3 ms·
The comments here demonstrate one way in which larger companies are not as nimble as smaller companies. I feel like no one read the part where Hootsuite got a
by dimino 10y ago
The comments here demonstrate one way in which larger companies are not as nimble as smaller companies. I feel like no one read the part where Hootsuite got a substantial amount of additional business from the client as a result of regularly scheduled meetings in a semi-informal context.
The gamble here is exactly what seems to be getting missed -- paying the opportunity cost of additional gains during negotiation, and in return receiving more face time with a current client, who might offer additional partnership chances later.
This isn't suggesting you trade your services for dinners, it's suggesting you gamble on yourself by embedding semi-informal regular meetings with your clients into your contracts. It doesn't have to be a steak dinner, your client doesn't have to be the one paying, what matters is the social bonding with current clients to expand your relationship with them.
- jessaustin 10y agoI think some readers might have been confused by the fact that TFA called the other party a "vendor", when they might be more properly called a sales channel. HS is like a tiny little Chinese manufacturer that has somehow gotten Wal-Mart to pay for a regular steak dinner, at which the diners discuss how the manufacturer might get more stuff on Wal-Mart's shelves. So this clause is definitely a win for HS.
- dimino 10y agoI like to imagine Hootsuite's contracts are comprised entirely of what they'd buy with their money, rather than for the money itself. "And on the 4th day of each month, you agree to send us six rolls of toilet paper, double ply. In addition, you will send six boxes of napkins, as well as four boxes of tissues." It... kind of cuts out the middleman, right? I guess?