A client can love the work and still be the wrong client. Better marketing will not give that client a bigger budget. Chris Do, whose experience in this conversation spans creative projects, brand strategy, and competing for increasingly expensive assignments, argues that the problem often begins before a proposal exists.
His perspective comes from the gap between making work and understanding who will pay for it. Learning to build detailed customer profiles, he says, helped him move into brand strategy and raise his prices. The consequential shift was not a new production technique. It was a more exact picture of the person being served.
The wrong audience makes good work harder to sell
The familiar diagnosis is a marketing problem: the portfolio needs polishing, the content needs improving, the offer needs sharper language. Do moves the diagnosis upstream. If the intended buyer has little money or sees little value in the service, better communication is being asked to solve a problem it cannot fix.
That distinction matters because creative affinity is easy to mistake for commercial fit. A prospective client appreciates the same aesthetic, understands the references, and seems pleasant to work with. The relationship feels promising before anyone has established whether it can support the business doing the work.
Do does not dismiss those affinities. His description of a desirable engagement includes creative satisfaction, compatible people, and alignment with the client's mission. But he insists that financial success belongs in the same conversation, not in an awkward discussion after everyone has already become attached to the project.
A good creative fit must also be a viable commercial fit.
The distinction becomes uncomfortable when the clients are small businesses that a creative genuinely wants to help. Supporting their development can be meaningful. It does not automatically produce enough revenue to sustain the person providing that support, and goodwill does not establish what the client can afford.
The conversation repeatedly returns to this mismatch. Participants describe people whose businesses or tastes feel familiar. Do pushes toward a different question: whether those people are hungry for the service and happy to pay for it. Familiarity is not the same as demand.
His interior-design example makes the point without requiring a complicated marketing theory. An interior designer working on much more expensive homes has a different commercial context from one operating on smaller projects. The surrounding economics change what that designer can reasonably spend on collaborators.
The service provider is not choosing only a client. The service provider is choosing the financial environment in which the work will be purchased.
That is the useful connection to Proven Strategies to Attract Your Ideal Clients: attraction starts with identifying a client worth attracting. Otherwise, more attention can simply deliver more conversations with people who cannot buy.
There is also an important boundary around Do's argument. Financial capacity is a qualification criterion, not a measure of someone's character. A business can be worthwhile, its owner sincere, and its budget still too small for a particular creative practice. Declining that mismatch does not require contempt for the business.
The real challenge is separating a desire to help from an expectation of being paid sustainably. Those motives can coexist, but neither should conceal the other. A project chosen for generosity should not quietly become the financial model for an entire company.
Marketing becomes clearer once that distinction is made. The task is no longer to persuade every sympathetic prospect. It is to become relevant to people whose needs, resources, and expectations make the relationship workable.
The budget has a ceiling before the proposal arrives
Do tests the economics through a participant's description of a friend who runs several businesses. The participant estimates annual revenue at roughly one to two million dollars, spread across six or seven operations. The initial impression is of a substantial potential client.
Do breaks that impression apart. For his illustration, he uses six businesses and $1.2 million in combined revenue. An even division produces $200,000 per business, a very different reference point from the headline figure attached to the owner.
That calculation is not a verified account of the friend's finances. The participant is estimating, and an even split does not establish what any individual operation earns. Its value is narrower: it shows how a large combined number can disguise the scale of the business actually buying the service.
Do then applies a marketing allocation of 10 percent and imagines the creative receiving a tenth of that allocation. Under those assumptions, $200,000 in annual revenue becomes a $20,000 marketing budget and a $2,000 project. The arithmetic is straightforward; the assumptions determine the result.
The percentages should not be mistaken for a universal spending benchmark. In the conversation, they function as a rough illustration of budget constraints. The durable point is that a supplier's fee must fit within a purchasing capacity that is smaller than the client's total revenue.
Revenue is not the same as an available project budget.
Three different amounts sit inside Do's example:
- The revenue associated with the business purchasing the work.
- The portion allocated to marketing, including people.
- The portion of that allocation available for a particular provider.
Collapsing those amounts into one impressive number creates false confidence. A prospect can operate several businesses, appear busy, and still have little room for the proposed engagement. Business activity is not proof of purchasing capacity.
There is a corresponding danger in treating every modest offer as an objection to overcome. Sometimes the buyer has misunderstood the value. Sometimes the budget is genuinely small. Those are different problems, and a stronger sales argument does not make them interchangeable.
Do also contrasts clients who spend money to save time with those who spend time to save money. His language is deliberately sweeping, but the commercially useful distinction is specific: buyers differ in what they are trying to conserve. A service that saves effort will carry different weight for each.
For a provider, that difference changes the conversation. One buyer evaluates the expense primarily as money leaving the business. Another sees a way to reclaim attention for work they consider more important. The deliverable can remain similar while its perceived usefulness changes substantially.
That is why pricing and audience selection belong together. The related issue sits behind 99% Of Creatives Lose Money With These Pricing Mistakes, but this conversation places the first constraint before the price discussion: whether the buyer's economics can accommodate the engagement at all.
