Sometimes turning down a client is more profitable than taking them on

When you first start a business, you take on any client who will have you. Over time, as you build your client list, you get leads for new work and new clients without really doing much work beyond advertising on your website.

But now, you have to evaluate whether you want to take this new client on. While they are deciding whether to hire my company, I am also deciding whether I want to work for them.

If a new client says they are shopping this around, I always run the other way. I want our company to stand out from the pack and if I can't convince them via the website or discussion, I generally just decline the work. It takes time to make a proposal and most times, some shoddy operation will give them a better price so why waste the time? It's more profitable to spend that time on more qualified customers - they will be easier to deal with and will most likely pay on time. Those initial meetings can tell a lot if you read between the lines.

Similarly, if you take on a new client and do a phase 1 project and the client expects it fast and cheap and you kill yourself doing it and a few glitches happen on rollout and the client flips out - forgetting about what it took to deliver something workable so fast, why do a phase 2 for them? These are the kind of clients who will end up suing you at some point.

Thirdly, if someone in the company is a big booster for some other technology ("I love php & perl and it can do everything I need"), I always tell them, "Ok, great, do what works best." If you have confidence in what your product does well, you can tell them that it does that well. If they are in love with something else, fine, let them do something else.

This attitude could be construed as giving up when the going gets rough but it's actually putting your energy toward the best result and the best clients and pushing away the rest. Why deal with a painful client or project if you have a choice?