied with whether the broader campaign will accomplish its purpose. The conflict begins when either perspective is mistaken for the whole picture.
“You have to really listen,” van Gastel says.
His emphasis falls on repeated contact, not a single discovery conversation. Every call offers information. Every response adds context. In his account, the painful lessons often arrive after a lost opportunity, when he remembers something the client said and realizes he failed to recognize its significance.
The information was available. The attention was elsewhere.
This is a more demanding definition of listening than waiting politely for a turn to speak. It requires noticing which concerns recur, recognizing when a comment changes the meaning of the assignment, and allowing that information to influence the explanation of the work.
The emphasis on responsiveness connects with the subject of The Futur's The Skill You Need To Win Clients That No One Talks About. In van Gastel's account, the practical challenge is especially clear: hearing a concern only becomes useful when it changes how the creative team proceeds.
His description gives the team several places to direct its attention:
- The worries the client names beyond the immediate deliverable.
- The priorities repeated across calls and presentations.
- The details that matter to the client, rather than only to the maker.
- The comments that reveal why an otherwise attractive idea will be difficult to approve.
This does not require pretending that every client comment is equally useful. It requires resisting the assumption that the creative team already knows which comments matter before understanding the circumstances behind them.
Do frames the larger issue as the distance between practitioner and business leader. Technical ability can establish that someone is capable of making the work. Leadership requires making sense of why the work matters to the organization paying for it.
That is why presentation problems cannot always be solved by improving slides. If the team has misunderstood the client's priorities, more elegant slides can make the misunderstanding look more expensive without making the proposal more persuasive.
The correction starts earlier, in the ordinary conversations that precede the pitch. The strongest presentation is not necessarily the one with the most explanation. It is the one whose explanation reflects what the team actually heard.
Participation Is a Design Decision
Van Gastel's advice becomes concrete when he describes two clients with the same schedule. Both commission a project in the middle of January. Both expect a presentation in the middle of February. Their calendars match, but the working relationships they want can be entirely different.
One client expects regular conversations throughout the month. Another prefers not to hear from the team until the work is ready. Applying the same process to both would confuse consistency with service.
The right process depends on the client's desired involvement.
For the client who wants to participate, disappearing until presentation day creates the wrong experience even if the eventual work is strong. Van Gastel describes weekly conversations, or more frequent contact when appropriate, as a way of bringing that client into the team.
The frequency is not the principle. The invitation is.
For the client who wants distance, the same volume of contact can become an unwanted demand. Trust, in that arrangement, means giving the creative team room to exercise its judgment. Respecting that preference is no less collaborative than maintaining a busy meeting schedule.
The practical task is to establish the difference instead of guessing. Van Gastel urges creatives to ask questions and read the room. A client relationship should not depend on the client adopting the studio's preferred way of working without discussion.
He connects this flexibility to Sibling's ability to work as part of a client's organization, including alongside an in-house agency. The aim, as he describes it, is to become part of the culture rather than remain a separate group handing over finished objects.
That closeness is not merely about friendliness. It gives the relationship a different operating premise: the creative team is working with the client, not waiting for the client to stop interfering.
Do challenges the adversarial version of creative identity directly. Some creatives behave as though clients obstruct their art. He doubts that this attitude can sustain a career across decades, adding, “Very few people can pull that off.”
The alternative is not creative surrender. It is making room for the person whose knowledge, responsibility, and approval are part of the assignment. The same distinction makes Crafting a Great Client Experience a useful companion subject: the experience of working together deserves deliberate attention alongside the finished work.
Van Gastel carries that logic into the presentation itself. An hour-long meeting in which the creative team speaks for 59 minutes leaves almost no space for the client to contribute.
A deck can be organized beautifully and still organize the client out of the conversation.
Instead, he recommends leaving room for responses between sections or at other natural checkpoints. Those pauses give the team information while there is still time to respond to it. Participation becomes part of the presentation's structure, not a courtesy postponed until the final slide.
The Useful Pitch Has Friction
The question-and-answer period is often treated as the dangerous part of a pitch. It is where the rehearsed explanation ends and the team loses control of what happens next. Van Gastel's account reverses that hierarchy.