A larger fee is not always waiting behind a more persuasive explanation. Sometimes it is waiting in a different market.
Helping a client grow does not reserve the next contract
The strongest defense of serving underfunded clients is not that their budgets are adequate today. It is that their budgets will improve. Help a small company become successful, the reasoning goes, and the relationship can expand alongside it.
Do challenges the second half of that equation. A contribution to growth does not create a contractual claim on future work. The client can appreciate the early support and still choose a different provider when its circumstances change.
Client growth does not guarantee relationship growth.
The conversation includes a useful counterexample rather than a clean endorsement of Do's warning. One participant describes making a 3D animation for a pharmaceutical startup for $3,000. The company subsequently grew, brought some activity in-house, and became less connected to the original provider.
Later, the relationship reopened at a different scale. The participant reports being able to bid much larger projects, citing $40,000 work and a $10,000 monthly figure. These are the participant's account of the relationship, not independently established results, and they demonstrate possibility rather than a predictable return.
The interruption is as important as the eventual opportunity. Even in the example where the early client returned with more substantial work, growth did not produce a smooth, automatic escalation. The company changed how it operated, and the original supplier temporarily became less central.
Do's own account emphasizes the less comfortable outcome. As companies become able to afford more established teams, they can reconsider their suppliers. The qualities that made a provider right for the beginning do not necessarily make that provider the obvious choice for the next stage.
He describes this through tiers of competition. Winning $100,000 assignments did not mean his team could immediately win $200,000 assignments. Winning at $200,000 did not automatically translate into winning at $400,000.
The price increased, but so did the difficulty of the comparison.
Do attributes an important lesson about those tiers to his coach: “You're actually just at the bottom of the next mountain.” Reaching the apparent summit of one market can mean entering the least established position in another.
That observation changes the meaning of loyalty. A client selecting a supplier for a larger assignment is not necessarily judging only the history of the relationship. In Do's account, the comparison expands to teams with different reputations, client rosters, and levels of recognition.
The implications are demanding rather than cynical. A provider who expects to grow with a client must also become capable of competing for the client's larger work. Early access is useful, but it does not eliminate the need to develop.
The broader transition is reflected in the title Moving from Makers to Entrepreneurs. Here, the practical distinction is between doing valuable work now and assuming that work has secured a future business position.
The startup story therefore supports a qualified conclusion. Smaller clients can become larger clients, and early providers can benefit. But accepting a low fee on the expectation of future rewards means accepting uncertainty, not purchasing a guaranteed place in the client's next chapter.
Present-day financial fit deserves more weight than an imagined future repayment.
A purchasing role is not yet a person
Once the commercial target is credible, Do shifts from ability to pay to the psychology of the buyer. A company category is not enough. Neither is a job title, even one associated with a substantial budget.
His exercise begins with a participant who sells tile and furniture online to create living spaces. The participant names Marriott as an ideal customer. Do narrows the target from an organization to an individual involved in property development or business operations.
The group builds an imagined profile: a middle-aged decision-maker, family responsibilities, education, income, and places associated with that person's life. Eventually, the buyer has a name, Ron. These details belong to a constructed persona, not a verified biography of a Marriott employee.
That distinction is essential. Specificity makes a fictional buyer easier to imagine; it does not make every assigned characteristic true. The exercise is useful when its details help reveal a coherent commercial situation, not when invented biography is treated as customer research.
Do's own standard is internal consistency. “Does the logic logic?” he asks. Each new detail should make sense in relation to the earlier ones, rather than being added because it makes the buyer sound affluent or impressive.
The deeper work begins when the profile moves beyond circumstances. Do explicitly separates demographics from psychographics: how people think, what they feel, and the values and beliefs they bring to decisions. These are the elements he connects to better communication and more relevant services.
The distinction can be expressed through the material in his exercise:
- Demographics establish circumstances such as age, income, education, and family.
- Psychographics examine thinking, feelings, values, and beliefs.
- Past disappointments help explain the buyer's response to a new provider.
A useful profile explains the buyer's hesitation.
Ron becomes most instructive when Do considers the experience of being disappointed by previous suppliers. The new provider arrives convinced of their own honesty. The buyer, however, has a history that the newcomer did not witness and cannot erase with an introduction.
That reframe changes the interpretation of skepticism. A cautious response is no longer simply evidence that the prospect fails to recognize good work. It can be a reasonable reaction to earlier promises that were not fulfilled.
The provider's task becomes more precise. Rather than repeating claims of trustworthiness, the provider needs to understand why trust is difficult here. Empathy means accounting for the experience on the other side of the transaction, not assuming that good intentions are self-evident.
The adjacent issue appears in The Skill You Need To Win Clients That No One Talks About. In this conversation, the useful move is to stop interpreting every client reaction solely through the seller's frustration.
Naming Ron also changes the group's behavior. Do observes that participants become less inclined to keep altering the target once the profile has a name. The name gives the discussion continuity, allowing the group to develop one buyer instead of escaping into a new one whenever the exercise becomes difficult.
