Forum Discussion

Jobber Ambassador

7 days ago

Should you fire customers who only want the bare minimum service?

This is a hard one because those customers are still paying you. And when you’re growing, it feels wrong to turn away money.

I’ve had to think about this a lot in my own business because the bare minimum customer can quietly become one of the hardest customers to serve profitably.

In pet waste removal, this usually shows up with frequency. Someone has 3 or 4 dogs and wants every-other-week service. Or they want monthly service.

From the customer’s point of view, they’re trying to save money.

I get that.

But from the operations side, that yard can become a completely different job.

A weekly yard may take 10-15 minutes.

That same customer on every-other-week or monthly service may turn into a 30, 40, or 45-minute cleanup.

Now the technician is behind.
The route gets pushed and is harder on the body.
The customer is still expecting it to look great.
Plus your business is making less money per hour.

That’s where the bare minimum becomes a problem.

They may technically be a paying customer, but the job no longer fits the way the business needs to operate.

I used to be more flexible with this.

I wanted to help people or to lose the sale.
And assumed a lower frequency was better than no customer at all.

Then I started paying attention to what those jobs were doing to the route.

They were taking too long and wearing out the techs.

At least from my experience, these types of accounts created more room for complaints. They were lowering the quality of the day for better-fit customers.

Eventually, we made the decision to remove monthly service.

We also made every-other-week service available only for customers with fewer than 2 dogs.

If someone has 3 or more dogs, weekly service makes more sense for the customer, the yard, the technician, and the business.

That boundary protects the operation. It also protects the customer experience.

Because if the service frequency is too low for the amount of waste being produced, the customer may still blame the company when the yard doesn’t feel as clean as they expected.

That creates a bad situation for everyone.

And this can show up in other industries too.

A customer wants the cheapest maintenance plan but expects premium response time.
Or they want the smallest cleanup package but expects the full deep clean.
Maybe they'll ask to skip recommended work and then gets upset when the result doesn’t hold up.
A customer wants the lowest level of service but still wants the highest level of outcome.

That mismatch creates tension.

I don’t think every customer who wants a lower option is a bad customer.

Some people truly need a temporary down-sell because of finances, travel, life changes, or seasonality.

I’m willing to work with that when it still makes sense.

But there’s a difference between a temporary adjustment and a customer who consistently wants the cheapest version of the service while expecting the business to absorb the consequences.

Those customers can cost more than they pay.

Sometimes the best move is to explain the standard clearly:

“Based on the number of dogs and the amount of waste, weekly service is the lowest frequency we can offer and still provide the level of service we’re comfortable putting our name on.”

That kind of policy may lose some customers.

But it can also protect your route, your team, your quality, and your profit.

Do you allow customers to choose the bare minimum service, even when you know it may create problems later?
Or have you created minimum standards for who you will and won’t serve?

animal services

customer service & experience

pooper scooper

13 Replies

MetalRelic
Contributor 4
5 days ago
The bare minimum customer is not automatically a bad customer. It depends on whether they understand what they are paying for and whether the job can still be completed profitably without compromising the quality of the work. Most of what I create is metal art and sculptures, and not everyone can afford a larger sculpture or custom commission. I intentionally offer smaller production-style pieces so people can still own something I made, give it as a gift, or support my business without spending thousands of dollars.
Those customers are still valuable to me. A smaller sale can introduce someone to my work, lead to referrals, or eventually turn into a larger commission.
The problem starts when someone chooses the lowest-priced option but expects the time, customization, and attention that come with the highest-priced one. That is where clear boundaries and expectations become important. I would not fire a customer simply because they only want the minimum option. I would turn away the work when their expectations no longer match the scope, the job cannot be completed profitably, or accepting it would negatively affect the customers who are paying for the full service.
Sometimes offering a smaller option makes your business more accessible. The key is making sure “smaller” does not quietly turn into “everything included for less money.”
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  I think you explained the distinction really well.
  A minimum option can be a good thing when the scope is clear and the customer understands what they’re buying. It gives people a way to work with the business at a lower entry point.
  The problem is when the lowest option turns into the highest expectation.
  That’s the part I’m trying to avoid. I don’t mind a smaller service level if it still protects the customer experience, the team, and the margin.
IronRidge
Contributor 3
5 days ago
Does Taco Bell quit selling a customer that only comes in once a month and buys a single taco?

