Archive for the ‘Pitching’ Category

I’m reminded of the old sex education message: Just say ‘no’!

As professional advisers we are all used to prospective clients seeking free advice. As I’m no longer in practice and as a frequent blogger I have very different perspective now. So here is some free advice from me.  When a stranger/prospect calls you need to set clear parameters. Why give any free advice?

I think the most common reason accountants give themselves is that it helps evidence their credibility, style, approach, knowledge and willingness to help clients.  In reality it is only the accountant themselves who doubts their ability and knowledge. The prospect generally takes all that for granted – after all our adverts or website makes clear we’re an accountant. All accountants know everything don’t they? We know this isn’t the case but prospects assume it is so.  Even more so if theye have been recommended or referred by a third party.

So accountants are generally proving nothing by giving free advice. They can evidence the other key qualities they want to exhibit without giving free technical advice.

I also tend to think that a side benefit of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation is that it gives accountants a statutory justification for any apparent reluctance to provide answers to technical questions before engaging a new client.  “I’m really sorry Mr Prospect but as a professional adviser I’m precluded by law from giving any advice before we’ve been through the anti-money laundering checks. I know it’s a pain but it’s the law.” The consequence of this will often be that you have engaged the client and secured their agreement to your preferred billing procedures before you give them any valuable advice. So the AML laws do have an upside after all!

Finally I would suggest you establish a process to qualify a prospect or to let them go elsewhere before you waste too much time on them. Initially you may want to qualify out time wasters on the phone. You will also want to determine what you need to cover in an initial meeting.

In many of my seminars I ask accountants if they offer a free initial meeting to prospective clients. Typically the answer is ‘yes’. “How long do you allow for such meetings?” Some put a cap on it. Others say ‘as long as it takes’. I ask the question – “As long as WHAT takes?” It’s not just about getting the prospect to want to appoint you. You need to find out quite early on if they can afford to pay the fees you would want to earn. You also need to determine if this is the sort of person you want to have a client.

Bottom line, I’d suggest you establish a process/checklist (that you will in time commit to memory) to use when you receive such calls in future and indeed when you have an initial meeting with a prospect.

The Telegraph Business club has produced a very professional film about a London based firm of accountants: Lubbock Fine.

As I watched this I initially felt sorry for the firm. Everyone on film was very positive but we could have changed the name of the firm to one of dozens of others and almost every single statement and sentiment being expressed would still have held true. Especially the so-called ‘ground breaking’ reorganisation  that resulted in a partner-led one to one service and joined up client services some years ago.

About 3 minutes into the film we learned about some of the firm’s genuinely unique (or at least less common) features – including their expansion into the old eastern block and the fact that over 50% of their clients are based overseas. Also their long term corporate sponsorship and their involvement with other worthy activities.

I was especially taken by Managing Partner Geoff Goodyear’s closing statements (6 minutes in). He talked about the obligations he sees for management to, effectively anticipate changes within the market and the need to “develop some skill sets that may not be available or required at the moment but you anticipate that they will be required in the future”.  I would like to think though that this too is the same as all other decent managing partners.

The example inspired by the film prompts me to highlight a number of points that I have mentioned previously on this blog:

1. Good professionals need to develop a variety of skills. Effective CPD is about more than simply keeping uptodate technically (see yesterday’s post: What does CPD really mean?)
2. Sometimes you don’t need to be different,  you just need to communicate what you do more effectively than your competition (and Lubbock Fine’s film is a great example of a firm doing just that);
3. Some of the things we think make us different are fallacies. Many firms of a similar size and age find it hard to identify REAL points of difference. In practice though this is  probably only an issue in competitive tender situations when comparable firms find it hard to distinguish themselves;
4. Lubbock Fine’s website highlights their specialisms in 6 key client areas.  Such an approach is bound to be more effective than trying to be all things to all types of clients.

I titled this piece – “How different do you need to be?”  What’s your view?  How different do you need to be?

One accountant I know advertises his services using what I think is a pretty good message.