Imagination provides focus. Its value lies in making the buyer's circumstances discussable, not in converting assumptions into facts.
The profile becomes a brief for the business
A detailed buyer profile can look like a preparatory document. Do treats it as a source of decisions about the business itself. Understanding a particular customer, he says, reveals possible services, ways of communicating, and directions for the brand.
This is the connection between the exercise and his own commercial development. He describes customer profiling as a creative springboard that helped him learn brand strategy. The work moved beyond producing an object toward clarifying the person and problem that the object was intended to serve.
Customer understanding should shape the offer, not decorate it.
The distinction is consequential. If the offer is already fixed and the profile merely supplies a flattering description of an imagined buyer, little has changed. In Do's account, the profile becomes productive when it exposes something the provider had not understood about the customer.
His process begins with evidence closer to hand than an aspirational list of large companies. He asks participants to think about their last 10 clients or projects and identify the engagements they would gladly repeat. The starting point is remembered experience, not the prestige of a prospective account.
Three criteria guide that reflection:
- Creative satisfaction: The work and the people made the engagement rewarding.
- Financial return: The project actually made money for the provider.
- Mission alignment: The client's purpose was something the provider could support.
Those criteria are meant to operate together. Creative satisfaction without financial return reproduces the original problem. Financial return without interest or alignment does not match the kind of ideal relationship Do is asking participants to identify.
The last 10 projects are not a scientific sample, and Do does not present them as one. They are a practical way to move past an answer built entirely from ambition. A provider can compare the promise of an engagement with the experience of actually delivering it.
From there, the exercise becomes more focused:
- Select the type of client whose work was rewarding, profitable, and aligned.
- Establish that the target has money and values the service.
- Identify one person rather than stopping at a company name.
- Develop demographic and psychographic detail, checking the profile for consistency.
The sequence matters because each stage constrains the next. A detailed portrait of someone who cannot afford the work is still the wrong commercial target. A wealthy organization without an identifiable buyer remains too broad to provide much guidance for communication.
Do connects that lack of definition directly to weak content and offers. When the intended reader is blurry, the provider struggles to decide what to say. More production does not resolve the uncertainty; it distributes it across more material.
His point is not that one fictional person represents every buyer perfectly. It is that concentrating on a specific person forces choices that a vague audience allows the provider to postpone. The message has to address recognizable concerns rather than an abstract appetite for good design.
The resulting brief is therefore larger than a content brief. It can influence the services proposed, the language used to explain them, and the kind of relationship the business is attempting to build. The profile earns its place by changing those decisions.
The thinking has to happen before the making
The final obstacle is not technical. It is the discomfort of doing work that does not immediately resemble a finished product. One participant identifies the urge to rush into execution, where the end of the day produces something visible.
Do recognizes that instinct. Thinking can feel less concrete than making, even when making without direction is the more expensive choice. The presence of a deliverable offers reassurance that progress has occurred; it does not establish that the work is aimed at the right buyer.
His woodworking comparison places customer profiling on the measuring side of the process. The temptation is to start cutting because cutting looks productive. Measurement appears slower until the cost of an incorrect cut becomes visible.
For a creative business, the equivalent error is committing to production while the audience remains undefined. The content can become more polished, the portfolio more elaborate, and the offer more confidently written without resolving who needs it enough to pay.
The practical tension is especially sharp for people trained to demonstrate value through craft. Finished work is inspectable. Strategic understanding is harder to display, but Do argues that clients can recognize its value when it articulates something they have struggled to see.
He reports clients responding with a feeling of being understood and recognizing clarity they had not reached themselves. Those are his recollections, not measured performance claims. They illustrate the kind of response he associates with turning scattered knowledge about customers into a coherent profile.
The commercial significance is not that a short conversation automatically deserves a large invoice. It is that useful thinking can be part of the service rather than an unpaid prelude to the supposedly real work. The value rests in the clarity produced, not simply the time spent producing it.
That also places responsibility on the provider. An elaborate persona is not enough if its details never affect the recommendation. The portrait needs to help explain what to offer, how to communicate, or why a buyer will hesitate.
The final check is practical:
- Can the intended client afford the service at a sustainable price?
- Does the profile describe a person rather than only a company category?
- Does it account for values, beliefs, and reasons for caution?
- Has that understanding changed the proposed service or message?
These questions do not promise that the client will arrive automatically. Defining an audience is not a substitute for reaching it. But it gives outreach, content, and offers a clearer destination than the hope that enough exposure will eventually produce the right buyer.
Do's larger challenge is to stop treating client selection as something that happens after the marketing works. Selection is already embedded in the examples a business shows, the concerns it addresses, and the people it imagines while writing.
A provider can continue making work for an indistinct audience and discover the mismatch in every sales conversation. Or the mismatch can be confronted earlier, while there is still time to change the target, the offer, or both.
The next piece of content does not need a larger audience. It needs a clearer buyer.
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.
“You're actually just at the bottom of the next mountain.”
— Chris Do
Key Takeaways
Subscribe
Details
- Topic
- MARKETING