logo
5 Steps to Negotiate Confidently With Tough Clients

5 Steps to Negotiate Confidently With Tough Clients

Entrepreneura day ago

Negotiation should never be a battle. Follow these steps to shift your mindset and negotiate with confidence.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
If you're a founder, freelancer or small business owner, chances are you've had at least one sales conversation go sideways — and maybe more than you'd like to admit. After presenting your offer enthusiastically, the client counters with a laundry list of demands, challenges your pricing or continues to push for more without giving an inch in return.
Sound familiar?
In our work delivering sales training for entrepreneurs and small business owners, we encounter this scenario all the time. Many founders tell us the same thing: "I didn't start my business to be in sales." And yet, selling and negotiations are critical to your business's growth and survival.
The good news? You don't have to be a high-pressure closer or a natural-born negotiator to succeed. You just need a simple shift in mindset and a few proven techniques to put you in the driver's seat.
These five steps will work with even your toughest clients.
Related: Negotiation Basics: 8 Common Questions and Answers
Step 1: Don't negotiate too early
One of the biggest mistakes I see small business owners make is negotiating before the prospect is sold on the value of the solution.
Consider negotiation as the final step in achieving an agreement, rather than the starting point. If you start negotiating before the client is fully convinced that you're the right solution, you may end up giving away discounts, setting yourself up for scope creep or agreeing to unfavorable terms without receiving much in return. Even worse, you'll appear uncertain, and uncertainty kills deals.
Instead, wait until you've qualified and engaged your prospect and you have demonstrated clear value for your offering. That's your cue to shift the conversation toward finalizing the deal, rather than defending your worth.
Step 2: Define a "win-win" outcome before you talk numbers
Most founders want to be flexible and collaborative in negotiations, but that only works if you know what you need from the deal.
Before any negotiation, get clear on:
What's non-negotiable (e.g., your minimum price, legal terms, scope boundaries)
What's flexible (e.g., payment terms, timelines, minor add-ons)
What a "win" looks like for both sides
A win-win outcome means both parties walk away with value. That might mean agreeing to a slightly lower price in exchange for upfront payment (a trade-off) or offering an extra revision round at no cost (an embellishment) to sweeten the deal without hurting your margins.
Being prepared gives you confidence and gives your client clarity.
Step 3: Don't let personality hijack the process
I once worked with a creative agency founder who felt bulldozed in negotiations by a demanding corporate client. Every request came with a condescending tone. Every "no" was met with pushback. The founder was ready to give up the deal entirely — until we made one important distinction: the difference between the person and their position.
Negotiation is emotional, but it doesn't have to be personal.
If a client challenges your pricing or scope, they're advocating for their business, not attacking yours. Detaching emotionally lets you respond strategically. Instead of reacting to tone or attitude, stay grounded in the value of your offer and the structure of your deal.
Related: Negotiation Skills for Entrepreneurs — How to Craft Deals Like a Pro
Step 4: Use the power of trade-offs, embellishments and compromises
Every negotiation involves three variables:
Deliverables
Terms and conditions
Price
The key is to balance all three without caving on what matters most.
Let's say a client asks for a 20% discount. Instead of saying yes or no outright, respond with a trade-off: "We can offer a reduced rate if we simplify the scope or shift the timeline." Or offer an embellishment: "Let's keep the proposed rate, but I'll add in a 30-minute strategy session post-launch."
If you do need to compromise, do it intentionally and not reactively. Find the middle ground that protects your business while still moving the deal forward.
Step 5: Know when to walk away
No one likes losing a deal. However, chasing the wrong deals or closing them on bad terms can be even more damaging.
If you've qualified the prospect, demonstrated your value and offered reasonable flexibility — and they still demand more than you can give — it's okay to walk away. It's often the smartest move you can make.
One solopreneur I coached stood firm on her pricing after weeks of negotiation. The client walked away, but returned two months later, ready to sign at full price. Why? The seller knew her worth, and the buyer discovered that as well.
Related: 5 Negotiation 'Don'ts' That Must Be Avoided
You're not selling, you're solving
Negotiation should never be a battle. Instead, view them as a conversation about alignment. When you focus on solving your client's problems and the value you bring to the table, you stay centered, credible and in control.
If you want to grow your business, scale your agency or simply feel more confident in sales conversations, you don't need a slick pitch. You need a framework for value-based selling that works for you — especially if you're an introvert, a creative or someone who doesn't see yourself as a traditional salesperson.
Negotiating with tough clients becomes easier with the right mindset and tools. Start with preparation. Lead with empathy. Stay grounded in your value. Remember: Sustainable revenue growth is not about how many clients you win, but how you win the right ones.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M

Associated Press

time14 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M

The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___ AP college sports:

Vance says Musk making a 'huge mistake' in going after Trump but also tries to downplay the attacks
Vance says Musk making a 'huge mistake' in going after Trump but also tries to downplay the attacks

Washington Post

time25 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Vance says Musk making a 'huge mistake' in going after Trump but also tries to downplay the attacks

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Vice President JD Vance said Elon Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after President Donald Trump in a storm of bitter and inflammatory social media posts after a falling out between the two men . But the vice president, in an interview released Friday after the very public blow up between the world's richest man and arguably the world's most powerful, also tried to downplay Musk's blistering attacks as an 'emotional guy' who got frustrated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store