The Choice Architect: Why Some Clients Don't Know What They Want Until You Show Them

A fascinating transformation occurs when clients ask for proposals: confident advisors suddenly become fearful approval-seekers, costing both firms and clients millions in value. What can be done before consultants stop consulting -- at the very moment their expertise matters most?

"We found that 97% of our proposals offered exactly one solution at one price."

Hamish Patel (not his real name), Chief Strategy Officer at a multinational consulting firm, presented the findings without fanfare. The firm's leadership had commissioned the analysis as revenue growth stalled and AI began eliminating hours from traditional engagements.

The head of sales nodded knowingly. "And I'll betcha that's why we're negotiating with ourselves. With only one price point to offer, our teams discount preemptively because they're terrified of being rejected outright."

Interviewing the proposal teams pretty much confirmed it. "Our analysis shows that 45% of all proposals going out the door have already removed approximately 5% of potential revenue before the client even sees them," Hamish explained.

"Wait," the CFO interrupted, doing quick mental math. "That's 5% discount on nearly half our business. If we're doing about $1 billion annually, that's roughly $25 million in potential revenue we're giving away without being asked."

"Actually," Hamish corrected, "it's closer to $22.5 million, but your point stands. Over twenty million dollars of profit walking out the door before clients even raise price objections."

But the problem wasn't just lost margin on won deals. "We're burying the headline here," Hamish said, his voice suddenly urgent. "That $22.5 million is nothing compared to the real opportunity. Research shows that proposals offering multiple options close at rates 12.6% higher than those with a single price point."

The CFO's eyes widened. "Wait—at our size, that's..."

"Five times the impact," Hamish confirmed. "In a firm doing a billion in revenue, we're talking about well over a hundred million in additional potential wins we're leaving on the table every year. We're obsessing over pennies while ignoring hundred-dollar bills scattered around us."

With AI rapidly eliminating billable hours and growth targets looking increasingly unreachable, this double opportunity couldn't be ignored. But why would giving options work better than their best recommendation?

The Decoy Effect

A now-famous experiment by behavioral economist Dan Ariely, shared in his TED Talk that has attracted more than 8 million views, reveals the answer.

Ariely noticed something odd about The Economist's subscription offers. Subscribers could choose digital-only access for $59, print-only for $125, or a print + digital bundle for the same $125. The print-only option seemed absurd – why pay the same price for less?

Curious about this apparent pricing mistake, Ariely called The Economist. After being bounced between departments, he finally reached someone who checked on the pricing. Shortly after, the offer disappeared from the website without explanation.

So Ariely created his own experiment. He showed 100 MIT students the three original options and asked what they'd choose. The results were predictable: nobody selected print-only (confirming those students could indeed read), 16% chose digital-only, and 84% opted for the print + digital bundle.

Then came the revealing twist. Ariely removed the seemingly "useless" print-only option and presented just two choices to another 100 students. Logic suggests removing an option nobody wanted shouldn't change anything. But the results reversed:

The Economist Experiment	With Decoy Option	Without Decoy Option
Digital Only: $59	16% choose this	68% choose this
Print Only: $125	0% choose this	(option removed)
Print + Digital: $125	84% choose this	32% choose this

Without the print-only option serving as a comparison, the print + digital bundle suddenly looked expensive rather than like an obvious bargain. The seemingly useless option wasn't useless at all – it was an anchor that dramatically shaped how people perceived value.

What Ariely demonstrated in his experiment is known among behavioral economists as the "decoy effect" or "asymmetric dominance effect" – the phenomenon where introducing a strategically designed third option (that may never be chosen) dramatically influences decisions between the remaining options.

The Myth of Client Certainty

This experiment exposes a profound truth: people don't have fixed, well-defined preferences waiting to be discovered. They construct preferences through comparison.

When clients say, "Just give us your best solution," they're not expressing certainty about what they want. They're expressing uncertainty about how to evaluate options. They're asking you to make the hard choices for them – often before you fully understand what they truly value.

The Myth of Client Rejection

"If we offer options, we'll anger the client. They asked for our best solution, not a menu."

This fear paralyzes professional services firms, but it's almost entirely unfounded. In my decades of experience, I've never seen a client reject a firm for offering thoughtfully constructed options. At worst, a client has told me they only want to consider a single offer and I should eliminate others. So there's no harm in trying.

Three is the magic number. More than three options can create decision paralysis, while fewer than three eliminates the powerful comparison effect that Ariely demonstrated.

Structure your three options with the middle one as your recommended choice. Like Goldilocks finding the middle option "just right," clients gravitate toward options that balance value and investment. The highest option serves primarily as an anchor that makes your preferred middle option appear reasonable by comparison.

