I recently conducted a small experiment in respect of the remuneration for our services. Two shareholders of a relatively small business group asked me to help them settle their relationship. Simply put, they wanted to go their separate ways.
At the time, I was feeling somewhat disgusted with the constant pursuit of maximum revenue, and so I included a short sentence in our agreement regarding the fees: “The adviser will only be entitled to remuneration if the relationship between the shareholders is actually settled, and the amount will be derived from the benefit perceived by the shareholders.” In other words, we stipulated remuneration only in the event of success and at an amount the shareholders themselves would be happy to pay. In general, I always try to ask clients how much they think the service they are requesting from me is worth to them. After all, this is also an important indicator of how to provide the respective service and what the client is expecting.
Once the settlement agreements were signed, I asked the shareholders about the benefit we had provided to them and how much I should charge them. The shareholders were of course either reluctant or unable to state an amount. In most cases, the answer is that I should set the price myself. The value of the settlement was CZK 12 million, so I said that we would invoice 1% of this amount – i.e. CZK 120 thousand – and the clients agreed. I was very surprised when one of the clients called me about an hour later and told me he had been thinking about the remuneration and suggested that we could round it up to CZK 200 thousand. Of course, the difference was not the main issue. I was glad that the price was not determined through long negotiations and haggling, that it was not too high for the client, and that they did not perceive our service as a necessary expensive evil but one that was an integral part of the relationship between us and the client – and that it clearly did not leave any unpleasant aftertaste.
