(This post is another in our series of Rainmaking Problems. We invite your comments on this problem and would also welcome any problems you would like to submit to get comments from other readers.)

I recently received this problem from a reader in New York, whom I will call Steve . I have blinded it to protect the anonymity of those involved. Steve wrote:

I came across your blog this evening as I sought answers/understanding for a prospective job that went south. Perhaps you can use this for your Rainmaking Problems; it’s at least cathartic to type this confessional and I thank you for your indulgence.

I first met the prospective client, a [charity organization], in the summer of 2008, introduced by an acquaintance who was a member of the board and said they were looking for [the kinds of services we offer]. I had two good meetings with them, developed a thorough and very reasonable proposal, and was led to believe that we would be authorized to start work soon.

After a few weeks of being told approval was pending, my acquaintance informed me that the board was also talking to other [firms in our field] - and that they’d used my proposal as the basis for these conversations (after stripping any identifying or cost language). I felt this was somewhat unethical but I was interested in the project and didn’t make a protest.

After many more weeks, the board apparently narrowed the selection to us and one other firm. My acquaintance sent me a copy of the other firm’s proposal - the language of the scope was nearly identical to ours, but there were many more restrictions and [their cost] was higher. The other firm, however, had strong allies on the Board (so says my acquaintance) and they were awarded the project. I was a gracious loser, sending notes thanking everyone who’d I met, and genuinely disappointed not to be doing the work.

Then, a few days later, my acquaintance calls to say they want to see us again. We put together a new presentation to support our proposal and I’m told we were far superior to the other guy.

I reach out to my acquaintance to learn the verdict, and he tells me they want us to return again, this time [after doing some upfront work at our expense to get a sense of our approach] - no decision yet.

At this point, five months since the initial meeting and one apparently rigged loss already, I’m a little frustrated; given what had happened with my proposal am distrustful of their motives in seeking new original content; and feel [preliminary free work] would be grossly premature & would foul the planning process should we actually get the work. However, I accept the invitation.

I elect to not provide [the free work] and instead focus on planning issues, as if it were the beginning of the work as layed out in my proposal. The other guy comes in with a dog & pony show and gets the job.

So after mulling this over, I feel the critical moment was when I accepted the invitation to return the last time; that everyone would have been better served by me challenging the need to return and by me saying flat-out that thought we’d already made our case and wouldn’t be doing any [free work] (sounds arrogant as I type it!). Or perhaps we should have thrown together a dog & pony show too, but I still believe this would have come back to haunt us had we landed the job, and really would have stung if we’d lost.

Was it right to feel squeamish about the way they appropriated our proposal? Was it right to feel frustrated? Was this job better not to get, or was it even possible to get?

My gut tells me we were being used to make the rigged choice shape up, and that we should be grateful not to have gotten the job, but still, I know there’s an improved me that would have found a way to handle this better - and would be interested in a true Rainmaker’s perspective.

I have sent Steve a preliminary response, but think he would welcome the chance to hear other people’s assessment of the situation, before they are biased by mine. What are your responses to the author’s questions?

(This post is another in our series of Rainmaking Problems.  We invite your comments on this problem and would also welcome any problems you would like to submit to get comments from other readers.) 

In my last post, I argued that often the suggestion to hire a business developer is no more than a way to avoid taking responsibility for sales. But business developers can be highly effective at professional firms, increasing lead flow and helping to land new clients and new work. So, when should a firm hire a business developer? I would value your opinions.

(This is part of my series on Rainmaker Problems. I hope you will leave a comment with your thoughts on a solution to this problem.)

At any one time a professional in a mature practice is usually pursuing several opportunities. That not only diversifies risk, but also reduces pressure to win any one of them. To get to this state a professional building a practice almost always passes through a period when there is only one big lead. The pressure the professional feels to win it can be counterproductive.

Lenore is the primary salary earner in her family, juggling the demands of being a mother and a professional. She joined a new firm eighteen months ago. At the level at which she was hired, she is expected to bring in about $1 million in fees a year. The year is not off to a promising start, and she feels tremendous pressure to generate business quickly. Her client base from her former firm is largely irrelevant to her current situation.

