When a Big Client Keeps Pushing Your Price Down

A service provider at one of my live sessions described a difficult negotiation. A multinational company was his largest client, and it kept pushing him to accept a deeper discount. He wanted to preserve the relationship, but he also had people doing the work and a business to keep healthy. The company had much more leverage than he did.

I suggested that he change the question. Instead of arguing only about the number, ask the buyer what level of service they expect at that number.

“Come back to them and ask how important is service to you.”

What I learned from a team I hired

Years earlier, a team in Pakistan helped me with digital work, including animation and technical production. Roughly sixteen people were involved, but I spoke mainly with two contacts and negotiated with the lead. The first price he proposed was much higher than I expected. I asked him to think it over and come back with a figure he considered real. The next day he offered a substantially lower one.

I believed I could have negotiated further. I did not. My priority was a high-quality finished product and a team that would give the project careful attention. I agreed to pay more than the lowest price I thought I could get and made my expectation clear: I wanted to be a priority, and I wanted revisions until the work met the standard we had discussed.

As I described it in the session, the arrangement worked for both sides. The team stayed engaged, and I could speak with the lead when a problem came up. I did not need to win the negotiation by paying the least possible amount. I needed the outcome that mattered to me. That is the same distinction behind the carpenter story, where I paid for a reliable return visit.

Let the buyer choose what they value

The service provider's client wanted a better price. I proposed that he describe two possible arrangements. At one price, his company could reserve capacity, respond quickly, and handle changes promptly. At a lower price, the client would get a more limited level of attention. The details would have to be honest and workable for his business. The point was to make the trade-off visible before anyone agreed to it.

A large buyer may ask for the lowest price out of habit. When the supplier spells out what priority service requires, the buyer has a more useful choice to make. That conversation also protects the supplier from promising an expensive level of support at a price that cannot sustain it.

The difference should be concrete: which response times and resources can I commit to under each arrangement? The business relationship is stronger when both sides know what they are buying. I use the same principle when I set expectations before work begins.

His particular negotiation

The participant said he had worked with this client for a couple of years. He had already offered a discount, and the company had countered with a much deeper cut. The contract represented a substantial share of his revenue, so walking away was not an easy answer. He also believed the price they wanted would make it hard for other suppliers to do the work well.

I advised him to keep the relationship in the conversation. He could say that he wanted to continue serving them, explain what their latest request would mean for his team and service, and ask whether that was really the arrangement they preferred. He did not have to invent a new number on the spot. He could say the requested cut was too much, give his reasons without accusation, and invite them to return with a workable proposal.

At the time, we also discussed inflation, currency, labor demand, and alternative opportunities. Those were conditions he had to assess for his own company in 2022, not timeless numbers a reader should reuse today. The durable question is simpler: what service can I responsibly deliver at this price, and have I made that clear to the buyer?