A new client wants to see two options for their kitchen and two bathrooms: a “this or that” comparison before committing to a direction. It’s a reasonable request on its face. But it immediately raises a practical question: do you charge for two full sets of design documents, present loose concepts before investing deeply in either, or find a third approach entirely?
The Interior Design Community fielded this question from a newer designer who hadn’t encountered the multi-option request before. The response thread was one of the richer discussions the community has produced, because experienced designers disagree on this, and the reasoning behind each approach is worth understanding.
The One-Option Case: You’re the Expert, Lead Like One
The firmest position in the thread came from @lsi_workshop, who made the expert-led case in plain terms:
“One. If you think you need two, keep plan B in your back pocket. You are the expert. They are paying for your expertise and leadership, which means solutions, not a menu of options.”
@lsi_workshop
This is the expert-led model, and the logic is worth taking seriously. When a client hires a doctor, an accountant, or an attorney, they expect a recommendation, not a choice between Option A and Option B. Your value is a curated, confident recommendation based on your professional judgment, not a multiple-choice presentation that transfers the decision-making back to the client.
@clairejefford offered a nuanced version of this position, one that keeps the designer in the lead while leaving room for the occasional pivot:
“We provide one option typically for any design finishes, fabrics, wallpaper, etc. But I often have what I refer to as a ‘back-pocket product’ option in case they don’t love everything we present. Mainly this is for items such as fabrics or wallpaper. If I present something like a houndstooth but they have an aversion to that for whatever reason, I can pull out a coordinating stripe or floral in the same colourway. I have found over the years, the more thorough our onboarding and discovery processes are, and the higher our rates, the better and more trusting our clients are. We rarely swap out finishes or furnishings, and focus on selling the full vision.”
@clairejefford
The back-pocket option is a practical middle ground: you present one curated direction with confidence, but you come prepared with alternatives for the moments where a client has a genuine aversion to a specific piece. You’re still leading. You’re not presenting a menu, but you’re not blindsided when someone has a visceral reaction to a pattern.
Both approaches share a premise: the designer’s job is to recommend, not to survey. The more thoroughly you’ve done your discovery work, really understanding a client’s style, preferences, and lifestyle, the more confident that recommendation can be, and the less often you’ll need to fall back on alternatives.
The Two-Option Case: Client Buy-In Changes Everything
The strongest argument for presenting two options came from @kathleendwalsh, and it’s worth reading carefully:
“Two: the number of times I’ve asked why a client didn’t return to their previous designer, and the answer was they were only shown one option and were made to feel bad if they didn’t like it, is too often to ignore. So we do two and I never put something down I can’t stand by and be happy to execute. In the end, 95% of the time they go all-in on one scheme or the other, and usually the one for which I have a slight preference. A bigger reason I do this: the client buys in and thinks through what option THEY prefer, knowing both are options we 100% support. They aren’t accepting the only option; it’s a different mindset. Win win. And yes, charge for it all (it’s not a big dollar add, we’ve found).”
@kathleendwalsh
The key phrase is “it’s a different mindset.” A client who chooses between two solid options has agency in the outcome. A client who was shown one option and accepted it is in a different psychological position, and when something goes wrong six months later, the client who chose will own that choice in a way the client who accepted won’t.
The retention data she cites is worth taking seriously. Clients who left previous designers because they were “made to feel bad” for not loving the one option presented represent a real business problem: the expert-led model, taken too far, can feel dismissive rather than confident. Some designers add a third “safe” option alongside two stronger ones, which makes the stronger options easier to choose by contrast. But the core of what makes two options work isn’t the number; it’s that both are directions you’d genuinely stand behind.
The Phased Approach: Options Early, One Direction by the End
@rmd_designs described a structure that uses multiple options strategically at the front of the process but converges to one direction by the design development phase:
“Have a process in place. During schematic, give them 2-3 options. Great way to start a conversation and eliminate what they don’t like. Then by preliminary, you should only have 1! This way, you can start refining the design during design development phase.”