Lenore’s most immediate problem is lead flow. Two weeks ago she had
leads for two assignments, each worth about $250,000 in fees, and having potential for significant add-on work. She lost one two a small competitor, and so is down to one. That one she generated at a meeting with the CEO of a client company to discuss a current assignment. She introduced a subject not on the agenda and found he was looking for help in that area. She will be making a competitive presentation on her firm’s approach to this problem and its capabilities in a couple of weeks. Afterwards, win or lose, her lead count will drop to zero, unless she can turn up some more in the interim. That fact intensifies her need to win this client to a degree that does not help her.

What can she do to reduce the pressure or to deal with it effectively?

(Got a problem selling professional services? Feel free to email me your problem and it may become a future “Rainmaking Problem of the Week.”)

In a previous post, an exchange of comments among Andy Hoye, David Harkleroad and me brought to mind an issue that has troubled me over the years. As noted in many posts (see, for example, Mark Buckshon, Bob Burg or Tim Klabunde) on many blogs and as I have described in my books, networking is based on the belief that if you help people, the help will eventually be returned by some of them in the form of new business and referrals.

Though in each case you may give without expectation of return, it is consciously a numbers game; you count on some people giving back some of the time. You may give generously to many, but you also give sagaciously, looking for opportunities to give to buyers and influencers. You seek out stable, mutually beneficial relationships where you give back and forth over the years.

My question: At what point does this sort of mutual help cross the line and become unethical?

The term, reciprocity, doesn’t have negative connotations to most of us, but it certainly does in the professional purchasing world of corporate buyers. That should caution us, because ethics in buying behaviors is central to that profession. Earlier in my career I knew a facilities manager at a large corporation, whose handicapped son drove a specially designed van donated by a group of suppliers to the company on a major building project. Each had anteed up a part of the cost. Generous, yes, even heartwarming, but I cannot believe that accepting this gift didn’t have some impact on his judgment when making decisions about hiring professionals, thereafter.

We can, of course, draw a continuum between buying a cup of coffee and buying a beach house. And money isn’t always involved in the exchange. In recent posts I described how to help a contact’s child find a job. I like giving this kind of help—who doesn’t enjoy helping a young person get started in the world—and have never been given business after doing this, but I am aware of how grateful parents are for this help. Bluntly, I am asking, when does help become a bribe?

This is not just an issue with clients and prospective clients. In a previous post I wrote that ethical concerns about referral fees keep me from accepting them. But is a referral fee so different from a relationship based on back-and-forth referrals? I always refer people who I believe to be of high caliber and right for the client need, but I also refer those first who have been helpful to me.

Enough agonizing. What do you think?

Here is another of the rainmaking problems that I offer as topics for discussion. I hope you’ll offer your suggestions in the comments.

One way to make it through this recession, when clients are no longer buying what you have to sell, is to innovate. That is, you figure out what they do want and create a service to deliver it. Doing this not only improves cash flow, it also strengthens the firm by diversifying your offerings. It will help your firm come out of the recession stronger than it is today.

Maybe. But hunger spoils our judgment. Eager to avoid a financial crisis, professionals sometimes overreach, taking on business they shouldn’t. If the work goes poorly, they lose the client and dent their reputations. That makes it harder to get other clients. As the old saw goes, among our most important decisions is deciding what business not to take.

So, how do you tell an opportunity to innovate from an overreach which you will regret making for the rest of your career? How do you know when your need is compromising your judgment?

(Got a problem selling professional services? Feel free to email me your problem and it may become a future “Rainmaking Problem.”)

Every other Thursday, I present a rainmaking problem for which I don’t have satisfactory answers. Here is another in our series brought to me at a coaching session by a professional whom I will call Hazel. I have seen this problem before and always have been uncomfortable with my answers. I hope you will offer your suggestions in the comments at the end of this post.

