Imagine you ran a business where you offered some kind of service such as a photographer. You are used to doing your work in a studio and everything from the billing to client delivery is all streamlined. Then let’s pretend someone decided that they wanted to use you for an event that requires you to shoot on location for a few days and what your rates would be.
In that situation since you have never done work with that specific setting and circumstance would you actually charge more or less considering you are not 100% sure on the best way for you to approach it? I have seen It both ways as some would say the client shouldn’t be billed more if you never had practical experience versus you need to be safe and bill it higher to make sure you cover all your grounds.
I think one example a person actually told me was a lawyer who didn’t actually specialize in a specific topic. While the lawyer told him he could do the work, a lot of his billing hours will come as a result of him having to further research about the topic and industry. So to him it made more sense for the person to find a person that actually specialized in the topic as he didn’t feel right billing them for it.
Then there were flip examples I heard such as with repair centres where if they got an item they never actually worked with before they will simply do it for a set fee versus their traditional hourly rate which would net them more profits. So there they actually lowered their fees. I guess in the end there is no true right or wrong way as everyone values their time differently. But it’s interesting to see the dilemma this creates for some.