He suggests to recipients of his ad that if they do their own tax return it probably costs them far more than they realise. More in terms of the opportunity cost of their time, the hassle, worry and the prospect of making mistakes.

In other words he’s advocating the reasons to use a professional. And he’s right of course.

On the other hand I noticed the same accountant plans to run his own telemarketing campaign. He may have a good reason for doing this but it seems like a big risk to me.   It seems he’s going to use untrained staff to make calls, using a script/approach that hasn’t been checked by anyone who understands what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to telemarketing.

Perhaps he has had a bad experience with previous attempts using so-called professional telemarketers. Perhaps they did not have the requiste experience, perhaps the offering was wrong, perhaps the follow up was inadequate, perhaps the pre-meeting confirmation with prospects was lacking, perhaps the accountant needs to develop better ‘closing’ skills. There could be all manner of things to tweak or test.

I suspect that the outcome of a DIY approach to telemarketing will probably cost the accountant far more than they realise. More in terms of the opportunity cost of their time, the hassle, worry and the prospect of making mistakes.

Imagine if someone who has had a bad experience with an accountant decided that all accountants were rubbish and decided to attempt to save money and to complete their own tax returns in future…..

It seems there is a tricky balance to be made here. I’ve written previously about how networking, whether online or offline, can be an effective way to secure new clients of the type you want – just as long as those with whom you network know enough about you, like you, trust you and know the sort of referrals that can help you.

I’ve recently seen the results of some research from the respected Kellogg school of management in the USA.  The Price of a Billable Hour – Social networks affect transaction costs. The summary is dated July 2009 but the research itself seems to date back to 2004 and thus pretty much predates the rise of online ’social’ networking.

Nevertheless, this research highlights what may be a key disadvantage of networking – especially online where we are encouraged to include social and personal material rather than to have a solely business focus. (Although I would always advise caution and remind you that anything posted online will be there for all time. It could come back to haunt you if it is too personal, unprofessional or otherwise indiscreet).

To paraphrase one key finding, the research suggests that you will charge lower fees to your friends than to clients with whom you share no social interactions. And put like that it’s almost obvious isn’t it?

In the UK, Barristers are often perceived to be more expensive than solicitors and, in general, they are perceived as less approachable. Is there a correlation?

One conclusion that could be drawn is that you will end up charging lower fees to clients ‘won’ as a result of relationships developed through ’social’ networking. I wonder whether, for example, regular attenders at weekly BNI breakfast meetings charge their fellow group members the same fee levels as would be charged to new clients who are total strangers? Maybe any reduction in normal fees is justified if the client in question is a regular and reliable introducer of new clients.

I’m curious as to whether real life supports the conclusion drawn from the above research. And how you feel about it.

I’d appreciate your views as comments below or by email to the usual address.

* Relevant previous posts include:

• 10 top networking tips
• People do business with people they know, like and trust
• Why gaining advocates is important
• Networking for professionals
• Networking mistakes to avoid

Over the years I’ve noted that accountants typically devote more time to networking with contacts and strangers (effectively) than they spend helping existing clients.

We’ve all heard the marketing gurus explain that it’s easier to generate additional fees from existing clients than it is to secure new fees from new clients – people with whom we have no prior working relationship. And this makes sense doesn’t it?

All other things being equal, a client who already knows us, likes us and trusts us is more likely to agree to pay for additional services if we take time to find out their needs and problems, than is a stranger.

So why do so many accountants spend so little time ‘networking’ with existing clients? Instead they spend time at marketing meetings and networking with contacts and prospective clients.  Much of this happens outside of the recorded timesheet day of course.

In my experience this happens because of an edict (or simply a perception) that:

• all time spent with client must be recorded on the timesheet; and
• all time charged to clients on timesheets should be recovered.

Quite rightly accountants don’t want to be pressured into billing clients for ‘marketing and networking’ time. Equally the accountant wants to avoid having to justify write-offs or unbillable client time.