Hazel made partner at her firm about a year ago, after two back-to-back years of delivering over $3,000,000 in new business. Her biggest client in both years was an insurance company, where her primary sponsor was a man named Bill. Bill had also hired her to work on five matters already this year. Yesterday he called to inform her that he had been let go and set up a time to meet with her next week.

Hazel dreads this meeting. She knows she owes Bill a lot and wants to help him, both because she feels she has a debt to repay and because he has three small children at home. But she is reluctant to introduce him to her other clients.

After three years of working with him, she is all too familiar with his weaknesses. Though nice enough, he makes many sloppy mistakes and frequently fails to follow through on his commitments. A high-maintenance client, he requires constant attention and also takes criticism poorly.

There are ethical and practical aspects to her problem.

• The ethical problem: She owes Bill a huge debt. Without his business she would not have been promoted to partner. He has also served unfailingly as a reference. She made a significant mistake on one assignment for him, which he caught and dealt with generously. On the other hand, she also is indebted to the people he will want introductions to. And she owes her other clients and contacts fair treatment, too. She is uncomfortable giving Bill her implicit endorsement in a referral.

• The practical problem: She is most concerned about the ethical issues, but is naturally aware of the practical ones. Bill has already stated that he will give her business no matter where he lands. That pledge, she knows, would not withstand Bill realizing that she was withholding aid during his job search. If she refers him to another client who hires him, that client is bound to become aware of his shortcomings. If the new job doesn’t work out and he is let go, it could reflect badly on her.

I have been in a similar situation, myself, and felt as torn as Hazel does. What should a professional do in this situation?

(Got a problem selling professional services? Feel free to email me your problem and it may become a future “Rainmaking Problem.”)

Here is another of the rainmaking problems that I offer as topics for discussion. It’s one that I hate! I hope you will leave a comment with your thoughts on a solution to this problem.

I hate it! I just hate it! But someone always asks how big their network should be. It is a perfectly fair question. But I hate it, because my answer is so lame. It’s lame, because I simply don’t know. My fumbling answers usually start with, “That depends. On the one hand …” and are, at best, unconvincing. The other one I hear, “bigger than yours is now,” stinks of condescension.

It’s not only a fair question, it’s a good one. To be effective, networks need some bulk, because as a network grows, its power grows geometrically. Conceptually, at least, once your network reaches an optimum size, you can shift your focus to increasing its quality.

A few sizing parameters seem reasonable. If you sell a regularly recurring service, like accounting audits, your network needn’t be as big as the one needed if you sell a nonrecurring service. People who sell a lot of small projects need bigger networks than those who sell fewer, larger ones. Factors like these suggest that there isn’t one answer for all situations.

For the purposes of this discussion, a person’s active network will be defined as those business people with whom he or she has had personalized contact within the past six months in meetings, by phone or in writing (mass (e)mailings don’t count unless you have added a personalized note).

It would be interesting to learn any of the following:

• Research done on the effects of referral network sizes on their productivity. (There has probably been some.)

• Guidelines or methodologies for determining optimum network size. (There is a good chance that these don’t exist, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.)

• Your experiences with different sizes of networks. (Were there any tipping points or other indications that something significant had changed. Please note the kind of services you offer.)

I think this request is unusually difficult, so please don’t be shy about impressions, opinions and general comments on the subject. You can’t be doing any worse with this one than I am.

(Got a problem selling professional services? Feel free to email me your problem and it may become a future “Rainmaking Problem.”)

(This is part of my series on Rainmaking Problems. I hope you will leave a comment with your thoughts on a solution to this problem.)

Lest you think this case seem irrelevant to you, it is but an extreme version of situations many of us face when selling to a committee with some of the members attending by phone. By studying extremes we often learn things less apparent in milder versions.

A turnaround management firm we have worked with sells its services to committees of creditors. The firm is often asked on one-or-two-week’s notice to present to such a committee that will pick an adviser from three to five firms after all have made their pitch. Each firm is assigned a slot running anywhere from twenty to forty-five minutes. Most are at the shorter end of the range.