Without meaningful comparison points, people literally cannot recognize value. By withholding options out of fear, we're not simplifying decisions – we're making them harder.

The AI Pricing Paradox

As artificial intelligence eliminates billable hours, firms struggle to establish prices for services that now take a fraction of the time. The instinct is to lower prices proportionally to the reduced effort. As we've discussed in previous articles, doing that will lead to the firm's ultimate demise.

But here's where anchoring creates an unexpected advantage: last year's price becomes a powerful reference point.

When clients judge your AI-enhanced service against last year's price (rather than against your reduced effort), they see enhanced value – same price, better/faster results. Meanwhile, you maintain margins despite lower delivery costs.

This creates a win-win scenario that's only possible when you understand the power of anchoring in client decision-making.

Becoming the Choice Architect

Instead of trying to discover the "right answer" that exists in the client's mind, professional services firms should see themselves as choice architects – thoughtfully constructing decision environments that help clients recognize value.

The evidence for this approach is compelling. According to analysis by Proposify of millions of proposals, including multiple pricing options boosts close rates by 12.6% compared to proposals with a single static price. Yet negotiation experts at Harvard's Program on Negotiation note that presenting multiple simultaneous offers is "used far too infrequently" in business deals.

Here's how to put this into practice:

1. Create meaningful comparisons

Every proposal should include at least three options that highlight different value dimensions:

• An entry option that addresses core needs

• A standard option that delivers comprehensive value

• A premium option that showcases what's possible with additional investment

2. Leverage existing anchors

When a client provides a budget, don't treat it as an immovable constraint. Use it as one reference point among several. Show what's possible at that price point, slightly below it, and meaningfully above it – each with clear value tradeoffs.

Previous pricing creates particularly powerful anchors. "Last year you invested $X and received [benefits]. This year, for the same investment, you'll receive [enhanced benefits]" frames your proposal against an anchor the client has already accepted.

3. Shift from prescription to collaboration

Multiple-option proposals transform the conversation into a collaborative discovery process where client and provider work together to find the optimal approach.

4. Stop negotiating with yourself

Establish anchors that reflect true value, then let the client's response guide any necessary adjustments. You might be surprised how often clients accept your initial proposal when it's framed against meaningful alternatives.

The Bottom Line

Many clients don't know what they want until you show them – not because they're unsophisticated, but because that's how human decision-making works. We construct preferences through comparison rather than discovering them through introspection.

Think about the irony here: We call ourselves consultancies because we consult. Our entire value proposition is built on providing insight, guidance, and expert recommendations. Yet the moment a proposal is requested, many firms suddenly flip a switch – advisor mode: OFF, anxious supplicant mode: ON.

Why do we transform from confident collaborators to nervous suitors precisely when clients need our guidance most? One day we're sitting side-by-side with clients as trusted advisors, thoughtfully exploring alternatives. The next day, once the word "proposal" is mentioned, we're desperately guessing what they want to hear and submitting a single solution for judgment, often already discounted to avoid rejection.

In a world where AI is rapidly eliminating billable hours, the ability to shape how clients perceive and evaluate value isn't just a nice-to-have skill. It's the difference between capturing the value you create and watching it evaporate through outdated pricing approaches.

Unexpected Benefits

Six months after launching targeted pilot programs across three practice areas, Hamish had compelling results to share. The teams implementing the three-option approach saw their win rates increase by 14.3% – even better than the research predicted.

What surprised leadership most weren't just the improved close rates. It was the unexpected benefits they hadn't anticipated:

First, clients were explicitly mentioning the options in their selection process.

"We had three different firms propose to us," one client told a partner, "but you were the only one who helped us understand the tradeoffs. We weren't just choosing between firms anymore – we were choosing between your options."

Second, change orders became remarkably smoother. When clients needed to expand scope mid-project, the premium option had already established the parameters and pricing. "The client already knew what the enhanced scope would cost because they'd seen it in our proposal," noted one project lead. "There was no sticker shock or difficult negotiation – they'd already been anchored to that price point. One client even thanked us for our transparency!"

While most clients still selected the middle option as expected, the premium option was serving its purpose perfectly – not as a frequent selection, but as a powerful anchor that shaped how clients perceived value and made subsequent decisions.

With these results in hand, the firm's leadership accelerated the rollout across all remaining practice areas, transforming how they helped clients recognize value.

Disclaimer: The stories and insights shared in this blog are based on my personal experiences and conversations throughout my career. While some content reflects recent events, they are drawn from a broad range of interactions with professionals across professional services, including friends and colleagues from various organizations, and do not specifically refer to or represent any single employer, past or present. Identities have been anonymized, and quotes may be paraphrased or combined for clarity and storytelling purposes. This post is a personal endeavor and does not reflect the views or proprietary information of any employer.