the fee conversation that tells you everything

had a fee structure negotiation this week with a prospective client that went longer than it needed to, and it taught me something about vetting clients before you take them on, not just vetting the deal size.

the negotiation itself wasn't unreasonable. they wanted more flexibility, i wanted a structure that protected the work. but the way someone negotiates a fee tells you more about the relationship ahead than almost anything else in the sales process. do they negotiate in good faith, trying to find a structure that works for both sides. or do they treat the negotiation as a contest to be won, extracting the last possible concession regardless of whether it makes the partnership sustainable.

i've started paying much closer attention to this signal than i used to. a client who nickel-and-dimes the fee before the engagement even starts is telling you exactly how they'll behave three months in when the results take a little longer than the pitch implied. and a client who negotiates fairly, who wants the deal to work for both sides, is usually the client who stays reasonable when the inevitable rough patch shows up mid-engagement.

this is part of why i've moved away from discounting anything, ever. once you discount to close a deal, you've told the client the number was never real, and you've set the tone for every future conversation about scope and value. hold the price, and if there's real pushback, add value to the offer instead of cutting the number. it protects both the revenue and the relationship.

the other thing worth naming is that walking away from a fee fight is sometimes the healthiest outcome for both parties. not every deal that's negotiable should get negotiated into existence. some tension in the fee conversation is actually useful information telling you this isn't the right fit yet.

does the way a prospect negotiates your price look like the way you'd want a client to behave for the next three months?