The unscripted exchange is often where interest becomes visible.
A client who brings up a previous attempt is offering information about the organization's history. A client who asks how something will work is testing the idea against actual conditions. Neither response guarantees a commission, but both provide more substance than a polite compliment.
Discussion is evidence of involvement, not proof of failure.
Van Gastel is careful about the difference between agreement and engagement. A productive conversation does not require the client to endorse every proposal. It requires enough investment for the client to examine the proposal rather than simply receive it.
That is why his warning about excessive thanks should not become a superstition. The useful lesson is not to distrust manners. It is to distinguish between a response that closes the conversation and one that gives it somewhere to go.
His presentation advice makes space for several kinds of exchange:
- Questions that test whether the idea fits the client's needs.
- Reactions that reveal what the team has not yet understood.
- Past experiences that explain enthusiasm or resistance.
- Back-and-forth discussion that shapes the rest of the presentation.
Each exchange asks something of the presenter. The team has to be willing to respond rather than simply resume its script. Otherwise, a scheduled pause becomes another performance of listening instead of listening itself.
There is also a distinction between showing process and making process useful. Explaining every creative decision can feel thorough to the maker while burying the client in details. The relevant question is whether an explanation helps the client evaluate the work, not whether it proves how much effort went into producing it.
Van Gastel's approach asks the presenter to maintain direction without monopolizing the route. The team still has work to explain and a point of view to defend. It also has to recognize when new information changes what deserves emphasis.
That combination is harder than either extreme. A monologue requires preparation but little adaptation. A completely unstructured conversation allows participation but can lose the work's logic. Leading the meeting means preserving the argument while allowing the client to influence how it unfolds.
The objective is not a flawless recital.
It is a conversation in which the client can see the idea clearly enough to question it, connect it to prior experience, and imagine taking responsibility for it. A presentation that creates that kind of discussion has accomplished something applause alone cannot establish.
It has moved the work from something being shown to something being considered.
New Formats Expose Old Habits
The conversation's turn toward immersive work appears, at first, to move away from client relationships. Van Gastel's experience working with Sphere instead extends the same argument: effective creative leadership starts by understanding the conditions of the experience, not imposing a familiar solution on them.
He contrasts a career shaped by rectangular screens with a setting he describes as putting the audience inside the story. His point is not simply that the image becomes larger. The relationship between the audience and the image changes.
“You have to really design and tell the story with the medium in mind,” he says.
His warning is against treating immersive work as conventional media enlarged. In his account of working with the venue, the expectations became more demanding as its team developed a clearer understanding of what worked. Familiar methods were not automatically suitable merely because they had succeeded elsewhere.
The medium changes the storytelling problem.
That creates a useful parallel with client collaboration. Just as one communication process cannot serve every client, one storytelling approach cannot serve every environment. Experience provides a starting point, but it cannot substitute for attention to the present conditions.
Do introduces the temptation to overwhelm an audience with scale and technical spectacle. If a medium can do more, the creative team can mistake doing more for making a stronger experience. Van Gastel's response redirects the discussion toward participation and memory.
“Grabbing attention is different than creating a memory,” he says.
That distinction gives the technology a purpose beyond demonstrating itself. An immersive experience can place people within a story. An interactive experience can make their participation part of the story. In both cases, van Gastel emphasizes the shared experience people carry away.
The related conversation Designing Moments: A New Approach to Event Entertainment offers a natural companion topic. Here, the important shift is from treating attention as the endpoint to asking what makes an experience memorable.
The client implications follow directly. A team proposing an experience has to explain more than its visual ambition. It has to help the client imagine how the audience will encounter it, what participation means in that setting, and why the chosen format serves the idea.
This is not an argument for using the newest medium whenever possible. It is an argument against letting a familiar deliverable determine the answer before the problem is understood.
Van Gastel's enthusiasm for immersive work comes with that discipline. The opportunity is exciting precisely because it requires another way of thinking, not because it offers a bigger surface for the same habits.
Expertise becomes more valuable when it includes the willingness to reconsider its own defaults.
