E-Design is Growing, but is the Interior Design Matchmaking Trend Over?
Original article posted at Design Manager by Margot LaScala.
E-design is a broad term that is essentially defined as an interior design service that is dominantly conducted digitally — where client and designer often never even meet. One type of e-design that grew in popularity in recent years is app-based matchmaking, where a company matches a potential client to an interior designer based on information it collects digitally, by way of a style quiz, for example. Some e-design companies focus heavily on the matchmaking element, while others take a broader approach and de-personalize the interior designer behind the work. While e-design is showing some signs of success when conducted under specific conditions, many of the initial leaders in the matchmaking e-design space have failed, leaving only a few clear winners.
The concept of e-design was born out of the idea of taking a traditionally in-person, individualized service onto a digital, homogenized platform. We saw this revolutionary approach successfully disrupt several industries throughout the 2010’s, with the rise of transportation apps like Uber and Lyft and dating apps like Tinder and Bumble. Many tech entrepreneurs and investors, few with interior design backgrounds, assumed the same approach could work for the interior design industry. But in the last couple of years, many interior designer matchmaking companies folded. So, why has interior design been largely immune to the digital matchmaking trend? And will we see new entrants in the space, a second wave that can succeed while learning from the failures of their predecessors?
While Many Failed, Some Skyrocketed
While many of the original stars of e-design ended up failing, there are a handful of very successful companies that managed to identify and harness their target audiences while providing a clear, consistent virtual interior design service. The winners include:
Decorist: Decorist offers e-design services for a flat fee, ranging from $299 to $1,299 depending on the level of experience of the designer, where the client and designer never meet. Clients can choose their designer from Decorist’s roster, or they can be matched to a designer based on their preferences, learned via questionnaire. From there, clients send in pictures of their space, and designers go to work, eventually offering furniture and layout suggestions by way of mood boards and other 2-D presentation tools. The client can choose to purchase the suggested furniture through the Decorist website, which makes a fee for the service of purchasing and managing the order, making it akin to a successful version of what Laurel & Wolf tried to achieve.
Modsy: Modsy is less of a matchmaking service, and more of a quick-turnaround, one-size-fits-all design solution. Clients upload pictures of their space, which Modsy turns into a 3-D rendering. From there, clients describe who lives in the space and submit a style quiz. Modsy turns around a design proposal with high-quality 3-D renderings. They minimize the actual interior designer behind the work in the process and make the experience more about working with the company and less about working with the designer. Like Decorist, clients can shop for the recommended products through the website, which manages the orders and makes a fee for the service. The difference between Decorist and Modsy is minimal, coming down mostly to the lack of individuality given to the design process.
Havenly: Havenly is among the most affordable of the matchmaking services, charging $79-$199 for its design fees, depending on the size of the room and whether or not you want a floorplan to accompany your suggested furniture list. Like Decorist and Modsy, you can purchase items directly through Havenly, which comes with the same profit advantages to the company.
There are many more interior design matchmaking and e-design companies, but these three stand out as clear success stories. They have identified their target markets, marketed to them appropriately, and successfully built the infrastructure to support their business models. The success of these companies suggests that digital interior design matchmaking is not dead, per se, but can only succeed under specific conditions. High-end interior design needs highly tailored support built into its operations, so it is difficult for these types of interior designers to thrive on matchmaking platforms that are built on the concept of providing a generic service to the masses.
At this point, e-design still has ample opportunity to grow, as interior designers look to grow their businesses into multiple revenue streams. The successful players have a large market share and new entrants could well have a hard time differentiating themselves when the success of these particular digital companies is based on homogeny.