3 ms·
I am a "freelancer". I have discovered that billing by the hour is the worst idea. It creates the inherent conflict. Clients start resenting how much time it to
by pointillistic 8y ago
I am a "freelancer". I have discovered that billing by the hour is the worst idea. It creates the inherent conflict. Clients start resenting how much time it took you, etc. Instead always bill per job, unless impossible to estimate. Determine value acceptable to you and the client. Agree on lump sum and let chip fall where they may. Sometimes client wins, sometimes you win, in the end it all events out. More importantly you build a base for the next job where everyone agrees to acceptable fixed fee parameters and you can correct the fee estimate. Hourly billing is really wrong in my opinion.
- Spooky23 8y agoFixed fee is great as long as the scope is limited. Whenever I've hired companies to do stuff on a fixed fee basis, they typically lose due to unforseen circumstances.
- icoder 8y agoOne of my clients said the other day: "When working with a fixed fee there's always 1 party that 'loses'". I tend to agree, either it ends up more work than expected (freelancer loses), or (although in your experience that's less common) the freelancer learned from previous mistakes and overcharges. In addition, the upfront cost of specifying the job is also lost. This is not always trivial to 0do upfront, as both the world, insights, etc change over time (hence many have moved away from the waterfall approach).
- Spooky23 8y agoThe biggest thing is that flat rate doesn’t do is anticipate risk. If through nobody’s ill intent a task takes 5x longer or 5x less, it’s all swallowed up by the flat rate. That’s a feature for a productized service. It also works for well-scoped tasks. I wouldn’t pay someone by the hour to cut the grass.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pointillistic 8y agoOn assumes that there is always room for additional services. And unforeseen conditions.