When two strangers meet over purpose, specialty is the base assumption. It is because a client needs what a developer can do. Specialties in this case being money and skill; respectively. In itself is a delicate balance and industries dedicate entire complexly named departments manned by expensive personnel just so they can get it right.
Most clients want value and need a product. Value is a simpler paraphrase which translates to; getting the most for the least amount of investment. A lot can go into this decision but the base of it is efficiency. The reason most clients approach developers is because they need to introduce a simpler more accurate method of performing the same tasks. Consequently the client might reduce the investment in labor or simply get more done for the same investment. Both are growth.
The developer on the other hand wants maximum compensation for time spent on project but needs to pay the bills. At the bare minimum the developer needs to eat and pay for stuff just to exist and develop. In this case, a developer’s bills have a portion in consequent pricing. Growth for a developer is higher compensation for similar time put in.
The two postulates now set the ground for establishing lines. The haggle begins.
The developer simply needs to know the worth of work in relevance to the concern work. If the needs are simple enough and the client’s net worth is still in a fragile growth state then bare minimum charges do suffice. If the client’s worth has already settled to a point where the demands carry expectations beyond a base scenario, then perhaps charging bare minimum is a gross mistake.
A lower net worth individual has less to loose and is much more likely to take risks as well because of this. Part of the risks incurred includes the mitigation of middlemen. These type of clients prefer direct contact with the developer and agreements simple as possible. High net worth individuals on the other hand might only know the name of the company doing the project; if they need to. Between them and the developer is a whole host specialist intermediaries like the product designer, lawyers and accountants.
Following all these is the next series of risks to elicit fear. They involve delivery. Is the client rich enough to afford the developer? Is the developer’s skill good enough for the money?
High net worth individuals enjoy a net of safety which is based on past experience. Chances are, they have been in scenarios where the risks did not favor them hence the need for intermediaries. They lower the investment value since the same product now costs more but in return get the safety of delivery. The developer also has some confidence in the net provided in terms of payments.
Lower net worth individuals suffer for developer suspicion. Most of the time, this region of worth tends to push boundaries by sneaking in more requirements during developments in the hopes of getting more than originally agreed. Should they afford to pay for the additional development efforts, then this is usually not a problem. Most however interpret this as exploitation and that is the end of that.
There exists a golden zone where in rare cases, high net worth clients meet master developers. In this case, a rapport is all that’s needed. A lot gets done within a very short time. It is ethics which cast industry doubt.
When a party presents false facts to the other; ‘deliver and I’ll pay’ and ‘yes I can do this’ yet this an eventual impossibility is all the wrong. From this we get a snowball effect; good developers get more referrals which turn to more higher paying hours whilst the reverse holds true. Clients with questionable intents end up with a bunch if incomplete projects which are large unusable.
The balance is; fragile.