Paradigm Shifts for Techs Part 5: Cheap Clients-hardware is a commodity, excellent customer service is not
By Derek Iannelli-Smith, IT Strategist, Progressive Integrations, Inc.,
Question: What do you think my approach should be to introducing this new service (managed services) to “cheap” customers?
You make some great points, and I am quite familiar with them. Considering most of our clients are consumers, I hear them regularly, which is why educational marketing is the key (http://computerrepairblog.com/paradigm-shifts-for-techs-educational-marketing.html).
Nickel-and-diming clients are easily handled with proposals/quotes, and a good disclaimer statement upon acceptance of 80/20, for instance my proposals and quotes state: “If you accept this proposal/quote, we require 80% up front and 20% upon completion of the project. If you would like to pay by credit card, we can also accommodate that for you, please touch base with billing/finance to work out details.” Why do I do this? For the exact reasons you mentioned (not paying their bills after repair/project), but also because I already wear enough hats, and bill collector on top of tech/sales does not lead to a good relationship. I used to spend more unbillable time discussing billing/finance than actually doing work in some cases which caused me to shift away from being bill collector. Further, I want to be their tech (good relationship) and ‘rescue them’ which most of the time turns into a billable hour versus having to deal with distractions.
I recently fired a client because he was exactly like you described (client went on Amazon and tried to nickel and dime us and jeopardize our Cisco relationship) and I said the following to him; “It sounds like we are not a good fit, and I can recommend many other companies in the area for you who seemed more suitable to your needs and demands. If you decided to use Progressive Integrations, Inc., for your networking, know that our prices are final, our relationships with our vendors supersede potential clients and are not up for negotiation. We appreciate your understanding with this.” He sent me another email, and made another call (both non billable) and I deleted them and moved on to other venues. The $1600 quote was not worth it for the hours of whining and complaining I had already dealt with.
Bryce at Technibble wrote on this very topic at the beginning of the year: http://www.technibble.com/surviving-in-a-world-of-cheap-hardware/
Question: Which remote desktop client should I use for increasing my bottom line with clients?
Personally, being an ACRBO member, I do not use the logmein as the subscription price was horrendous compared to team viewer (who are now partners with us). 1x fee, and I install the ‘free’ version all over the place and copy my client’s (with their permission) log on id, and I can do so much more than logmein. Further with a registered version, I can retain an automatic entry of the machine, and with one-click, I am on their machine. I minimize my overhead so that I am not always concerned with the bottom line and can focus on customer service versus paying bills.
For instance, my first goal when I was given leeway to develop an IT Business for our company was to cover my expenses. I found that the only way to do that is to do managed services, as it is reliable reoccurring revenue that pays the bills while I spend my time on marketing, break fix, and block hour clients. To directly address your ‘cheap customer’ problem. I educate them, and when they refuse, I gladly remain firm with my flat hourly rate ($139) and realize (as Dan Hand and I agree) they will come back after geek squad, uncle ferd, or when they mess up their machine, and what they are going to have to learn is that I told the truth in the first place. Good client testimonials remind you (and them) that you are a professional, not eBay. This too is very similar to the ‘bartering’ question, and I thought “Freelance Folder” also affirmed and expressed similar sentiments as well: http://freelancefolder.com/what-would-you-tell-this-client/
[1]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.









