I cannot thank you enough for the feedback, thoughts, and observations; the depth of consideration shown here is stunning to me, and I will be passing all this on to key people in my office; we frequently encounter projects of this nature and I know we’ll do better next time.

Ford’s direct advice to me was fantastic; the dollar auction helped frame years of experience in a way my gut knew but that my head hadn’t gotten around (lesson: become the guy holding the auction!).

I very much like the Tommy’s reference to the UFC, Angus’ no-leave-behind approach to proposals, and everyone’s observations about board politics.

For what its worth, I did make efforts to reach out to each of the board members I’d met, independently from my aquaintance, in an effort to gain perspective and build a relationship (friendly emails with an article or some other attachment related to the project). The odd (and perhaps blessed) thing was that my contact seemed defensive about this effort, and sought to limit it. I don’t know if he felt threatened by it, or jealous, or embarrassed, but it added to my growing unease about the situation. But yes, generally I felt like I wanted to know more about the board, and wasn’t effective about getting that knowledge; next time I’ll be more senstive about this, and more aggressive in getting that info.

Its been a few weeks, and I feel more strongly that, once I’d decided to no longer compete on their terms, I should have simply stated as much, but who knows: part of me feels like that would have burnt a bridge, and as someone said, you never know when they may come back.

I thank you all so much; I hope I can return the favor someday, and if anything interesting happens will provide an update.

Best!

“Steve”

Steve, here are my initial reactions:

1> Yes, the client’s use of your materials without your permission was ethically questionable, but I don’t feel highly sympathetic on this count. If it had worked in your favor, you probably wouldn’t have complained. I suggest putting a copyright at the foot of each page of your proposals to provide a slight protection.

2> I think you were dealing with a naïve client who didn’t realize the costs they were asking you to incur and, unintentionally, were placing you in a Dollar Auction (see my Feb. 11. ’08 post “Beauty Contest or Dollar Auction” for an explanation). If so, you were wise not to play. In the future you might–might–want to try educating the client. (“Thank you for the consideration, but I will have to think about whether it is good business for us to respond. Complying with your request could cost anywhere from . . .”)

3> You had an enemy on the selection committee. This is not unusual.

4> Clients choose whom to hire on their feelings and justify their decision with logic and facts afterwards. It sounds as if you won the logical battle, but lost the emotional war. Also, not unusual. You are in good company. Did you do your homework on what each committee members was like and wanted, so you could appeal to each one? That is key to winning.

Ford Harding

This is more good advice from someone who experienced rough and tumble selling. Have you noticed how clients aren’t as quick to help you raise your prices as they are in helping you lower them?

Ford Harding

I echo others in emphasizing the internecine workings of nonprofit boards (spent 15 years on one). I’m assuming the ‘second effort’ was vetted by the ‘friend’ on the board as being legit – Steve is silent about that. If the friend confirmed that there was still a very good chance for Steve, Steve should have known very clearly why he was brought back – what hiccup with the other vendor had occured after the initial turndown.

This is a good idea, though I suspect you would agree that can be hard to hold to, if the client says a proposal is essential.

celt365

You’re dead right that this will happen and experienced to get over it quickly. Your advice to know at what price you will fold is also good. Steve should definitely in touch with the client.

Steve Condon:

No doubt your questions include: Who else will participate in the decision and how?

Tommy:

I do agree with seeking a clear advance with the client at each stage. I have heard good things about Sandler, before and am glad you got value from the program. Note that other sales programs also suggest you get increased commitment from the client at each stage. It is a good practice.

Ford Harding

Generally speaking, once a proposal leaves your hands, it is the property of the potential client. They can (and will) share it with anyone they choose. Unfair/unethical? Yes. Will they regret taking the lowest bid when they start recieving the change orders asking for more money? Yes. Here’s where Steve comes in…

Steve, get to know the other members of the board. Remain open to the possibility of getting the project anyway in the future. Often, once a client starts recieving change order after change order asking for more money for the same amount of work you originally proposed for the true cost, they will start to see you in a better light.

Bottom line:
Be honest about time and cost. (yes you will lose projects at first but will soon have the reputation of not “lying” to the client and clients will, if they’re smart, start to appreciate this.)

Be open to future work with a (still) potential client. Keep in touch and keep building the relationship(s).

Know who the real decision makers are. In a “board” situation, inside politics are key players. Factor them in.

and finally… know your own limits and who you want to spend your time and effort on. Sometimes you just have to let the potential client go.

Good luck and find a way to laugh at the insanity of consulting.

I don’t think this was hopeless. I think Steve relied too much on his contact and didn’t get to know the board members sufficiently. If (if) he could have done that, he might have isolated the one who was against him.

Ford

You’re right. Clearly there are times when the dice are simply loaded against you. And in fact there was a third benefit to the UFC process that I omitted that addresses that:

3. It makes it clearer, more quickly, when you should drop a given opportunity

Sandler’s UFC approach can (so the argument goes — I’m not, nor am I affiliated to, Sandler) expose the problem, either through the client being unable or unwilling to commit to the necessary quid-pro-quo in the first place, or through them reneging on it after committing. Either way, it’s both a warning sign, and it provides for a more graceful exit. In fact, if done well, the *client* exits.

And of course the benefit of that is, you waste less time and emotional energy on the inevitable.