In the world of Excel consulting, it’s interesting how two people can have dramatically different experiences with the same tools in the same industry. Recently, I came across advice on LinkedIn from two respected Excel experts–Oz du Soleil and Alan Murray–who caution against working for free or accepting low pay. Their message resonates: if you set a precedent for free or cheap work, clients may always expect that from you, potentially typecasting you as “cheap.” This is solid advice for many, but in my own professional journey, I found the opposite to be true, and I believe the reasons behind this difference are worth exploring.
Oz and Alan’s experiences highlight a common pitfall in consulting. Many consultants struggle with clients who don’t fully value their expertise and see them as inconsequential or replaceable. But my consulting career path, spanning since 1996, has been defined by something different: creating value beyond what was initially asked for, expected, and thought possible. In doing so, I never felt constrained by a low initial rate or expectations of cheap work. Instead, I built relationships that thrived on delivering transformative solutions. As I said, solutions that management had been told, by their expensive experts, were ‘not possible with Excel’.
Take, for example, a low-paying charity role I took early on in my career. Despite the modest pay, I saw an opportunity to help them in ways they hadn’t even anticipated. By offering solutions that integrated data systems they struggled with, I tripled my rate within days–not by asking for more money upfront, but by demonstrating value the organization didn’t even know existed, possible, easily achievable. And this wasn’t an isolated case. In other roles, clients quickly realized the advantage of keeping me onboard, indefinitely, increasing my pay as my innovative solutions saved them time and resources. And the higher pay was simply the going rate for that kind of value-creation.
This leads to a fundamental question: Why are my outcomes so different from what Oz and Alan describe? Is it luck, or is it something else? I believe the difference lies in what we bring to the table beyond the scope of a typical assignment. In my cases, I didn’t just fulfil the role I was hired for–I expanded it, identifying inefficiencies and solving problems they didn’t know they had. In most cases, the client simply abandoned the technique they originally had in mind to adopt what I had quickly demonstrated as a proof-of-concept.
So, what can we learn from this contrast? I believe it’s vital for consultants to show their clients more than what’s on the surface. The key isn’t just in negotiating a higher rate, but in reframing your value. If clients see you as a problem-solver who can innovate in ways no one else has, they won’t just pay you more–they’ll seek you out for higher-value opportunities, and higher pay will follow.
My journey was built on recognizing the gap between what clients thought was possible and what I knew was possible, what I could demonstrate and provide. It’s the difference between being a mere contractor and becoming indispensable from being ‘The Only Game in Town’. To those who worry about working for low pay, I say this: look for ways to deliver more value than the client expects, even in low-paying roles. (Look out for the Michael Junior case. This is where MJ made himself redundant and became a highly paid individual whose talents are sought-after company-wide) Doing so will shift the narrative. You’ll be seen not as someone who works for cheap, but as someone who can drive significant impact. That’s when the real negotiation begins, and that’s how you ensure your career trajectory mirrors mine, and not the frustrations Oz and Alan describe.
You were listening to a podcast by Hiran de Silva. Read by Bill
Add comment