The creative world from 80s was shaped by executives used to Design–bid–build methods, this left us with a design process I call Design-lottery. Where instead of designing with a strong approach on specific goals, we make versions of things to be chosen by taste or lottery...

Design–bid–build is a project delivery method where a owner contracts with separate entities for the design and chooses between them, usually 3. This was absorbed over the years to all facets of design and art workforces, It's common to be asked for 3 versions...

Imo this is an incompatible method to design and shape things today. Leaving things up to taste and lottery at the hands of individuals in the chain of approval that usually are unfamiliar with modern design processes is archaic, specially with growing smart uses of UX and UR...

I'm not saying to refuse to do 3 versions of things, but try to raise awareness that a more thought-out effort with some level of UR involved and UX to lay foundations for good experiences, will lead to a stronger singular result, and design/approval won't be left to lottery...

It's worth mentioning that not all creative fields are the same, neither the creative mediums. For example in concept art, serial-exploration or versions is a faster output method, like thumbnail sketching, and it works. But based on personal experience...

...when Art Directors ask for 3 versions of things, usually the projects they're leading tend to not be the trend-setters or the innovative ones, which is not a problem, but I personally tend to avoid it as it adds stress and not the best kind of evolution of my design mindset.

So in resume, Yes, I do talk my way around not making versions of things, so I can spend more time in a singular, well researched one.

If it worth mention, 9 out of 10 times I get my very 1st versions approved, usually with none or very minor changes.

:)