| > so you have at least some protection. Protection from what exactly? > Without multiple clients you are super fragile, don't have a strong negotiation position and in case of any kind of headwind you're immediately on the ropes. Not at all. I can walk away and I have my financial reserves. My negotiation position is stronger than when I'm an employee. > If you insist on doing long running contracts try getting two that do not overlap in terms of run-time, make one two days a week, the other two days a week or three days a week and bill the smaller job a higher rate. This sounds like an absolutely terrible idea. I'm not going to undermine myself like that. > They could stiff you on a bill and it would already pull you under water. One (very small) client did stiff me on a bill. I won't work for them anymore, and I tend to prefer larger clients now that simply do pay their bills. I have considered suing them, but the amount was too small to be worth it. It didn't pull me under water. |
I think jacquesm is advocating that you have multiple sources of income (clients) to protect from the possibility that you lose your one and only client and suddenly have zero income.
I take a different approach to my consulting. It sounds like you do too. I typically have just one client, but I charge them a metric shitload and tell them quite specifically that I do that in part to protect myself should I need to go months and months without a replacement client. Obviously there are limits to this and I'd have zero clients if I charged too much, but between that and a savings buffer built up from previous clients, I don't feel like this is a precarious situation at all.
But I also have to admit/concede that I do not think my advice is replicable. I only started being so aggressive about my rates once I already had the privilege of being able to survive for years without any income. For someone who _needs_ reliable income, jacquesm's advice is probably more useful than mine.