@rmd_designs
This is the approach that resolves the one-versus-two debate by using different approaches at different stages. Schematic options are loose and generative; they’re not fully developed designs, they’re directions for conversation. Two or three rough concepts help a client articulate what they do and don’t want before you’ve invested deeply in any one of them. Once the direction is established, the remaining phases refine a single vision.
A variation worth noting: some designers also use the option format to show a client what they asked for alongside what the designer actually recommends. It’s a more respectful way to redirect than simply presenting your recommendation and hoping they don’t notice the gap between their original request and your recommendation.
Heather Cleveland covered a similar structure in Process That Builds Trust and Referrals in Interior Design (To-The-Trade), including how a defined client process with clear next steps at every milestone changes what clients expect from a presentation, and how readily they commit to a direction.
Budget-Aligned Options: Letting Commitment Level Drive the Choice
@chadofall_chadillac described a three-option floor planning structure that’s built around budget transparency:
“For floor planning (phase 1 for us), we always provide 3: one option that is 100% in their budget, one option that shows all the things they said they wanted, and one option that addresses all of their needs and is likely a solution they may not have thought of before. Since we present our construction pricing at the same time as we present the floor plans, it really helps clients see what their options are at various commitment levels and make quick decisions about how to proceed.”
@chadofall_chadillac
The structure here aligns options with budget reality, which is a genuine service to the client. They’re not choosing between aesthetics; they’re choosing between commitment levels, with pricing attached. That produces faster decisions because the trade-offs are visible.
How to Involve Clients Without Turning the Design Over to Them
One approach that threads the needle between a confident expert and an open-ended survey: present one overall design direction, with client input on a few specific items. They’re choosing between two tile options, not between two entirely different kitchens. The designer leads the vision; the client has meaningful input on a contained set of decisions. Both parties leave the presentation feeling like it was a collaboration.
The risk of presenting fully developed competing concepts is that it can signal uncertainty rather than expertise. A client who walks into a presentation seeing two complete, equally well-developed kitchens may wonder: which one does my designer actually believe in? The framing matters. If you present two options, present them as two directions you’d be genuinely proud to execute, not as a test of the client’s taste.
How to Bill for It
The billing question has a clear answer from experienced designers: charge for what you do. @kariwilbanks laid out the practical framework for newer designers getting a handle on multi-option pricing:
“My contract states two revisions are included in my design fee. The key is that they are already under contract before I show them anything! Since you are a new studio, I would advise to keep up with your hours no matter if you decide to do a flat fee or hourly charges. It will help you better understand how much ‘time’ certain things take and where you worked for free! The more you do this in the beginning, the easier pricing a project becomes in the future! The other thing is to have a detailed scope of work in the contract.”
@kariwilbanks
That advice to track your hours regardless of how you bill is foundational for any newer designer setting fees on multi-option presentations. You don’t know yet what a second concept actually costs you in time. Once you do, you can price it accurately. And the additional time investment in a second concept, once you’ve built the process, is often less than it initially seems. Clients rarely object to the cost when the scope is explained and the value is clear.
If you’re on hourly billing, the math is straightforward: two options cost more hours, and the client pays accordingly. If you’re on a flat fee, your flat fee needs to account for the presentation structure you’ve agreed to deliver. The scope conversation about how many options are included in the base fee, and what additional options cost, belongs in your contract before you start work.
If you’re still working out what counts as a revision versus an additional option, How Many Design Revisions Should You Include Without Losing Time or Profit? covers how to define that line clearly so both sides know what’s included before you start presenting.
What Actually Works
There isn’t a single right answer to how many options to present, but there is a wrong approach: presenting multiple options without a process, without billing for them, and without a clear sense of which direction you actually recommend.
The designers who handle this best share a few traits. They have a defined process (schematic, preliminary, development), and the number of options presented varies by phase. They charge for their work, whether that’s tracked hourly or built into a well-scoped flat fee. They come to every presentation with a preference, and they share it. And they invest in onboarding and discovery up front, so that by the time they present designs, they’re confident the client will recognize them as the right fit.
That confidence is what makes a presentation land, whether you show one option or two.