When “good enough” is actually good
You’re staring at two proposals. One is $5,000. One is $50,000. They’re both for a logo. Your stomach is in knots. This is the creative quality trade-off nobody talks about. Choose the cheaper one and you’ll look like you’re cutting corners. Choose the expensive one and you’ll blow half your creative budget on one deliverable.
Here’s what no agency wants to tell you: sometimes the $5,000 option is the right choice. Not because you’re being cheap. Because you’re being strategic.
The permission agencies can’t give you
Most agencies won’t have this conversation with you. They can’t. Their business model depends on premium services, and admitting that “good enough creative work” has a place in your portfolio feels like leaving money on the table.
We can say it because we’re structured differently. As a creative cooperative, our incentive isn’t to upsell you. It’s to help you make smart allocation decisions that actually serve your business goals.
You’re not being cheap when you choose a lower tier of creative quality. You’re being strategic. You’re making the same rational trade-off that every successful company makes: investing premium resources where they matter most, and satisficing—choosing “good enough” rather than optimal—everywhere else.
This is decision science, not corner-cutting. Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon pioneered the concept of satisficing precisely because humans and organizations have limited resources. Trying to optimize everything means under-investing in what actually matters.
The framework: Visibility × longevity
Here’s the decision matrix nobody talks about. Creative quality trade-offs should be based on two factors: how many people will see this work, and how long it needs to perform.
| Visibility level | Short-term (<6 months) | Medium-term (6 months – 2 years) | Long-term (2+ years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| High customer-facing | Standard ($5K-15K) Campaign creative, limited-run ads | Premium ($15K-50K) Core marketing assets, key campaigns | Premium ($25K-100K+) Brand identity, website platform |
| Medium visibility | Good enough ($1K-3K) Test concepts, small audience segments | Standard ($5K-15K) Regular content programs, email templates | Standard-Premium ($15K-50K) Product UI, customer experience touchpoints |
| Low/internal only | Minimal ($200-500) Internal presentations, quick mockups | Good enough ($1K-3K) Internal tools, team resources | Good enough-Standard ($3K-8K) Long-term internal platforms |
Here’s how to use it. Your brand identity system? High visibility, long lifespan. That’s premium territory. The slide template for your quarterly business review? Low visibility, repetitive use. That’s “good enough” territory, and you should feel zero guilt about it.
Your landing page for a new product test? Start with “good enough” ($3K-5K). If it converts, invest in the premium version ($25K+) once you’ve validated the messaging and justified the spend.
According to BYU Design Review, approximately 80-90% of design decisions fall into the “mundane many”—decisions with relatively minor influence where satisfactory is genuinely good enough. The problem is most companies treat 80% of decisions like they’re in the critical 20%.
This matters more now than ever. Marketing budgets dropped to 7.7% of overall revenue in 2024, down from 11% before the pandemic. Gartner analyst Ewan McIntyre calls this the “era of less.” When you’re working with 30% less budget than you had five years ago, strategic allocation isn’t optional.
The AI factor: A new “good enough” tier
AI has fundamentally changed what good enough creative work means. It’s created a fourth quality tier that didn’t exist two years ago: the AI-assisted tier.
When AI-assisted creative works:
- Rapid concept testing before committing to full production
- Template-based work with clear constraints (social graphics, simple layouts)
- Internal tools and resources where brand polish matters less than function
- High-volume, low-stakes content (think: 50 LinkedIn posts vs one hero campaign)
When it doesn’t:
- Brand-critical moments where differentiation matters (your competitors have the same AI tools)
- Work requiring deep strategic thinking or emotional resonance
- Customer touchpoints where generic patterns undermine trust
- Complex problem-solving where human judgment changes outcomes
The cost implications are real. AI-assisted “good enough” creative typically runs $500-2K. Human-led “good enough” runs $2K-8K. Human standard runs $8K-25K. Knowing which tier serves your actual need can 3x your creative output on the same budget.
But here’s the nuance: AI lowers the cost floor, but it doesn’t change the strategic framework. A high-visibility, long-term asset should still get premium human attention whether AI exists or not. AI just gives you better options for the low-stakes work.
A real budget allocation example
Let’s say you’re a growth-stage company with $50,000 in annual creative budget. Here’s a smart allocation:
Premium tier (20% / $10K):
- Website refresh focused on high-converting pages
- One signature brand campaign per year
Standard tier (50% / $25K):
- Ongoing content program (blogs, case studies, templates)
- Email marketing system and templates
- Social media creative rotation
- Sales enablement materials
Good enough tier (30% / $15K):
- Testing budget for new concepts and channels
- Internal presentations and templates
- Rapid-response content and timely opportunities
- Low-stakes experimental work
Why this allocation works: You’re protecting the 20% of creative work that drives 80% of your results while maintaining the volume and experimentation you need to discover what works. Most companies do the opposite—they spread budget evenly and end up with mediocre everything.
This isn’t about being cheap. It’s about recognizing that 84% of CMOs now view ROI as their primary budget allocation metric. When nearly 75% of performance marketers are experiencing diminishing returns on social media ad investments, getting smarter about creative quality trade-offs isn’t optional.
When “good enough” doesn’t work
Let’s be clear: there are times when “good enough” will absolutely hurt you.
Red flags where you need premium:
- Rebranding after a crisis or major reputation hit
- Launch moment for your flagship product or major pivot
- Head-to-head competitive situation where creative differentiation matters
- Customer experience touchpoints where trust is fragile (onboarding, support, checkout)
If you’re in one of these scenarios and considering “good enough” to save money, you’re making a strategic error. Research from Nielsen shows that 49% of a brand’s sales lift from advertising comes from creative quality. When the stakes are high, creative quality isn’t the place to cut corners.
The key is knowing which moments are high-stakes and which aren’t. Most companies get this backwards. They overspend on low-stakes work (because it feels safer) and underspend on the moments that actually move the business.
The honest conversation starts here
The real question isn’t “can we afford premium creative?” It’s “where should we afford premium creative?”
Strategic budget allocation beats big budgets. A $50,000 budget allocated intelligently will outperform a $200,000 budget spread evenly across everything. The companies that win aren’t the ones spending the most on creative. They’re the ones making the smartest trade-offs.
You don’t need permission to choose “good enough” when it actually is good enough. You need a framework to make that call confidently, and the discipline to invest premium resources where they create outsized returns.
That’s the conversation we want to have with you. Not “how much creative can you afford?” but “where should your creative budget create the most impact?”
Ready to talk about right-sizing your creative projects? We’ll help you figure out where premium investment matters, where standard execution works, and where “good enough” is actually good. Let’s start the conversation.