My teenage daughter routinely obsesses about the “dress code” for parties we are invited to, as a family, down to the type of jewelry or shoes that she should be seen in. When the whole point of the host wanting her there in the first place, is to see a happy and enthusiastic child with something to say and entertain everyone with.

I see the same obsession with financial services entrepreneurs, and indeed, some of their capital raising advisers, on the nuances of their perceived technological capability when the predominance of their value to others is the superior quality of the management team (skills and passion), the growing market needs they can effectively serve, and their ability to make their ideal investors look smart after backing them (impressive return of capital).

Don’t get distracted by the minutiae when it doesn’t answer the immediate “exam question”: am I looking at a superior and ideal management team with a distinctive competency to address superior and enduring market needs, and in turn, generate me (an investor) superior returns? “Yes”, let’s book a meeting. “No”, let’s move on.

If your attempts to educate your client or your investors on the dramatic improvement in their condition, and measures of progress and success, are largely left until after terms are agreed and/or you fold at the first sign of resistance (desperate not to lose the business), don’t be surprised if they struggle with an ROI calculation or worse, they impose their metrics on you. When your fee or their invested capital is the only clear metric, you have lost control of the discussion.

Three metrics need to be established at the pre-proposal and negotiation stage: short-term measures (sales reports etc), long-term measures (changes in buyer behaviour, market repute etc) and client or investor-specific measures (in wealth, assets under management or for an investor, ebitda or margin growth over the annualised period).