Such attitudes are ingrained in the way that many firms of accountants are structured. As a result existing clients feel that no one cares about them, that the clock is always ticking and that they might as well talk to someone else about new issues, problems and challenges.  In effect the accountant misses out on additional fees as he or she misses opportunities to find new ways to help their clients. And the accountant literally wastes time networking with strangers because this is more acceptable within the partnership than spending prospecting time with existing clients (without putting time on the clock).

I suspect this is less of an issue in the case of sole practitioners – unless their timesheet habits have simply been carried over from when they used to work in a larger firm.

Incidentally – when you spend time with clients – it’s best to focus on finding out from them what’s troubling them at the moment rather than trying to sell to them. Find ways in which you could help them and whether they would like that.

What else could you do to reduce the downsides of your timesheet procedures?

Many commentators seem almost contemptuous when talking about accountants who focus on the provision of compliance services.

We’re told that fees are being forced down and that firms that focus only on compliance services face an uncertain future. I’m not sure I agree. If you have an established practice and know your clients well, you are not suddenly going to lose a swathe of clients who all decide to rush off at once.

About the only thing that could cause a speedy dissipation of your client base would be widespread publicity of your incompetence or negligence. Any other changes to your client base will be sufficiently gradual for you to take steps to stem the flow as and when it becomes necessary to do so.

Of course the better prepared and ready you are for such changes, the faster you will be able to adapt and evolve. I do think it will be evolution rather than revolution in this regard.

What will change first and fastest in my view is your ability to win and retain new clients if you and they are focused on compliance services. That means tax returns, bookkeeping and accounts preparation.

The issue will be the alternative ways in which these needs can be satisfied and the time and cost considerations of each option. Are you even aware of the alternatives to a traditional accountant? Again, many accountancy strategists have been predicting this development for years.

I do understand those views and I respect most of the commentators who encourage accountants to plan for the future. Indeed, I agree that’s a wise move, especially for larger firms where there is an inbuilt resistance to dramatic change. However, for most firms of accountants there needs to be something equivalent to a burning platform before there will be a consensus for fundamental changes. At the moment, few partners accept and believe that forthcoming developments will have such a big impact.

What do you think? Please add your comments to this blog post.

One thing that most accountants have to face is a desire on the part of their clients to pay less tax. In this context it can be helpful to ensure that clients appreciate what is and what is NOT possible/achievable.

For example is it legal to legitimately minimise your tax liabilities. This includes:
•    Claiming all available allowances and reliefs
•    Claiming tax relief for expenditure incurred “wholly and exclusively” for business purposes
•    Planning your affairs to keep your tax liabilities as low as possible within the law

On the other hand it is ILLEGAL to deliberately/dishonestly evade tax. This includes:

• Claiming tax relief for non-business expenses;
• Telling untruths on your tax return or in the way you describe transactions;
• Failing to include all of your taxable income in your accounts;
• Withdrawing money for personal use from an incorporated business (company) and not making any attempt to make sure it is treated correctly for tax purposes;
• Failing to declare all of your taxable income and gains on your tax returns;
• Failing to ask for or to complete tax returns to report your taxable income and gains.

The consequences of illegal activity include: Revenue investigations, back taxes, interest on late paid tax and penalties (up to 100% of tax), time, hassle, professional fees, and if you’re very unlucky, ill-advised or stupid – prosecution and prison.

Clients also need to understand that if they get involved in structured tax avoidance schemes they are also highly likely to suffer a tax investigation – even though the scheme may be legal and fully disclosed.

I almost admire one promoter who told me his approach. Apparently he explains that clients who would be worried sick by the inevitable Revenue enquiry, the letters, the demands, the time it takes to resolve and the inconvenience should NOT get involved in his schemes – even though he claims they are legal, have full Counsel’s opinion and are fully disclosed to HMRC.

He manages clients’ expectations and makes clear that the enquiries often last 3 – 7 years; and even though he claims they are usually resolved in favour of the taxpayer, he admits there are no guarantees.

