Cheap isn't Cheerful

Everyone loves a bargain. Of course they do. Money isn't an infinite resource, as we all know only too well. So getting something you want or need, at a fraction of the price, is always going to feel good. 

But as we also all know only too well, sometimes that bargain doesn't turn out to be quite the bargain we hoped for. After all, a bargain is only a bargain if the thing you're paying for is cheap without compromising on its quality. Otherwise it's just a cheaper – and lesser – version of something better… 

 So that well-known saying, 'cheap and cheerful', isn't actually often true… 

In fact cheap can be far from cheerful. It can be downright risky, and destructive.

But I think people often forget the true meaning of that phrase, and so they forget the risks that can come from taking the cheaper option. Because that phrase isn't about something being cheerful because it's cheap… it's about it being cheerful despite it.

So when is cheap actually cheerful? 

Only when it doesn't really matter… 

It's a cheap bottle of wine, a cheap dinner, maybe even a cheap holiday… things that aren't going to change the course of your life or business if they turn out to be even lower quality than you're expecting.

But for the important stuff? Things that impact your health or your safety…? Or your business' success or reputation…? Those things matter. So how cheerful will you be if that low price turns out to be at the expense of good quality… and more to the point, low quality that comes with repercussions?

Imagery/animation is the frontline of a property campaign. It's the bit that shows all those that haven't been involved from the point of conception (i.e. those that don't already know all the details that make your proposition so good) how good your proposition is. 

It's the way you promote your scheme, sell your vision and guarantee its success… 

Which means, it matters. 

So is that really where you want to try and save a little bit of money? 

And is it worth the 'risk' of opting for the cheaper option? 

The risks of choosing cheap imagery for your development

So we know that cheap usually runs a risk of bringing a lower quality. 

But what exactly is the risk we face from that? 

Really, it's one of two things: 

1. That we'll ultimately spend a lot more money, either 'fixing' or replacing whatever it is, than we would have if we just spent more to begin with. 
2. That we'll suffer unpleasant, long-term or even irreversible consequences.

Unfortunately, when it comes to companies opting for cheap imagery for their development projects, we have seen many examples of businesses suffering the consequences of both.

That first risk is the most common… 

We've seen it many times. Architects or developers going with a cheaper option, only to find they can't use what's ultimately produced, and coming back to us in order to get the quality of work that they need. As a result, ultimately spending a lot more… effectively having to pay twice, having to go through the process of resubmitting their planning applications, having to adjust their timelines due to the delays… having to deal with the consequences of fairly significant additional costs to their project – both the direct financial costs, and the indirect due to lost time. 

And it's a tough pill to swallow. If you're going for the cheaper option, it's probably because you don't have money to burn… so effectively burning it because you opted for the cheap option is always going to hurt. But those additional costs can have even more significant knock-on effects, depending on just how tight cash flow or project solvency is…

Which leads onto the second risk, which is where things can get even more serious. 

If the budget simply isn't there to re-do it, or if the decision is taken to use it anyway… perhaps because the lacking quality hasn't actually been noticed, or the difference between what is and what could have been not realised… the consequences that can come from using under-par imagery can be substantial. 

Losing the planning application because the benefits of the scheme simply weren't represented properly. Losing the investor, because the expected quality of the proposed scheme just didn't appear to exist. Losing the sale because the prospects simply cannot imagine themselves, with their specific needs, utilising the space illustrated… 

Or worse still, losing your reputation as a serious company, a professional company, a company that provides true value and quality…

As the famous quote goes: 'It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and just 5 minutes to ruin it.'… 

Logic that, in fact, can also be applied to the project itself – you can spend the time, effort, creativity and vision creating an exciting and worthy proposition… and throw it all away in 5 minutes, with poor imagery that loses you the investment, the planning permission, the sales. 

The reasons why cheap = risky

So why is the cheaper imagery so much more likely to ultimately result in these consequences? 

Because, basically, all businesses need to make a profit…

 Cheap suppliers and service providers need to protect their margin just as any other company does, which means a low-cost offer requires minimising the time spent, and the costs involved in getting the work done, as much as they can get away with. 

It means that rather than focusing their best efforts on ensuring the quality of their output, they are having to focus on maintaining a profit on that tight costing that made them seem cheap in the first place. 

No company focused on guaranteeing the best possible results for their clients would then price themselves at the bottom of the market. They simply couldn't afford to. 

Because guaranteeing the best possible results means spending time… Time to understand the required outcome so as to ensure they devise a visual strategy that will deliver. Time to understand the details of the project so as to ensure the imagery is focused on the most critical and notable aspects. Time to ensure complete accuracy, time to ensure top quality, time to ensure success…  

And time, as we know, costs money. 

So the cheapest supplier simply can't afford to spend that much time, without impacting their profits. They simply can't afford to understand, or care, that much. 

But what about those based in another country? Different countries have different costs of living, so it's no surprise that a company based in a lower-cost environment can afford to offer quality services at lower costs than those locally. 

And on the face of it, these companies can seem like very good value. But… again, there are many things that they simply aren't able to provide.

Beyond needing to know the ins and outs of the regulations and requirements of a particular market – something that is challenging enough in itself – overseas suppliers usually lack the intimate understanding of the construction processes and culture within your country, and the values that are important to your home market: to the planning authorities, to tenants, to investors… 

The nuances of lighting in the UK, and of how different materials look in the reality of our climate, the nuances of language, meaning, messaging… the nuances of accessibility and accountability… There are many differences in the ways different countries and cultures work, and our instincts about how things should, or shouldn’t, be represented. And these differences can be all the difference needed between success and failure. 

Understanding of culture is renowned as being critical to successful sales and marketing… so when it comes to imagery for property developments – something that is so much more than just standard sales and marketing – it stands to reason that a company based in another country, no matter how superb their technical skills may be, won't be able to achieve the same level of output as a company in your home market. 

The cost of going cheap

Cheap is always tempting, and saving costs where one can is to be expected. 

But when it comes to things that matter, cheap is rarely cheerful… or even cheap… in the end. 

Cheap almost always refers to the initial price only. Once you've factored in the cost of corrections, redo's, re-submissions, lost pitches, unnecessary time spent handholding inexperienced companies that don't understand or just don't care enough… the final cost is rarely as cheap as it first appeared.

In fact, it's often very expensive – in terms of what the cheap option is actually giving you per unit cost… in terms of how much you'll spend fixing things… and for the damage it can do to your proposition. 

Professional, established, reputational companies may quote more upfront, but the eventual cost – that very same initially quoted figure, plus the value generated from having a quality visual campaign that secures the exact results you need – is actually the cheapest, and best value, you're going to find. 

An American known as Red Adair summed it up pretty well I reckon: 

'If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur.'

So, if you're looking for the best value quote for your development's visuals, let me know. We’re the professionals that will cost you a lot less than the amateurs.