Engagement process comparison

Two engagement models compared down a central spine of six criteria, closed by paired pick this when lists so a prospect can self select.

Four questions to ask every designer you are comparing, each card pairing the question and why it matters with my answer below a divider.

A four step decision path where each numbered question branches into yes and no outcomes, ending in a short verdict panel.

A roster of four priced specialists beside my single generalist panel, where a three dot coverage meter rates my depth per discipline.

Two decision panels weighing a bought template against custom work, each with cost and timeline facts plus the signs it is the right call.

Three distinctive approach points each paired with an explicit tradeoff so the block reads as credible rather than promotional.

Two itemised cost ledgers pricing the same project through an agency and through me, with line notes, plain totals, and an honest caveat.

Four honest reasons as cards, each pairing a direct claim with the substance that makes it verifiable, the differentiation block.

Five design tasks stacked as cards, each pairing what AI tools honestly deliver against what hiring me adds, with one task conceded outright.

Two honest panels of fit signals, a good fit checklist beside reasons to look elsewhere, each item backed by a one line detail.

Five paired before and after panels joined by arrows, each labelled by the dimension that changed, selling outcomes rather than deliverables.

Five project metrics as paired horizontal bars comparing a typical engagement with mine, each metric captioned and labelled with plain values.