#agency-life
Sponsored by Campaign Monitor :partying_face: Many thanks to the CM for helping us keep this community free! CM was founded by two agency founders looking for a better email solution. It was engineered for agencies from day one (way back in 2004).
Thread
Hey agency folks: A huge potential client (been at the contract signing phase for a few weeks) is asking to see accountability on our part in the contract (we do SEO). We have a clause that says:
SEO-related Services are purely based on theory of current search engine algorithms and best practices, and FCM does not guarantee the effectiveness of Services for increasing search engine rankings.
That's there mainly to cover our asses in case something goes wrong, the client is asking:
We would like to see accountability on Flying Cats' to add a KPI on expected Traffic - New Users to this clause* *and remove/edit this current term. Your teams have made estimations on the traffic potential in the proposal and following advice, we would need to see this outlined in this contract under Clause Eight.
What would you do in this case?
This is obviously hugely specific to your agency, your processes, the legal framework and your relationship with this client, but since you asked what I would do...
First, I would not put that in the contract. The fact that any marketing service provider cannot guarantee success should be assumed and I feel that writing it down is inviting the client to nitpick at it. It’s not like the lack of results could be considered a breach of contract if that clause wasn’t in there (right? ).
However, changing it now would probably not reflect well on me. Instead, I’d try to address the issue with the client, get them to share their underlying concerns and brush the clause off as a technical formality that doesn’t mean our agency would lack accountability.
I would not put any kind of traffic estimations in the contract.
I also wouldn't add it. We can all understand where they're coming from, but we also all know that isn't how SEO works. See if there's another way to assuage their concern they won't get chewed out by their boss if this doesn't go well. Perhaps there's an out clause or something similar you can add or point to?
I wouldn't guarantee anything like that. Too many variables (e.g. if one of their team adds a noindex to blog posts and tanks rankings, you're still accountable because of that clause). I'd probably tell them that they'd be better off with another agency if clauses like that are essential, doesn't matter how big the contract was.
I hate to agree with everyone else, and I know it sucks to potentially lose the client, but it's unreasonable for a company to ask you to put that in the contract. You don't control SO MUCH of how traffic comes in that you can't promise anything specific.
It seems like a trust issue. Does the client trust that if things don't go the way you expect initially, you'll do whatever you can to address the issue and make it work?
You could try offering monthly check-ins as part of the contract. I'd even go so far as to set KPIs and make it clear that you're going to do your best to hit those goals.
But if they want you to add an “out” based on meeting or not meeting those KPIs, it's a no go for me. I'd have to turn down the contract, too.
I hope you're able to turn them around! If anything, you could even leverage the fact that multiple agency owners have confirmed this is not a reasonable contract item.
Let us know how it goes!
Yeah, no way. If they’re starting out with a trust factor this low, they’re going to be a painful client all around.