A feedback ritual designed to make tension productive.
The traditional agency-client relationship is terrified of disagreement. Feedback is softened, opinions are hedged, and problems are swept under the rug to avoid a difficult conversation. The result is almost always a mediocre product that no one is truly happy with.
We don’t do that. We believe clear, direct disagreement is a tool. It's a sign that both parties are engaged and invested in the outcome. When handled correctly, it's the fastest way to get to a better result.
Our process for handling feedback is designed to be drama-free and productive. It’s built on one core principle: the work is not you. An opinion on a design, a piece of copy, or a strategy is just that—an opinion on the work. It is never a critique of a person.
Here’s how our feedback process works:
Everything is in writing. We require all feedback to be written down, either in Basecamp or a shared document. This forces clarity. It prevents miscommunication and encourages thoughtful, specific critiques instead of vague, off-the-cuff reactions.
We schedule dedicated feedback calls. After the written feedback is submitted, we’ll hop on a short call to discuss it. This is not for delivering new feedback; it's for clarifying the written points, asking questions, and ensuring we understand the "why" behind each suggestion.
We separate "taste" from "goals." We will always push back on feedback that is purely subjective ("I just don't like that shade of blue") and gently guide the conversation back to the project's goals. Is this feedback moving us closer to our shared objective? If not, it's a distraction.
The client gets the final say, but we get the final word. You are the expert on your business. We will always respect your final decision. But as the experts you hired, we have a responsibility to make our professional recommendation clear. We will tell you, honestly, if we believe a decision is a mistake.
This process isn't about winning an argument. It’s about getting to the right answer, together. It requires trust, maturity, and a shared commitment to the quality of the work. It’s not always comfortable, but it’s always worth it.
Review sessions structured around decisions, not opinions.
Most teams treat disagreement as a problem to avoid. We treat it as information that hasn’t been organised yet.
For Strand, we replaced open-ended critique with a simple structure: name the decision, name the constraint, name the trade-off. Suddenly people were arguing about the right things, on the record, in a way that moved work forward.
Feedback stopped feeling like a referendum on someone’s taste and started feeling like a tool. The work got better, and so did the mood in the room.
Disagreement used to stall us for weeks. Now it's the part of the process we trust most.
Tom Strand, Head of Product, Strand
