David A. Fields Consulting Group Last week we discussed the issue underlying every fee objection: fairness.
(If you missed it, take one minute to read this.)
Great, but “fairness” is a theoretical concept, like baking. Let’s make some actual cookie recipes.
In other words, let’s get down to scripts.
Your script starts with your prospect, Cudby Client, CEO of PretzelSuite, objecting to the consulting fees you’ve proposed.
No matter how she couches the objection, your initial response never varies:
You: Got it. You have some concerns about the fees. Do you have any other concerns with our proposal?
After you’ve surfaced every concern, you address them one by one, starting with a query like this:
You: Can you tell me a bit more about your fee concerns? It would be helpful if you shared what’s driving them.
Now we get to the meat of the issue.
Is this really a fee objection or a clarification of parameters? (The distinction was explained in last week’s article.)
Assuming you’re dealing with a fee objection, your script follows a four-point pattern:
- Agree
- Shift
- Support
- Confirm
Let’s continue your conversation with Cudby.
I’ll cover a few common objections to consulting fees and leave one for you to comment on.
Common Objection: Rationale
Cudby: The fees just seem very high. How did you come up with them?
You: <Agree:> Yes, they are high! At least I hope so.
<Shift:> Our consulting firm only takes on projects where we can create tremendous value for our clients and earn high fees along the way.
<Support:> We set our fees so that we both come out on top. You receive an outstanding return on your investment, and our firm is paid handsomely for helping you achieve the results we’ve talked about.
<Confirm:> Does that seem unfair?
Cudby: Oh, well, uhm. No. That seems fair.
Common Objection: Expectations
Cudby: It’s just a lot more than I expected.
You: <Agree:> Yes, this is a healthy investment. You’re right. That’s why it’s important that the project be valuable for you.
<Shift:> You had mentioned that the total value of increasing croissant throughput is $2M per year. Though our part in that is, of course, smaller.
Cudby: Yes.
You: <Support:> The approach we proposed was designed to help you hit those objectives. Does the approach itself seem right?
Cudby: Oh, yes. I have no problem with the approach. It seems good.
You: <Confirm:> Terrific. So, here’s the question: To achieve that $2M per year, does $200K seem unfair?
Cudby: No. Not unfair. Just expensive.
You: <We need to repeat Agree and Confirm:> Yep. It is. Is it too expensive?
Cudby: Oh. Well… no.
Common Objection: Competition
Cudby: You’re more expensive than other consultants. Why would I pay almost twice as much for you as for another consultant?
You: <Agree:> That’s a good question. If we’re all the same and every consultant is just as likely to deliver the result you want, then you shouldn’t.
<Shift:> Are you 100% sure that anyone can come in here and increase your throughput—after all, your engineering team hasn’t been able to.
Cudby: No. But everyone I’m considering seems good.
You: <Support:> No doubt. They’re probably very good. But is it okay if I show you the difference excellence could make for you?
Cudby: Please do!
You: <Support, cont.> We agreed that increasing throughput will generate $2M extra profit per year. Let’s say a very good consultant has a 90% chance of delivering your throughput goal.
Now let’s say my team, which is excellent, improves the odds of achieving that $2M per year by even a small amount—say, from 90% to 95%. That 5% difference in capabilities is worth $100K… year in and year out.
Cudby: Okay. The extra five percent of $2M is $100K. I follow.
You: <Confirm:> So, a small investment in excellence yields a much higher return in terms of final results. Does that seem fair?
Cudby: You’re still expensive, but yes, I understand. That’s fair.
Common Objection: Internal Staff
Cudby: I could hire three people full time for your fee.
What would your response be?
How would you respond to the “I could hire full-time staff for your fees” objection?
Text and images are © 2026 David A. Fields, all rights reserved.
im sure JP Morgan could hire 50 bank CEOs for less than what they pay Jamon Dimon too! Would the bank be as successful? Quality over quantity and ROI versus cost are most important!
Exactly, Frank! Plus, could you imagine having 50 CEOs? 😉 As you know, there is plenty of pushback on executive compensation too, and that pushback is 100% around fairness. This starts to get into societal issues, which is a whole other kettle of Cadbury bars.
I’m glad you weighed in with your smart response, Frank.
Yes, you could hire three people.
And then you would have to train them and it takes months to get them up to speed. Then you have that added expense for years to come.
Using our team can get the results you want now.
Wouldn’t that be a better investment?
Great job, Jay! You could lean into the agreement even further. “Yes, hiring three people is a legitimate use of the same investment and it has some advantages. You’ll have those people for life rather than just one engagement. But… you’ll have those people for life, not just for one engagement!”
Thanks for jumping in with an answer to the objection, Jay. You’re an inspiration to other readers too!
Yes, you could hire three people, but what level of quality do you need? Do you need warm bodies or something else?
(And I’m not sure how to work this into a sales conversation, but there’s a great video on YouTube illustrating quality vs quantity — Look up 100 children vs 3 pro soccer players)
That’s a great question, Sean. And you can ask it with genuine curiosity—maybe they do just need warm bodies or, better said, good-enough bodies. But in all likelihood they’re looking for something better, and better is worth paying a premium for. Letting a decision-maker develop that answer themselves is always better than trying to foist it onto them.
Also, great tip on the video. I saw a similar one that was a battle simulation of something like 10,000 Roman centurions vs. 100 modern infantry (all equipped with appropriate period armaments). In that case, the sheer volume on one side was overwhelming, but it was surprisingly close.
I appreciate your chiming in with your good thinking, Sean!
“You certainly could. Would their full-time job be to work on this problem? Is there a reason you haven’t hired them already?” (In my sector, my clients need a new approach or framework, but it wouldn’t make sense for someone to build that in-house. Sometimes I think of myself metaphorically as like a ballet coach for an NFL team. They know how to play football far better than I do, and they’re not going to put on Swan Lake. But the ballet training helps give them an advantage on the field, especially against teams with “standard” training practices.)
Great answer, Troy, and great metaphor too! You’ve brought up the all-important “Can We/Should We?” questions that every client should be asking themselves long before they start searching for external help. Maybe they could do it themselves… but should they?
I appreciate the colorful and smart answer, Troy. Well done!