I always mention this issue in my talks on ‘How to avoid professional negligence claims and worse‘. If clients have been forwarned as to what you can and can’t do there is less chance of them subsequently complaining.  In this context though I would refer you to an earlier post on this blog. (I told him. Once. 12 months ago. How dare he forget). It contains a salutary warning.

What do you do to manage your clients’ expectations? Please add your comments to this blog post.

Chatting with the managing partner of a top 30 firm recently I was impressed to learn about one of the processes he insists on in his office.  It concerns formal pitches that follow on from the submission of written tender documents. The teams involved in such pitches are required to rehearse in front of the managing partner.  The objective is to ensure that the teams are adequately prepared before they face the prospective client. This is a CRUCIAL stage in any pitch process.

It seems that I last addressed this point in a blog post over two years ago: Preparing tenders when pitching for work. Although I have also written over 40 subsequent posts containing advice on the pitching process.

Anyway, here is an update on my 7 tips:

1 – Remember that the written tender is like a CV. Its job is to get you to the next stage. Too long or detailed and it won’t be read.

2 – Try to ascertain with whom you are competing. Even if you don’t know for certain, you can guess – local competitors, bigger firms, smaller firms, a niche practice, a more general practice. Identify your relative strengths and be ready to refute any perceived weaknesses – from the prospective client’s perspective;

3 – Be consistent when you attend the formal pitch. If what you say you will do is different to what you promised in the written tender you will lose credibility;

4 – If you claim to be a team, be a team. If you’re not already a team admit it. Otherwise when it becomes apparent (and it will) you will lose credibility;

5 – Do not assume that everyone on the selection panel has read your written proposal – some of them may have just scanned it; Some may have been drafted in to add weight to the panel at the last minute. Even if you ask have they all had a chance to read it, be aware that few people will want to publicly admit that they haven’t given it the attention you think it deserved.

6 – Beware that at least one person will challenge something in the written proposal – be prepared;

7 – Plan for the face to face meeting. Anticipate the questions you’ll be asked. Ensure the team will give consistent replies;

It was in the context of this final point that I had an idea last week – when I drafted this blog post. It’s all very well insisting that the team rehearse their pitch and take questions from the managing partner but that won’t always be convenient. Also in a close knit team there may be too much familiarity and a lack of spontaneity. Maybe there’s a role for an independent to attend such rehearsals. I’m not saying I have a lot of time to provide such a service but I’m sure it would be very valuable were I to do so. What are the other options and how effective are they?

Whenever I ask this question during my seminars for accountants, very rarely does anyone answer ‘yes’.  I then ask a follow up question.

“If you did some work for a client but they weren’t happy because you made a big mess of it, would you insist on charging them extra to correct your mistake?”

Again we tend to have unanimity. No one would charge extra to resolve a mistake of their own making.  To my mind this is the start of a service guarantee. And it’s the sort of thing, which, if promised up front, can help generate confidence from prospective clients. I included a related point (about fixed fee guarantees) at the top of the list of examples I gave in a previous post on this blog: Is the way you describe yourself helping you to generate enough business?

Over the years I’ve often seen references to service guarantees on accountancy firm websites. I came across one last week and established that it wasn’t unique to the firm in question; Just put yourself in the shoes of a prospective client and consider how effective is the message below. It’s listed on some accountancy firms’ websites as one of the answers to the question ‘Why us?’

Our 100% Risk Free Guarantee…

Use our services to help you pay less tax and increase wealth, completely at our risk. Our services are so outstanding there’s a 100% Risk Free Guarantee.

Here it is…

If at any time you are not completely happy with our work please discuss it with us. If we really can’t sort the issue for you then don’t pay for the part you’re not happy with. Ask for it at any time within 30 days of the work and we won’t expect payment.

That means…

• No small print;
• No quibbles;
• No questions asked;
• No exceptions;
• No strings

I think it’s very cleverly worded and does put some (but not a lot) of responsibility on the accountant to achieve absolute clarity as regards the services to be provided up front.

How would you feel if a prospective client asked if you were as confident as this in your work? Or why should they choose you over another accountant that offers such a guarantee?