Offered a teaching slot in somebody else's $4,000 program. Good trade?

A guy with a real audience, maybe 30k email list, runs a $4,000 program on buying small service businesses adjacent to real estate. He wants me to build and deliver a four-week module on operations and pricing, which is the part I actually know. Offer is $1,500 flat per cohort plus 20 percent of any coaching upsell that comes from my module, and he runs three cohorts a year.

What I have: the material, mostly. I'd guess 50 hours to turn it into something teachable, then maybe 10 hours per cohort after that.

What bothers me. First, I'd be borrowing his credibility and lending him mine, and I've watched two of his sales emails and they're pushier than anything I'd write. Second, the 20 percent upsell share is on his numbers, in his system, and I have no way to audit it. Third, if I ever want to sell my own thing to the same audience, I've just signed a piece of paper that might stop me. He sent a draft agreement with a non-compete that reads broadly, 24 months, any similar education product.

So the decision is whether to counter with a higher flat fee and drop the revenue share entirely, or push back on the non-compete and keep the share, or walk. I keep leaning toward the flat fee because I don't trust numbers I can't see. Anyone who's done this from either side, what did the deal actually look like a year in?

Answer

1mitchell_ray4 Get yoursPRO6

I did the trades version of this, taught a module inside someone else's program for two cohorts. Here's how it went a year in.

The flat fee was fine and arrived on time. The rev share was $0 both times, and when I asked for the numbers I got a screenshot, not a report. Not because he was crooked as far as I can tell, the upsell just doesn't get attributed to your module, it gets attributed to the closer on the phone. Attribution in someone else's funnel is always going to land on the person who took the call.

The real cost was reputation. Three people who bought that program emailed me afterward, unhappy, and they were unhappy with him, and they came to me because I was the person in the videos who seemed straight with them. I spent more hours on those emails than I spent teaching. His sales emails being pushier than yours isn't a taste difference, it's the thing that generates those emails, and you'll absorb some of it.

What I'd counter with. Flat fee only, priced at what 60 hours of your time is worth, paid half up front. Non-compete narrowed to his named program and his list, 12 months, and nothing that stops you writing or speaking on your own. Ask for the right to keep and reuse your own recordings, which is where I got burned, because my footage is still selling in a product I'm not paid for.

If he won't move on the recordings clause, that tells you what the deal is. His audience is the asset and he knows it. Your material is replaceable to him and his list isn't replaceable to you, so go in knowing you're the weaker side and price accordingly.

2 replies

1nicole_adeyemiPassivePRO5

The non-compete is the whole negotiation and everything else is noise. 24 months on any similar education product, drafted broadly, could cover you writing a paid newsletter about pricing. Whether a court would actually enforce it depends heavily on your state and on how the agreement is written, and some states treat these very differently from others, so that's a question for an attorney licensed where you are before you sign anything.

What I'd say from the business side is that you're being paid $4,500 a year to give up the right to build your own audience product in the one subject you're good at. That's a bad trade at almost any flat fee unless the non-compete is narrowed to his specific program and his specific list.

The revenue share I'd treat as zero when I decide. If it shows up, nice. Never sign for money you can't count.