Completely agree Elena. Keeping it narrow works not just on helping define your brand and stage but also by deepening your expertise to serve others better. I tend to work with the same clients for years so the "opportunity cost" of working with the wrong client is very high.
This is gold! Thanks so much :) I’m wondering: who do you usually work with if you have 4 meeting hours and are these people in the meeting changing? And how do you deal With building up enough trust and relationship with a team or person in that short time.
I do sometimes struggle in my assignments with the fact that different people (ceo vs marketing leader vs product / sales leaders) can be sitting in these meetings who partly don’t know me / trust me yet as much as the person who assigned me and with who i made the initial agreements. The relationship / trust building part can take away time from focusing on the problem solving as they kind of want to know first “why should I believe you” and that’s tough with that limited time.
I wonder if you have similar experiences!
Thanks so much for sharing all
These gold nuggets! I’m somewhat guilty of the “wide net” and although its very exciting it’s also really challenging and makes me
Nuts at times 😅
And I’m hoping so much for it to become more common in Europe to compensate in equity. That’s really rare here but definitely where I want to go.
Thanks for sharing your insight. I have a question about the part where you say you ask your client to choose between acquisition, engagement, activation and retention. If I were the client, considering I’m not an expert in growth (which is why I’m working with you in the first place), I would say “I don’t know Elena, I want your help with whatever is most important for the company’s success. I don’t know what that is, whether there’s only one or if there are two, and whether it might change after some time.” How would you handle that? Thanks again for your valuable perspective.
The office rocks. I like that you stayed consistent throughout.
Next challenge is to also have the meme be from the same series 😎
Completely agree Elena. Keeping it narrow works not just on helping define your brand and stage but also by deepening your expertise to serve others better. I tend to work with the same clients for years so the "opportunity cost" of working with the wrong client is very high.
This is all great insight!
This is gold! Thanks so much :) I’m wondering: who do you usually work with if you have 4 meeting hours and are these people in the meeting changing? And how do you deal With building up enough trust and relationship with a team or person in that short time.
I do sometimes struggle in my assignments with the fact that different people (ceo vs marketing leader vs product / sales leaders) can be sitting in these meetings who partly don’t know me / trust me yet as much as the person who assigned me and with who i made the initial agreements. The relationship / trust building part can take away time from focusing on the problem solving as they kind of want to know first “why should I believe you” and that’s tough with that limited time.
I wonder if you have similar experiences!
Thanks so much for sharing all
These gold nuggets! I’m somewhat guilty of the “wide net” and although its very exciting it’s also really challenging and makes me
Nuts at times 😅
And I’m hoping so much for it to become more common in Europe to compensate in equity. That’s really rare here but definitely where I want to go.
👏👏👏
Digestible and quality reminders!
Elena,
Thanks for sharing your insight. I have a question about the part where you say you ask your client to choose between acquisition, engagement, activation and retention. If I were the client, considering I’m not an expert in growth (which is why I’m working with you in the first place), I would say “I don’t know Elena, I want your help with whatever is most important for the company’s success. I don’t know what that is, whether there’s only one or if there are two, and whether it might change after some time.” How would you handle that? Thanks again for your valuable perspective.