When can accepting a client indiscriminately be risky?

Not so long ago we found ourselves having to deal with a customer that proved to be very demanding right from the sampling stage: endless exchanges of emails and continuous requests for quotations without (on its part) any clear ideas. Requests that inevitably ended up implying hours of extra work for us.

Then, as often happens, once the quotation was finally accepted, delivery times suddenly become extremely urgent.

I wanted to start with this example to explain that 

there are customers who prove to be exceptionally demanding at a support and assistance level.

Let me explain. Given the nature of their business, it is enterprises like MICROingranaggi that find themselves, even on a daily basis, having to deal with customers who, at least initially, require a certain type of consultancy support, which begins with analyses and feasibility studies and peaks in the drawing up of a highly detailed quotation (which often requires the involvement of third parties). And so far nothing new, because it is normal and physiologically part of standard business. Generally speaking, all the initially invested hours of work are recovered (and therefore offset) in the subsequent production phase. 

The problem is that this is not always the case. And especially in recent times, we have realized that situations like the one I mentioned at the beginning of the post have witnessed an exponential growth.

Customer management has become far more complicated and, in some cases, leads to a certain level of exasperation.

To the extent that 

accepting a customer indiscriminately can be risky.

Despite the fact that, for the majority of us, it is very difficult to pass on a possibility of earning an income, I sometimes think it is more sensible to say no. Especially because there are certain cases where there is no tangible profit at all. 

Some of you commented on something I posted some time ago where - more specifically - a disorganized customer, can “from its dominant position”, spread this “disease” to well-organized enterprises”. So, disorganized customers are now classified as risky customers when it comes to accepting orders.

The same applies to customers who request (and sometimes even demand) deliveries with lead times so tight that they are far beyond reasonable. Or those who are not willing to pay for the quality of a product or service.

Trustworthiness is another one of these characteristics: if it is difficult to establish a trustworthy relationship with a customer, more than likely it will also be difficult to maintain a good working relationship over time.

I am convinced that the turnover that a customer allows us to generate is not the only indicator we should focus on. It is also highly important, for instance, to draw up a profile of the other party and, above all, assess whether or not we are dealing with a collaborative and competent individual.

By cross-referencing values such as the level of commitment required, the potential growth and margin that a certain customer can allow us to achieve, it is possible for instance to draw up a sort of ranking of a company’s customers, which allows to obtain a clear picture of the overall situation, and help us understand in which direction we should channel our energy.

So, if a customer makes a substantial contribution to turnover but, at the same time, is very demanding (for example at a customer support level), then perhaps it makes more sense to invest and dedicate more attention to a customer who may even be invoicing a lower amount, but with a better balance between commitment and profit.

Customers who constantly and transversely create management problems (in any of the product realization phases) are, all said and done, a burden that is not really worth bearing. Am I wrong?