Sometimes an opportunity comes to do freelance work on an ongoing basis. But you have to work with one client exclusively.
There are several reasons a freelancer would find an exclusive client both appealing and unattractive.
The Cons of an Exclusive Client
The main disadvantage is the high risk to the freelancer who’s in an exclusive working relationship. With only one client, then all your income depends on that one client.
If you lost that client, then you’d be starting over with finding and building a healthy client base.
Plus, your freelancing business would only be a stable as your client’s business. If your client’s business starts losing money, or goes bankrupt, then you’ll eventually suffer as well.
Another downside is an exclusive client would tend to be more demanding of your time and attention. Because he or she has paid for your services exclusively, then your client may expect you to be at their beck and call at all hours of the day.
Sounds like employment, doesn’t it? But without the benefits of paid vacation days and separation pay.
The Pros of an Exclusive Client
On the other hand, having just one client can have its benefits as well.
Your work would be totally focused on that one business, that one client’s needs, personality and style. You don’t have to continually shift your attention to various clients. (But if you crave variety, then this is a con for you)
Assuming you have a long-term agreement with that exclusive client (and you should), then you can relax in marketing your services. This could free up a lot of your time and money. It also simplifies things like tracking your books, managing client files, etc.
Finally, if you had only one client, you can (should) charge a higher fee. The privilege of working with you exclusively comes at a premium cost.
Would I Do It?
Yes, I would accept an exclusive working arrangement.
IF:
- I can still work on my personal projects (such as my own blogs, webinars, etc)
- The client pays me enough to cover my risks. If the arrangement doesn’t work out, my fees should be able to tide me over for at least a couple of months until I find clients again.
- I love the work and the client. The client’s business should be exciting and worthwhile enough for it to be the single thing I’m thinking of all day. The client should be someone I like and enjoy working with. We should have chemistry.
Would YOU Do It?
Would you go into an exclusive working arrangement with one single client? Why or why not?
Let us know in the comments below.
photo credit: drcorneilus
Even with all the caveats that you have included, I am not sure I would do it. The client’s ability to drive down rates, the need to take whatever he/she offers far outweigh the security of regular pay. I mean, if that’s what you really want, why not get a ‘proper’ job?
For me a big part of the attraction of freelancing is the variety, the ability to work on a range of disparate projects – and the intellectual challenge that presents. Now, if only I could get the higher fees too…
Mike´s last [type] ..Ghost writer in the sky…
@Mike – Good point, Mike! Definitely some valid things to consider. Thanks for chiming in
Interesting question. Funny, I think that for me I wouldn’t work exclusively for one client. But many of my contractors work exclusively for me… hmmm…
Erica Cosminsky´s last [type] ..Getting Started
@Erica Cosminsky – Very interesting, indeed! Why is that?
@Emma – Another interesting viewpoint. What if your client needed 40 hours per week from you? Would you be able to handle other clients? (I wouldn’t, but then that’s me)
I wouldn’t see the point in saying the arrangement was “exclusive.” If I had a client that needed a lot of my time, then I would set aside (and be paid for) that agreed upon amount of time per week. (there could certainly be an agreement/contract for that) But then what I did in my other time would be none of their business! I would make sure to keep up with my other contacts and marketing and make sure I still had the potential for a thriving business without that client.
Forgot to mention that some corporate clients will even require you to work on-site, in their office, with their regular employees.
I think I might consider this as long as I could work on my personal projects (as Lexi mentioned in the article). In fact, I when I first left the corporate world to freelance full time, I only had one client and working with/for him was enough to pay the bills. We didn’t have an agreement because it just worked out that way. I still work A LOT for him as he has new projects coming around all the time, but I have found a number of other clients as well. I am working on a huge business launch with this original client of mine and he has mentioned that he may want to pay me a flat monthly fee. However, this arrangement will not be exclusive. I will continue to write for my other clients as well as find more, but work for him will definitely go to the top of the heap. Great post, Lexi!
Sam
@Samantha Gluck – Sounds like a good gig, Sam!
No, I wouldn’t work exclusively for one client. To me, if the client wants my undivided attention, then they need to compensate me as an employee – with all the benefits of such (I’m in the US so health insurance is a primary concern for me). It seems to me that a company looking for this kind of exclusivity is asking to have the best of both worlds: a full-time employee at the price of a freelancer.
Cindy Bidar´s last [type] ..Kid’s Birthday Party Ideas Article 10-Pack
I’m with Emma and Cindy. I’m not sure why or how a client would feasibly stop you from having other clients on the side (except if they are so demanding on your time, it’s prohibitive). In the case of them wanting a “full-time” commitment of 40 or more hours per week, the deal had better include health insurance or something REALLY good to sweeten the deal. Otherwise, why? I would neve sign something that says I couldn’t work for other people–maybe not their direct competitors or a non-disclosure, but one client cannot make that much of a demand on my personal time.
Ashley Bigham´s last [type] ..New Test Post
Definitely not – variety is the spice of freelancing and a diverse client portfolio provides protection from the vagaries of self-employed lift (not that I’ve had to worry about those for a while.) However, I’d miss the variety.
Sharon Hurley Hall´s last [type] ..Where To Find Back Issues of My Newsletter
I actually did this twice as a technical writer, but it was in the 1990s–Long before I started my freelancing business.
Both times, I went through an agency. The requirement was that I work full-time (8-5) at the client office during the project. I was referred to as “one of the contractors.” Although, technically, the second time I was actually an employee of the agency who placed me there.
Would I do this today? Probably not.
While I have no objection to meeting at a client’s office I have no desire to spend all day, every day there.
With today’s laws, I would also be concerned that an exclusive arrangement might get you reclassified as an employee (depending on the length and terms of the agreement), which could mean lots of red tape for both the client and the freelancer.
I would be very hesitant to freelance exclusively for one client, because I enjoy the variety of a diverse client base, plus it’s more stable than relying on one client for all my income. And as Laura points out, freelancing for one client could blur the lines between freelancer and employee. And I chose to freelance because I love the variety and autonomy of this business model.
Hi all, hi Lexi – great post! But I have a burning question. Would like to ask readers & Lexi as well. Since distance is no longer a problem nowadays, what if I work full time with a client 8-5 that is and his location is not within my country. Which labor law should I follow? His or mine?
Is it true that working online as a freelancer/contractor you are exempted from the labor laws? Just curious. Hope someone would give me some answers.
Thanks.
Hi Lexi, I guess I’ll go exclusive on a client given the reasons you wrote here. The risk is just high already when you’re freelancing and going solo on one client is like jumping off a plane without a parachute. I’ve been offered something like this before but I declined. Unless the client’s business and revenue source is stable as well, I might be tempted to say yes.
Hi Lexi,
I would not work exclusively for one client. That becomes a gray area for self employ-ed’s, and would certainly be questioned by the IRS. Working exclusive sounds more like W-2 than 1099. If a client is telling me how to do something and dictating hours then that is more like an employer and they need to be putting me on their books as an employee if that’s the route I desire to take.
Definitely not. The whole point of freelancing is that I can work with several clients. This serves two benefits: a variety of projects and a “hedged” approach to income. If I were to work with one client exclusively, I would have already sought conventional employment.
Michael Kwan´s last [type] ..Grammar 101- The Power of the Comma
[...] Savvy Freelancer asks her readers whether they would take on an exclusive client as part of their freelance work. For me, this sounds far too much like conventional employment [...]
I’ve done it and I would never, ever consider it again. There is no fee high enough and no client good enough (nor should their be) for you to give up the one true asset you have in your business: your independence of thought and action.
Never, ever again. PERIOD.