The Deliverable Is Only One Moment
Van Gastel applies the same reasoning to the broader life of a campaign. A piece of work does not begin when its final file is delivered, and it does not necessarily end when its initial placement disappears. Social media, in his account, makes that continuing life especially important.
He describes a sequence that includes the lead-up to the work, the work itself, and what follows. The implication for a creative business is substantial: presenting an isolated deliverable can leave the client to imagine the surrounding system alone.
Creative work needs a life beyond delivery.
That is why he repeatedly uses the idea of an ecosystem. A brand can appear on a shelf, on a screen, in social media, in a physical space, or through an activation. The strategic task is not to occupy every possible surface.
It is to decide which surfaces matter.
Van Gastel explicitly rejects the assumption that every brand needs to do everything. The team should help determine where the brand belongs, where investment makes sense, and how one experience can continue to produce useful material after the original event closes.
His account identifies several considerations without turning them into a rigid formula:
- Where the audience will encounter the work.
- Which parts of the brand's ecosystem deserve investment.
- How a physical experience connects with screen-based content.
- What remains useful after the initial event or placement ends.
This broadens the role of presentation. The team is not only explaining what something looks like. It is helping the client understand how the work unfolds over time and how different expressions belong together.
The transition resembles the broader role change named in Moving from Makers to Entrepreneurs. Van Gastel's version is grounded in the assignment: creative leaders need to think about distribution and continuity, rather than treat those concerns as someone else's responsibility after approval.
There is a restraint built into this argument. Thinking in systems does not justify making every proposal larger. A useful recommendation can identify which opportunities deserve attention and which do not fit the brand's needs.
Without that restraint, ecosystem becomes another word for more deliverables.
The deeper responsibility is to connect the recommendation to the client's goals. A team can produce an impressive range of assets while leaving unclear why those assets belong together. Van Gastel's emphasis is on helping the client imagine a coherent life for the work, not merely a longer inventory.
That changes what a persuasive creative proposal contains. Alongside the central idea, it needs a credible account of where the idea lives, how people encounter it, and what happens after its first appearance.
The work is still the centerpiece. It is no longer the whole picture.
The Relationship Continues After Approval
Van Gastel's most revealing business habit happens after the project. When he next sees a client, he asks how the work performed, whether it had an economic impact, and whether it met the goals the client had established.
He says those questions often surprise people.
The surprise matters more than any claim about how common the habit is. For van Gastel, asking demonstrates that his interest was not limited to making and delivering something. He remains interested in what the work was supposed to accomplish.
Partnership includes caring about the result.
That is his central explanation for longevity. When two ideas are equally strong, he believes clients are likely to choose the person they like or trust more. The relationship is not a substitute for quality; it becomes decisive when quality alone does not distinguish the options.
His account of building Sibling gives that argument another dimension. Asked what work makes him proudest, he names the company, while explicitly sharing credit with his partners and everyone who works there. The organization itself becomes a creative achievement, not merely the structure surrounding individual projects.
He also looks back on his two years at Cranbrook as a period of stripping away assumptions and discovering what drove him. The two experiences belong together: one concerns finding a personal direction, the other building something with other people.
His continued interest in the business rests partly on that variety. He describes moving between human resources, creative direction, conversations with clients, and work with actors. He has not reduced his professional identity to one task that must remain unchanged.
Longevity requires room to change.
For the working creative, the practical implications of his conversation are less glamorous than a spectacular pitch, but more durable:
- Establish the working relationship early. Ask how involved the client wants to be before setting the communication rhythm.
- Build space for discussion into presentations rather than leaving only a final minute.
- Connect creative explanations to the concerns revealed across client conversations.
- Show how the work will live beyond its initial delivery.
- Return to the client's original goals after the project and ask what happened.
None of these actions requires abandoning a creative point of view. Each requires placing that point of view inside a relationship with someone who has different responsibilities, different pressures, and information the creative team does not possess.
The standard is not whether the team impressed the room. It is whether the room became better equipped to make a decision, whether the process respected the people involved, and whether the work remained connected to its purpose.
A thank-you can close a presentation. Responsibility for the result is what keeps the relationship open.
TRANSCRIPT
Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.
Get insights on creativity, business, and design from The Futur.
You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.