I believe that from several times I've read through freelance-related discussion on this site that the recommendation is explicitly not to charge per project. The reason being that it can be very hard to estimate the total time required for the project. Additionally, once a customer has payed they might say "oh, we though you knew that this (previously unmentioned) feature was required when we paid you." Scope creep, tweaks, rewrites, and any change in customer expectation hits your pocket, not theirs, when you charge per project.
When you charge per hour you make sure you are getting payed for all the work you are performing. However, I often see it recommended that you charge per week (best) or per day (next best). I believe the rationale behind the per week (or per day) pricing model is that it weeds out the customers that are just looking for the cheapest labor they can find, leaving only those that are serious about a project and can commit to paying reasonably for the work.
then you split the project in two: first part is just analysis, paid per hour, with one deliverable: the scope and exclusion document. the second part can be fixed price based on your estimate from the first part. all the risk for both parties are minimized, and if it doesn't make them happy, they're the kind of client that wants an ambiguous fixed price project precisely to milk you the most work possible, so no loss in losing them.
Per project is dangerous. Consulting clients will change their minds frequently and you'll want to give them the latitude to do so, which means you simply can't estimate the time needed to complete a project without adding X00% on top to compensate. No one wants to have the "this is out of scope, I'm happy to do it but we need to talk about an amendment..." conversation.
Per hour is not adequate for this type of work; you're delivering a product or service that will increase your client's bottom line, you're not a seat-filler who punches a clock. I charge in the smallest increment of time that I believe I can provide a meaningful impact or deliver a complete solution. When asked for a quote I translate my billing into weeks, as in $X000 per week. Accounting for admin tasks and paperwork, back and forth emails and phone calls, plus showing off the work completed and waiting for approval/notes, a week often seems like not enough time (I can't count the number of times a client asking for a simple font change took literally a week to order and get approval on). There are very rare instances where I know I can accomplish a task in days instead of weeks and if the client asks, I will bill in days instead.
"My rate is $X000 per week and my initial estimate is that this will take XX weeks to complete. I require an up-front retainer of X weeks to get started and I bill every two weeks after. Who should I address the initial invoice to?"
I would typically never reveal this tip, but here it goes: "I bill weekly and my normal rate is $X000. For you I would be happy to reduce that to $X000-20%." The client is told up front that they are getting a discount without having to ask for it and the Discount line item on the invoice(s) very much help in getting that invoice paid faster. The secret is that the rate quoted is always 20% higher than what my ideal number is. I make it rain discounts on everyone.
No one wants to have the rate conversation but I've noticed that clients who don't shy away from that talk or flinch at your rate will not be a problem. Clients who complain that you cost too much will be a problem. Politely suggest you are not a good fit for their project and end the call, you're better off. If you get to the point that your non-flinching clients say yes a little too fast to your rate, increase it. You want a little resistance, but not much. Saying yes too fast means you need to charge more.
And lastly, this is not about what work "costs" or "market rates", this is about what your completed solution is worth to your client and how much it will increase their bottom line. You're playing a different game so stop charging like you're mowing lawns or digging ditches. Charge more.
I’ll second what Greg said in his sibling comment. One of the mental models I’ve learned is that if someone offers you a deal and you’re not special in any way, it’s not a real deal or there’s something more going on. “I charge everyone else X but I like you so you’re getting Y” screams scam/tactic/etc., and as even you pointed out, that’s basically correct (on the tactic piece).
That being said, if you’re working with someone who actually deserves a discount - a client referred by a friend, a startup on a budget, etc., then it’s totally fair. I’d just be wary of tossing around discount claims to everyone.
Strongly agree with this, over hourly or project-based. I do monthly instead of weekly, but idea is the same.
One thing I disagree with is the automatic-discount thing. Firstly, I think it's cheesy. Makes me think of street vendors saying "...But just for YOU, I have a SPECIAL price!" Secondly, I think it cheapens the perceived value. As in, "Why is Joe throwing around 20% discounts? Is he desperate? Is he not confident in his abilities?" Etc.
I think I get what he was saying. I would say the discounted number instead of saying anything about percentages. Round up whatever that number is to nearest hundred. Saying $x748.35 is your weekly rate does sound kind of sad versus $x800. As an example. Still sounds professional.
> Saying yes too fast means you need to charge more.
In this instance what’s the tactic to increase the price you’re quoting the client? Are they not going to think it’s weird you’ve changed your mind about the price?
Per day, week (better), month (even better) - and it should NOT be assumed that you work "full-time" (i.e. 8h per day). With this setup - you untie your work from exact hours spent, and retain the flexibility of adding more days/weeks/months to the bill if there is more work than expected.
How do you prefer the client from thinking your going to work 8 hours a day, 40 a week, etc? Or even worse, expect they get you for more time in the day or week? "I'm paying you x got today, here's 12 hours of work..." Or think they are v trading dollars for your labor and if you finish early on a day, go take out the trash and clean the bathroom. Obviously you define what work will be performed. Just wondering and looking for what language people use to address these issues. Thanks.
Don't know the ideal scenario in the tech industry but in the advertising/marketing industry, it's useful to charge by a project.
One may try to calculate (in their mind) how much time they will take to complete the project and then quote a fixed amount based on the no. of hours that came up.
I've made movies and software. I'm extrapolating from movie experience to imagine I know something about marketing and advertising.
I'd feel more comfortable presenting a fixed project quote for a creative project than a software project, because in the case of a creative project I can choose to dedicate a fixed amount of time, and have the result - to be judged subjectively - that I was able to produce in that time.
In the case of software, I would need to keep working until it objectively meets requirements. The quality of software I deliver doesn't degrade smoothly under time pressure, it falls off a cliff.
an essential aspect of fixed hour contracts is that requirements need to be sorted from the most critical to the nice to have and the client needs to be prepared to drop the nice to have if the budget doesn't stretch to them
which is the whole point of the agile manifesto
which is why agile fails under most circumstances, as having fixed time, requirement and budget but under scrum and sprints is anything but agile.
One difference that comes to mind is that while in advertising / marketing you'd need to get what your clients offer, what they'd like to be offering, and how to work with them, in tech you'd also need to understand how it is currently done. The fact is, it's often a mess, with lost, fragmented and conflicting knowledge.
And while both need to deal with unclear goals, figuring out what it is the client and truly needs, in one case you're selling what they have, or what they are, in the other you have to make something they want and will be able to use, support and sell.
That's very often a tremendous amount of uncertainty to work through.
My work has mainly been with small businesses on limited budgets, so while an hourly rate might be agreed, I'll also agree to be realistic about limiting costs. Here communication and trust are key, we'll discuss core essentials, nice to have and blue sky dreams, we agree to a fixed limit on costs, I start the project, then, once I'm 20% or so into the budget I'll go back with a clearer picture of the project and the client can decide to spend more, or cut back on non-essentials, at this point the level of trust is high, they know I am keen to deliver good quality work while respecting that the cost needs to reflect the benefits and the mutual understanding of what we our aiming to achieve has been reinforced.
As far as I understand it depends on the kind of projects and how repeatable they are. If you automate large parts of the labor that go into them you could have an advantage by keeping the same price tag.
- what if you found an even faster way and did it in 30 minutes, do you charge half that?
- what if it takes you a bit longer, 2 hours, is it fair to charge the client 2x?
The point is, the client wants a car, not an hour of car-making.
Also, the moment you provide an hourly rate you get compared to other hourly workers, whether it’s fair or not. “What?! $100k an hour? Even our lawyers cost less!”
