[dragos2]

This makes sense, but unfortunately not all clients are inclined into accepting propositions like these. Some clients do the research and design internally and then they hire a "consultant" to do the development part of the project.

I consider that the term "consultant" is used to freely and most of the time clients advertise that they are looking to hire a consultant when they actually want to hire a freelance developer.

[tptacek]

THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T YOUR CLIENTS.

If you want to work with them as "life support" for your practice while you figure out how to find the (innumerable) real clients that pay for business value, fine. But don't kid yourself. Call them "life support", not "clients". And just like a ventilator, staying engaged with life support is going to screw you up.

You cannot, cannot, cannot earn true market rates if your default position on incoming prospective business is "yes". You're going to say "no" a lot, and you're going to hear "no" a lot.

Fear of "no" costs more tech consultants more money than DOTA2 and Imgur ever will.

[dragonwriter]

> I consider that the term "consultant" is used to freely and most of the time clients advertise that they are looking to hire a consultant when they actually want to hire a freelance developer.

For some bizarre reason, "consultant" has taken on in common use a meaning approximately equivalent to "contractor", which has nothing to do with whether the work being contracted for is consulting or not.

[tptacek]

I really think the idea that "consulting" is some special thing that "contractors" and "freelancers" can't do is harmful. In the sense we all mean it, "consulting" just means "being smart about what services you provide and at what price". It's the equivalent of product management in a product company. If you're serious about being independent, you have to do it. Now.

[dragonwriter]

> I really think the idea that "consulting" is some special thing that "contractors" and "freelancers" can't do is harmful.

Most consultants are contractors (whether they are also freelancers or not depends on whether they are individual contractors or are contracted firms), though there are some cases where internal employees job function includes consulting for some other internal group than the one to which they directly report.

But not all contractors (freelance or otherwise) are contracted to consult, and those that aren't contracted to consult shouldn't be called "consultants", in the same way that people that are contracted exclusively for tasks (including consulting) that don't include developing software shouldn't be called "software developers".

[tptacek]

See, now I think you're using the term in a subtly different way than Brennan is. Brennan couldn't have sold that Access to Web conversion deal as a pure consulting project, in the Arthur Anderson "split up implementation and consulting" sense of the term.

Everyone working independent needs to think of the business value they're creating; they need to think about their services the way product managers think about Feature/Function/Benefit charts. We call the people who are good at this "consultants", even when most of what they actually do is (say) Rails apps.