[fat0wl]

Hmmm my gut says A. When you give a quote it sets up a reasonable expectation and even if you go over-budget clients usually understand if you don't deviate by too much.

With B you have to pull the trigger on it all-at-once so I feel like it leaves you more inclined to bring the price down to avoid sticker shock.

"A" probably has a better "return customer" conversion rate too, no? Because they weren't on as much of an emotional-financial roller-coaster, it was just the execution of a process understood by both parties. So I'd guess with A you have a better shot both at short term money and future endeavors.

How did it work out really?

[larrys]

You are correct it is "a".

Reason was simple.

Customer was under duress and needed to get a job done. You stated a price and they accepted that price. That agreement was important.

With "b" - "whatever it costs is ok!" they could come back and say "Wow I didn't know it would be that much". So even though most people would go for "b" my experience was "a" was better.

Of course now if I wanted to argue the other side I could say if you really were trying to jack up the price than "b" might be better. Why? Because you are jacking up the price so if the customer say "I didn't know it would be so much!" you have some flexibility to throw them a bone and lower the price and make them happy.

My attorney on bills typically puts in all the hours he spends as "time spent, time billed" giving you some idea that you are actually saving money. As if he is cutting you a break.

"and future endeavors"

Right because you managed expectations successfully. Same reason perhaps paying $35 for parking is not the same as getting a $35 parking ticket.

[fat0wl]

Heh right on I actually thought of that flexibility / throw them a bone bit after I already posted. I think that's the abstract bit, is that these things need to be negotiated in real-time for it to make any sense. If you find you're doing too much work or it's something that requires a lot of specialized knowledge, you need to get that level of pay while having it make sense to the client. I know some people try to whine that this amorphous rate idea is sketchy but then I hear stories about freelancers & small web ventures trying to do psychotic shit like quoting 2k/month for "site maintenace" or getting a 5k contract for "SEO". I deliver MUCH better quality of service to my clients than these "professionals" who are trying to set up bunk service contracts as sources of recurring income. The reality is you need to have your client's trust. I do the best work I can & if I feel I deserve extra for a job and can justify it, by all means I say so and negotiate it. And I do something similar to your lawyer in that I don't bill for email/communications unless we have time blocked for a longer meeting, so it's hard for the client to ever feel as if they've overpaid. 15 minutes on the phone every day or so on the job I let slide. Then I log most of my hours by task. What I want is to deliver them value so they can succeed and give me more work. Most clients can appreciate that.

Man I like your attitude larrys. Business really is an art, & I think my role model is kindof like "Better Call Saul" but without the illegal activities. He starts off as a sketchy, unlikable guy but then you notice that his clients are always satisfied and they are all well-paid. :D

It seems much easier to reach that type of relationship by doing some high-velocity business rather than dragging the process down &, as you said, letting everyone dwell too much on $$ signs.