On this blog, a premium on discount posts

Discount arrangements are common, according to law firms and departments (See my post of Dec. 31, 2008: 75% of law firms surveyed said clients request discounts; Oct. 11, 2009: law firms might offer discounts if given chance to work in new area; Jan. 2, 2009: oblique ways to grant discounts; Jan. 6, 2009: rebuttal to a misreading of my post on oblique methods; and March 5, 2009: “rack rates” are mythical.). In fact, despite having collected three metaposts a new crop has appeared (See my post of Nov. 26, 2006: discounts with 15 references; Jan. 21, 2008: 10 more posts with variations on discounts; and Dec. 26, 2008: third metapost on discounts, with 12 references.).

Variations on discount arrangements are endless (See my post of March 5, 2009: if matter half done, discount of 5%; April 5, 2009: higher discounts for lower-value work; April 9, 2009: discounts for volume at Aetna in 1994; April 11, 2009: PetSmart GC demands 30% discounts; June 26, 2009: volume-based discounts and holdbacks; Sept. 27, 2009: MFN status only for discounts based on volume; March 31, 2009 #3: discounts claimed not to affect longevity of client relationship; Sept. 21, 2009: in 2000, AT&T automatically discounted bills older than 30 days; and Sept. 27 2009: ways to account for discounts.).

Advantages and disadvantages of the various species of discounts are plentiful (See my post of Aug. 13, 2009: flaws in tiered discounts; March 20, 2009: six advantages of discounts; Oct. 12, 2009: comparison of volume discounts to hourly rate discounts; and Oct. 13, 2009: pros and cons of volume discounts compared to hourly discounts.).

We welcome comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *