List the ones you regret and look for what they had in common at the enquiry stage. Most difficult customers announce themselves early, and the signals are consistent enough to act on.

They are not random

Most businesses treat difficult customers as bad luck, arriving unpredictably and having to be endured.

Looked at across a year, they usually turn out to share something: how they found you, what they asked for, how they behaved before agreeing anything, or how the price was arrived at.

Which means they were partly predictable, and the prediction was available at the enquiry stage when saying no would have cost nothing.

That is the value of doing this once a year rather than resolving each one as it happens.

Define what you mean

Worth being specific, because several different problems get grouped as difficult.

Unprofitable: the work took far longer than quoted, or the scope grew without the price moving.

Unpleasant: the work was fine and the interaction was not.

Slow to pay, which is a separate problem with separate remedies.

And mismatched: perfectly reasonable people who wanted something you are not good at, which is a positioning issue rather than a customer one.

Those need different responses, so separate them before looking for patterns.

The signals that appear early

None of these is conclusive on its own, and any two together is worth slowing down for. The third is the most reliable and the most often ignored, because it is flattering to be the replacement.

The margin question

The half that is arithmetic rather than instinct.

Go through the year's jobs and estimate, roughly, which took materially longer than quoted.

Then look at what those had in common: a type of work, a customer type, a way the price was set, or a stage where the scope was never pinned down.

Frequently it is the same service, quoted the same way, going wrong the same way each time, which is a pricing or scoping problem rather than a customer problem.

That is a better finding than a list of difficult people, because it is fixable by changing how you quote.

A worked example

A firm listed six customers from the year they would rather not repeat.

Four had come from the same source, an advert running to a broad audience with no price indication.

Five had pressed on price during the first conversation, before the work had been described.

And four of the six were the same service, which they had been quoting as a fixed price for a scope that varied considerably.

They changed three things: a from figure in the advert, a rule that price is discussed after scope, and that particular service moved to a day rate.

The following year produced one difficult customer rather than six, and slightly fewer enquiries overall.

The owner's view was that the advert had been buying exactly the customers they did not want, cheaply.

Where they came from

The dimension worth checking specifically.

If difficult customers cluster in one channel, that channel is attracting them, usually because it says less about price, quality, or fit than the others.

A broad advert, a lead-generation platform, or a listing with no pricing all tend to produce more of them than a referral does.

That does not mean abandoning the channel, and it does mean qualifying harder within it: a price indication, a minimum, or a clearer description of who the service is for.

Referrals are usually the best-behaved source, which is an argument for the work that generates them rather than a coincidence.

Declining without giving a reason

The practical skill this review makes useful.

You do not owe anybody an explanation for not taking work, and attempting one usually produces an argument.

We are not able to take this on, we are booked until March, or this is not the right fit for us are all sufficient and complete.

Say it early, before a quote has been produced, since declining after doing the work of quoting is harder and more costly.

And offer a name if you have one, which turns a decline into something the person values.

The businesses that find this hardest are the ones with a thin diary, which is why the capacity and pricing work matters more than the confidence.

Fix it with terms, not judgement

The most reliable protection, and it does not require reading anybody correctly.

A written scope with exclusions, staged payments, a deposit, and a stated hourly rate for anything additional convert most of these situations from disputes into decisions.

Somebody unwilling to agree to ordinary terms has told you something at no cost, which is more reliable than a feeling about how the first conversation went.

That also protects you from the customers who were difficult for reasons nobody could have predicted, which do exist.

Instinct filters some. Terms handle the rest.

The counter-case

This can become a way of avoiding ordinary business.

Plenty of customers are demanding because they are spending significant money, and demanding is not the same as difficult. Some of the most profitable relationships are hard work.

A business filtering aggressively also needs the demand to support it, and a new or quiet business declining anybody who presses on price will be quiet for longer.

There is also a risk in pattern-matching people rather than situations, which is both unfair and frequently wrong.

Look for what the jobs had in common before concluding anything about the people, and prefer changes to your quoting and terms over changes to who you will speak to.

The review

  1. List the ones you would rather not repeat.
  2. Separate unprofitable from unpleasant.
  3. Check which service they involved.
  4. Check which channel they came from.
  5. Note what happened in the first conversation.
  6. Change the quoting for whatever recurs.
  7. Tighten the terms rather than relying on instinct.

Step three finds a pricing problem more often than a people problem, which is the more useful outcome.

What belongs in a small agreement is covered in a contract for a five thousand dollar project.

Frequently asked questions

Are difficult customers random?

Usually not. Across a year they tend to share how they found you, what they asked for, or how the price was set, and the signal was available at the enquiry stage.

What signals appear early?

Pressure on price before the work is understood, false urgency, detailed criticism of the previous supplier, reluctance to put things in writing, and wanting to start before terms are agreed.

What is the most useful finding?

That the same service, quoted the same way, went wrong the same way each time. That is a pricing or scoping problem rather than a customer problem, and it is fixable.

Does the channel matter?

Yes. Difficult customers cluster where less is said about price, quality, or fit. Qualify harder within that channel rather than abandoning it.

Do I have to explain a decline?

No. We are not able to take this on is complete. Say it before producing a quote, and offer a name if you have one.

What protects me without judging people?

Written scope with exclusions, staged payments, a deposit, and a stated rate for extras. Somebody unwilling to agree ordinary terms has told you something at no cost.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Six customers you would not repeat?

Check which service they involved before concluding anything about them. It is usually one job type quoted badly.

Start a Conversation