By Craig Trout, Owner & President
I’ve been in communications and marketing for forty-plus years, and I know that every creative agency and creative professional has experienced this, even before the AI revolution:
A client rolls out something they designed themselves — a brochure, logo tweak, or sell sheet — and proudly says, “We just put this together internally, isn’t it great!? Go ahead and use this from now on.”
But here’s the kicker: If your agency had produced that same piece, it definitely would not have been good enough, nor would you have presented it. But because they made it, it passes the test and is absolutely stunning and just might be the best work ever done. Ever.
So why does this happen? It’s not stubbornness — it’s psychology.
Let’s break down the mindset behind “good enough when it’s theirs.”
One of the most relevant psychological principles when dealing with clients who choose to handle work themselves is the IKEA Effect, coined by behavioral economists Michael Norton, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely. Their research found that people place disproportionately high value on things they help create themselves, even when the end result is objectively inferior to professional agency work.
In other words, when clients “build it themselves,” they unconsciously elevate the quality in their minds because it represents their effort, their idea, and their control. This sense of ownership gives them emotional satisfaction that outweighs aesthetic or strategic flaws.
In the agency context, a client’s DIY creative work feels “good enough” not because it meets professional standards, but because it satisfies an internal need to feel capable and resourceful. Their objectivity becomes skewed as a result.
When clients invest their own time into creating something, whether a brochure, logo tweak, or social post, they’ve already paid a “cost” in personal effort. Human psychology dislikes waste. To avoid feeling that their time was poorly spent, they subconsciously justify the quality of their work, convincing themselves it’s better than it actually is.
This is a form of cognitive dissonance reduction: rather than admit “this isn’t as good as it could be,” the mind adjusts its judgment to “it’s actually fine.”
If a marketing or creative agency produced the same level of work, however, the evaluation flips. Because the client’s cost would then be monetary, not emotional, the brain becomes more critical: “If we paid for this, it should be better.”
For many clients — especially decision-makers — creative work represents influence and expression. When they rely entirely on an external creative partner, they can feel a subtle loss of control over their brand’s voice or direction. By doing the work themselves, they reassert control and competence, even if the execution isn’t up to agency standards.
This can be especially strong among entrepreneurs or executives accustomed to solving problems independently. Their sense of identity is tied to being capable so their creative output feels inherently valid, regardless of objective quality.
When a client pays a professional firm, they subconsciously raise their expectations. The same imperfections that are excused in DIY work become unacceptable in paid work. This is rooted in the contrast effect and value-expectation bias: people judge quality relative to cost and context, not in isolation.
The act of paying for expertise amplifies scrutiny, similar to how a diner at a fine restaurant is less forgiving of an overcooked steak than someone grilling at home.
In short: when clients create their own work, it’s not about ignoring quality — it’s about affirming self-worth. Understanding that psychology helps creative and marketing firms respond with empathy and strategy, turning “good enough” moments into teachable opportunities that hopefully reinforce partnership and trust.
