Think Basis It's Good For Business

This may seem like a no-brainer, but when it comes to doing contract work, a huge amount of headaches can be avoided if you make sure both you and the client are completely clear up front about who is responsible for what. It’s not entirely uncommon for the client and the consultant to have two very different views of how the relationship is going to work, and when the contract between the two parties is vague or non-existent, it’s even more important to make sure your client is getting exactly what they expected whether it’s what you promised or not.

Over the past five or six months I’ve watched one colleague struggle with a “nightmare client” that has expected a great deal of hand holding at every turn. This client was initially brought on for a small amount of consulting, but due to an ambiguous contract and poor project management on the part of the agency, the client is now getting several pieces of content, design work, and tens of thousands of dollars in additional marketing and man hours. It doesn’t matter that the client wasn’t originally supposed to receive any of that. And it doesn’t matter that they haven’t paid an additional penny, because the original agreement was vague enough that the client could reasonably assume all of this would be included, despite the company that put the agreement together only intending the contract to include a small amount of initial consulting.

So, whose fault is this type of scenario and what can you do once you’ve already gotten stuck in an ambiguous contract? Well, it’s possible the client is simply being opportunistic and using any loophole in the contract to weasel their way into getting more than they know they should. However, the more likely scenario is the client legitimately misunderstood what they were going to be getting, and if that’s the case, arguing and pushing back will likely lead to a poor relationship and might even end in non-payment.

As the company doing the work, there is nothing tying them to continuing a poor relationship with the client and jumping through each additional hoop aside from the desire to get paid and keep their client happy. At any point they could just fire the client and recommend someone else, but if they decide to continue onward then the relationship shifts from being mutually beneficial to one party being a slave to whatever expectations the client has and any new issues that might arise.

With this particular case, and with almost any client project, there were three specific points in the process where this could have been handled differently in order to minimize or entirely alleviate any unnecessary conflict.

1) Expectations could have been made clear from the start

Obviously the easiest way to eliminate any miscommunication would have been to sit down at the outset and discuss what was expected of both parties. This would have prevented the consulting firm from thinking they were providing recommendations while the client was absolutely convinced they’d be getting everything from conception to implementation to marketing.

2) Specifics of the contract could have been discussed as soon as it appeared both parties were interpreting things differently

Once the contract was already completed from the consultant’s perspective and it was clear the client still expected a large amount of additional work, it would have been the perfect time for a difficult discussion. The consultant could have gotten a clear understanding of exactly what the client expected and decided whether or not it was going to be feasible to move ahead with the contract as interpreted by the client. If so, then they could make it clear this was an exception and the client was getting a tremendous amount of additional value. And, if not, they could apologize and either offer a partial refund or come to some similar compromise before things got too far out of hand.

3) Lastly, the client could have been given a take-it-or-leave-it offer of what the consulting firm was willing to provide

With each silent acquiescence to the client’s request, the consulting firm loses the opportunity to explain the initial miscommunication or salvage anything from this particular client. It turns into an all or nothing proposition where they need to bend over and take it from the client until the bitter end or they can finally get fed up and fire the client. However, the longer the relationship has gone on, the more difficult firing the client is going to be, and the less likely a decent relationship can still be salvaged.

For this particular company it appears that at a certain point it just became too late and it was easier to ignore the problem and complain in private than to actually do something about it. Personally, I’ve been guilty of doing the exact same thing or of operating with no contract at all when it comes to smaller projects. However, from watching this unfold I’ve become convinced that it’s worth having an initial conversation with every future client before any work is done in order to go over the contract and make sure both parties are completely aware of deliverables, timelines, and expectations, and that we’re both speaking the same language when it comes to who is responsible for what. I don’t want to be a case study for poor client communication.

If someone gave you the winning lottery numbers, would you go buy a ticket? Personally, I might not. It would depend on a number of factors, the greatest one being whether I believed the person who was passing along this million dollar piece of information. Even if they are telling me something that could make my life considerably easier and lead to large amounts of cash, if I don’t buy into it then I won’t even take the time to run down to the store and put down a dollar for my winning ticket.

The same thing could be said for companies that hire consultants. There are a couple assumptions you can make when a company is either in the process of hiring or has already hired someone as a consultant.

1) There is a problem

Unless the company is putting someone on retainer to poke around and tell them how great everything is, then chances are the consultant was hired for a specific reason (or reasons). Most likely there is something the company feels is not operating very efficiently, a task they didn’t feel confident tackling on their own, or a specific skill set they are looking to improve. And…

2) They are interested in finding a solution

It seems reasonable to assume the company wouldn’t be paying good money on a consultant if they didn’t feel like there was a strong chance they could make some improvements to whatever problem they are facing. Otherwise, why bother in the first place? There’s minimal value in having someone point out your battery is dead unless you’re ready to get out the jumper cables and get it working again.

But, the fact of the matter is, a surprisingly large amount of companies that spend serious money on in-depth reports with numerous recommendations end up scrapping the vast majority in lieu of either sticking with the status quo or hiring someone else so they can repeat the process. I have a few theories on why this might be:

1) The implementation would be too costly

4) The company doesn’t trust you

Looking at the first two reasons, it seems kind of counterintuitive to even hire a consultant in the first place if you aren’t going to be able to tackle any of their recommendations. It’s sort of like going to a doctor and then refusing treatment. Why not just save yourself the energy and skip the process altogether? Similarly, if it’s likely the company won’t be able to afford the manpower required to implement any changes, then why bother having someone lay out all the things that can’t be fixed?

But, while the first two reasons fall squarely on the shoulders of the company, it’s the last two that are of more interest, since they revolve around the consultant’s direct interaction with the client. Both of these last two reasons have an awful lot to do with the consultant’s ability to communicate with the client and whether the information was presented in a way that makes sense, is reasonable, and is persuasive.

The consultant could be pushing a client to make some simple changes to increase traffic, boost conversions, and increase revenue by 200 percent, but if they don’t clearly communicate the end result and why the process is worthwhile, it’s likely the client will be resistant to making any changes.

Some consultants tend to speak above their clients in an effort to show how knowledgeable they are and make sure the client is left impressed and feeling like they must have hired an “expert.” However, the reality is that these type of relationships rarely seem to generate results for clients, as they’re left with a lot of advice they don’t fully understand and no clear point to start tackling any changes.

However, as is the case in most industries, there is a fair amount of people with questionable ethics and little to no experience in generating actual results. Sometimes these people can be extremely successful over short periods of type by using charisma and shiny graphs to impress prospective clients. However, there is also a chance that the glossy sheen will fade rather quickly once the client starts asking additional questions and is not satisfied with the answers they receive. In this cases, it makes sense for the client to simply scrap the consultant and move onto someone with a more established track record of success. Sometimes you get what you pay for, and it’s fair to be skeptical of anyone who can’t offer specific case studies and a record of proven results.

The best consultants are like a good teacher, and they don’t just focus on explaining the “how,” but they also make sure to communicate the “why” in a way the client will understand. If the client truly believes in the solution, they will most likely bend over backwards to try to implement whatever changes they need.