Which one do you think will make you more successful in the long term?
The second mindset—shifting from fear and scarcity to an abundant, value‑based outlook—is what will make you more successful in the long term. It’s harder because you have to keep improving yourself and your service, show up for the calls, make sure the automations work, and keep getting better. This will make you a better person and a better service provider; sometimes sparring in a harder arena is exactly what you need. Tactically, if I were only trying to squeeze clients for as much money as possible, I’d make sure I owned every part of them and tell them they can’t leave, but I’m not like that. I see far more long‑term potential in making sure the client has everything they need, is happy with it, knows how to use it, and thinks, 'Damn, Nick is awesome—I want him on my team and want to pay him even if I already have what I need.' I also really like the guy and want to see him succeed. Strategically, what keeps clients paying you is often that they lack the time, the energy, or the knowledge to do it themselves, they fear someone else running the automations on their team, or they want to avoid training and hiring costs. This mainly shows up with smaller clients making around $5k a month who are afraid to spend an extra dollar and would rather do it themselves, and those clients aren’t likely to win.
Oh, here we go again. Should I deliver the entire workflow to the client or retain control and run the automation on their behalf? Well, somebody spent 1.5 years getting really good at workflow automation but probably hasn't made any money with it. How much cooler would it be if you learned enough to talk the language in a couple of weeks, then just started talking to customers? You probably wouldn't have been in this situation. In 1.5 years you could have a big book of business with 20 clients. Time will pass anyway. A lot of lead generation mechanisms like cold email and Upwork just require time to pass while active. You might as well have planted a tree 20 years ago; the second best time is today. That's a good analogy. To answer your question about delivering the entire workflow: yeah, deliver it to the client. Then why would they need you? They don't need you for a one-off, but they'll want you if you make them choose needs and such. I get it; it's kind of a Machiavellian way to run the business—strategic and logical—but you don't build as much goodwill with clients and it becomes annoying working with them, especially with handoffs. So, what are you going to do? Hold the business hostage when they want to let you go? Or would you rather be in a situation where the client wants to keep you on because you constantly produce massive value? I like that situation; having a rising floor where clients want more value forces you to creatively find ways to deliver it. That's one reason I agree so quickly.
A common issue I always see is people tend to think it's X or Y. They have to do option one or they have to do option two. That there's a fork in the road where every downstream option is mutually exclusive. All options are not mutually exclusive. You can do all of the things that you want to do simultaneously. The main core bottleneck is actually just the amount of effective focused time you are spending working. And so it is almost not always like sacrificing X in order to do Y thing. It's not like doing outreach or working on your current clientele. It is doing both simultaneously. And the benefit to that as well is when you do more and you're constantly pushing your zone of competence and what you are comfortable with, you will usually find better and more effective ways of working as well. So in the case of you know a hypothetical fella that was asking me what should I prioritize? Should I, you know, try and fulfill this current client? Should I start outreach to other prospective clients? Should I like try upselling the client on some sort of, you know, thing that I have going on? You should actually and legitimately just do all three simultaneously. You know, we come from a line of people that had to hunt, they had to cook, they had to secure water, they had to tend to their families, they had to, you know, constantly defend themselves night after night. You can't you don't just do one thing. We're obviously highly specialized today, but there's 16 hours available in the day. Everything there would might only take you an hour or so. You still have a lot of time available, right? To go hunting your saber-tooth tiger or to go get some water. So hopefully that makes sense.
After hiring around 40-50 people for my agency, I've realized I prefer to hire last. The common advice to delegate everything comes from a time when technology couldn't handle much of the work, but today technology gives us leverage, so you can realistically wait until you're making around $50k/month before your first hire instead of $15-20k. Hiring early is often just a band-aid for deeper problems—if you're under $25k/month the issue is usually your systems, not a lack of manpower. Focus on building systems that reduce the work needed to fulfill: automate repetitive tasks like onboarding emails, scheduling calls, and problem-solving via email; design productized offers that take half the effort to deliver (e.g., a form that auto-generates a campaign, scrapes leads, and follows up); create scalable sales flows (a discovery/closing call batched together, a proposal, and automated follow-ups that stop when a deal isn't worth the effort). Make client management discrete—set a daily 8 a.m. five-minute template update instead of letting clients interrupt you on WhatsApp all day. Hiring early means giving up a large share of profit (e.g., a $5k salary is half of your profit at 50% margins) plus management costs and risk; it's better to wait until revenue is higher so the hire is a smaller fraction of margin. I pay a flat salary plus a clear, trackable bonus—staff log it themselves and add it to their invoice—avoiding profit-share or rev-share because they misalign incentives and add overhead. Finally, I only care about deliverables: if someone is intelligent and ambitious they can build their own systems to finish work in fewer hours, and as long as the output is good I don't track hours.
I start with a kickoff call where I deliver quick wins to minimize buyer's remorse, and I always take payment upfront before any work begins - never considering a client 'onboard' until the money is in my account. After receiving payment, I create a detailed proposal that serves as both a sales document and a roadmap. Roughly 60% of the proposal outlines the client's problems, demonstrating my understanding from any prior small project; about 20% covers the proposed solution; the remaining 20% discusses logistics, principally compensation. I typically pitch a large monthly fee - recently moving from $6,900 to around $12,000-$12,300 - and often add a revenue-share component to align incentives, inspired by the idea that sharing upside makes both parties more comfortable and can lead to more money. I discuss performance-based versus flat pricing, noting that beginners should lean performance-based, intermediates may go flat, and experts often return to performance-based because they have confidence in delivering results. Once the client agrees and pays, I invite them to a kickoff call to set communication expectations: I'm highly reachable via Slack (within 15 minutes) and hold daily office hours from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. PT, plus a weekly strategy session. I ask clients to commit to the same recurring time each week for at least 50 out of 52 weeks, emphasizing consistency so they take the calls seriously and see ongoing value. During each meeting I review wins from the past week, outline what I'll do next, and address any questions or fires, ensuring I always show up with something tangible to justify the retainer. I then follow the roadmap, checking off the 45-plus tasks in order, and optionally sync with the client's project-management system (though I've moved away from using my own ClickUp board as the single source of truth). I also note that other agencies like DesignJoy use shared boards, but I prefer bringing a quick note of wins and next steps to each meeting.