Perhaps ten to twelve members of the committee attend the meetings. They usually include a member of the workout department from the troubled company’s bank, representatives from major vendors and others. Each creditor usually has an attorney with him.

Now comes the hard part: The meetings are held by conference call with each creditor and the turnaround managers participating from their separate offices. The attorneys may also be attending from their offices or from the offices of their clients. Just imagine, a twenty minute presentation to anywhere from ten to twenty people, all attending by phone from separate locations!

I advised that in this environment the chances of winning go way up if you are well networked with the creditors and their attorneys before you even get the invitation. As true as that is, it doesn’t say anything about how you should manage the meeting, itself.

Any thoughts? How can the client shine in this difficult situation?

(Got a problem selling professional services? Feel free to email me your problem and it may become a future “Rainmaking Problem.”)

Among the people I am now coaching are two expecting mothers at different firms. Both are first time mothers. One made partner last year and the other hopes to be put up for partnership within the next couple of years. Both want to know what they can do to minimize the loss of momentum during maternity leave.

Surely, there are readers better qualified to answer this question than I. To be honest, I usually refer these cases to my partner, Mimi Spangler. Mimi suggests that it often helps to think in terms of things you can do in the three stages of maternity leave:

1. Before: How do you prepare your contacts for your absence and prepare yourself to maintain market awareness during your leave.
2. During: What must you do at minimum and what additional might you do.
3. After: How do you speed up your reentry into the market.

You men would do well to read the responses, too, because you may one day be married to or managing someone with this question. You may take a leave of absence, yourself, some day and have a similar concern.

What would you advise these women to do? Feel free to comment on all three of the stages or just on one or two.  In your comment please let us know of the kind of professional firm you work for.

In responding to my recent post, Rainmaking Problem #2: The Next Level of Blogging, Mel Lester raised several questions that reminded me of how I felt in my early blogging days.  (He wasn’t really singing the blues, but I liked the way the title sounded, so I kept it.)  I will give my answers to his questions.  If you disagree or have something to add, please comment below.

Who reads the blogs, especially new ones?  Are they mostly other bloggers, as the comments to early posts seem to suggest?

I don’t know for sure.  I believe that early audiences are made up primarily of people you have notified of the blog and other bloggers.  Bloggers are more interested in blogging and other blogs than are most people, so they are more likely than non-bloggers to come across yours.  Capturing a few of these as regular readers helps grow the blog because they are likely to mention your blog in theirs and to link to it.  This brings in more readers.  Early on, you should be targeting other bloggers for this reason.  More acuratelly, you should always be targeting other bloggers for this reason.  So, for example, you can comment on other blogs on yours with trackbacks to them.

Do buyers of your services read blogs?

Probably not, especially in its early months.  This is even more likely to be true, if your buyers are extremely busy people.  The older they are, the less likely they are to read blogs.

In that case, is blogging an effective means of connecting with them?

Like other marketing tools and techniques, blogging is most effective if integrated into a larger marketing effort.  Your buyers are more likely to see your blog, if you send them an email with a link to a post of interest to them.  If you can get your posts published in on-line newsletters, more people see them and some will be attracted to them.  Assigning posts as required reading in your training programs also reinforces your blog’s importance and its availability as a resource.  Through these techniques, readership grows little by little.  Good content speeds up the process.

Bloggers I talk to cite the value of blogs in making it easy for prospective clients to find their firm when using search engines.  (See The News from India: Blogging to Sell Professional Services and More News from Down Under: How Shawn Callaghan Blogs for Fun & Profit )When I search on Google for “management of AE firms,” for example, the first page includes references to Zweig White, PSMJ, Sullivan Keiss and others.  Your firm is found at the bottom of Page 3, in listing number 40, which isn’t bad.  If I do a blog search, it comes up on Page 1, listing number three, which is great.

None of this demonstrates the superiority of blogging over other routes to market.  Whether your time is better spent on it or some other activity, I don’t know and wonder, myself.