Best practice for a typical 30-minute consult with a prospective client looks like this:

• [3 minutes] Small talk. Build rapport.
• [15 minutes] “How can I help you?” Download client issue.
• [5 minutes] “Why are you seeking external help?” Understand value
• [5 minutes] Share your experiences. Demonstrate authority on the issue.
• [2 minutes] Set next steps. Tee up a proposal and next meeting.

This format works. I’ve used it myself many times.

Outcomes:

• Information is exchanged.
• Engagement match is established.
• Next steps arranged.

Tone of interaction: Transactional

​

Let’s now imagine that same initial meeting, but with a client who found you because of some IP you shared publicly (e.g., a framework you posted on LinkedIn, a mental model you discussed on a podcast, or a theme in your email content).

That 30 minutes might go like this:

• [3 minutes] Small talk. Rapport.
• [2 minutes] Client segues into their problem based on your framework (IP)
• [10 minutes] You ask questions to understand pain, urgency, and context
• [10 minutes] You and the client apply your framework to their situation in real-time together
• [3 minutes] You explain a typical engagement structure for this type of problem
• [2 minutes] Next steps

Outcomes:

• Your POV has permeated through the entire exchange
• The client has now interacted with you as a thought partner
• The client sees a solution to their problem with you at the center

Tone of interaction: Collaborative

​

Between these two sets of outcomes, which would you rather have going into a second conversation?

💡

-Wes