No because any revenue is good revenue and revenue you did not have before they purchased. And if you are selling customer service/experience then they may buy the bare minimum but guess what they will turn into a cheerleader because you sold them amazing customer service/experience and add the service as the by product.
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  I get the point, and I agree that small customers can still become loyal fans. Some of my most loyal customers have our lower frequency options because that's all they can afford.
  The difference for me is capacity.
  If someone buys one taco, it doesn’t usually slow down the whole restaurant for the next hour. In route-based service, one bare-minimum customer can sometimes create extra drive time, extra labor, route delays, and quality issues that affect other customers.
  I’m not against smaller customers. I just think the smaller option still has to be profitable and operationally clean.
blueocs
Contributor 3
5 days ago
My advice would be to increase the price by a certain percentage for lower frequency jobs to at least make it worth the time, it might make the weekly service look more attractive.
I would only fire the client if they are more of a headache than anything.
If they are pleasant to work with, just increase the price
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  That’s where I usually land too. If they’re pleasant, profitable, and understand the service level, raising the price may solve the issue without needing to let them go.
  The bigger problem is when the low-frequency job still doesn’t make sense even after the price increase because of scheduling, quality, or route disruption. At that point it may be less about the customer personally and more about whether the service level fits the business.
  - blueocs
    Contributor 3
    2 days ago
    If its an issue with the route being too far away from other jobs to remain as profitable as others. I would make up some door hangers, be creative with them, try to add some humor in it to ensure people are willing to read them, and distribute a couple hundred in that area to boost the workload in that area.
judithvirag
Builder 1
5 days ago
We do have a minimum charge of 3 hours of cleaning. My sales rep was desperate in the begining and she would sell at least the 3 hours. It created a lot of issues and we spent so much time booking these 3 hour jobs. My admin put her foot down and we started booking first time cleans as a deep clean rather than a 3 hour cleans. This really changed the game. This quarter we had 30 less one time jobs but made 18K more. I would say what I learned from my business coach is that numbers never lie.
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  That’s a perfect example of the numbers forcing a better decision.
  30 fewer one-time jobs but $18K more is hard to argue with. Sometimes the lower-ticket option feels easier to sell, but it creates more admin, more scheduling pressure, and less profit. I like that your admin caught the problem and pushed the business toward first-time deep cleans instead.
  It's a great reminder that more bookings don’t always mean a healthier business.
PestFreeCanada
Contributor 5
5 days ago
I would suspect that people who are paying the bare minimum were the ones who have signed up with you early with your company? Your prices changed and increased as the company grew and you learn what you should be charging. I have clients exactly like that, I look at their invoices and laugh about how I used to charge for my calls, when I was more desperate for work and giving ridiculous pricing. You know what though? Those are the clients that got me where I am today, paid the bills, kept gas in my truck and believed in me. I am more than happy to honor their prices and thank them every visit for giving me a chance. My apprentice jokes sometimes and calls the core customers, my first 25-20 customers, my "Family Calls" where now I am running more like a businessman and not as much as a dreamer, he calls them "Friend Calls".
Moving forward, I learned from each one of them, another unintentional gift they gave me. Now I know what to charge, what to say, how to price, what to look out for... Each client is a chance to learn and grow for the next one one.
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  It's definitely some of the OG clients who have the lowest prices, and because they've been with us for so long it's hard to raise their price (even though I've been getting better at doing annual price increase 😅)
  Those early customers really do matter. They trusted us before we had the reviews, systems, team, and reputation we have now. I have a lot of appreciation for the people who gave us a shot early.
  For me, the distinction is whether the old price or lower-level service still works operationally today. If it’s a pleasant customer, still profitable, and doesn’t hurt the route, I can understand honoring that relationship.
  Where it gets harder is when the account starts creating capacity issues, employee strain, or an expectation we can’t keep delivering at scale.
juuce209
Contributor 3
5 days ago
The only other option you have, aside from removing the monthly service, would be to charge more for those with more than 1 or 2 pets. It may still affect your scheduling, performance reviews, and reduce affordability for certain clientelle though. Tough call.
My answer to your question: we absolutely have to choose who we serve. The service and harware we provide to venues is free of charge. We rely on rentals and advertising to make money. If there is not enough foot-traffic, dwell time, or there are too many demands from venue, it doesn't make sense to do business. Even if we were desperate for placement and local proof. Qualification is a must for our b2b model.
- AnthonySalazar
  Jobber Ambassador
  2 days ago
  I agree. Pricing it higher is definitely one option, and we’ve done some of that too.
  The part I keep coming back to is whether the job still fits the route and the quality standard. If a lower-frequency customer takes twice as long, throws the route off, and still expects the same result, the higher price has to be enough to cover all of that.
  Your B2B example makes a lot of sense. Foot traffic, dwell time, and demands from the venue are your version of route density and service fit. Qualification matters, even when you’re still trying to grow.