Most MSP owners think the choice to give away onboarding is a sales decision. It is almost always a positioning decision they made by accident. The reason this matters is that sales decisions are unwound quickly — adjust the offer, adjust the language, run a different pitch — and positioning decisions are not. Positioning compounds. Every prospect, every referral, every QBR, every renewal conversation is shaped by the choice the owner made before the contract was signed. The owner who gives onboarding away is not running a discount. He is broadcasting an identity. He is telling the buyer that the work he is about to do is the kind of work that is not worth paying for. And the buyer believes him. By month three of the relationship, the owner is wondering why agreement gross profit is below the benchmark, why the service department feels strained, and why the QBRs surface problems that should have been on the desk before the contract was signed. The answer is in the choice he made the day he priced the onboarding at zero. There is a way to treat client engagement as one system from onboarding through QBRs, and there is a sales process that actually closes without the give-it-away mechanism. The owners who run both are not running the sales motion the listener-asker thinks he is running.
What the give-it-away owner is not naming, and what makes the conversation in this episode worth re-reading three times, is that "free" is rarely the price of a real onboarding. "Free" is almost always the price of an onboarding that does not exist. The owner installs the agents, sets up the ticketing, hands the client an after-hours number, and calls that onboarding. It is not. The onboarding is the assessment — understanding what the buyer does, who their VIPs are, where their backups are stored, who works weekends, what is on the wrong-end-of-its-lifecycle list, and what the next twelve months of remediation needs to address. That work exists on every engagement whether the owner does it on purpose or finds it later through pain in month three. Free is not the discount the owner thinks he is giving. Free is the financial signature of the work the owner never built. The way out of that pattern is not to charge more for the same thin onboarding. The way out is to scope the assessment-and-onboarding as a real project, look at the last ten engagements honestly to see whether the financial reality supports the price, and arrive at a number the owner can defend with conviction — not a goofy marketing-word number negotiated on every deal, but a price attached to actual hours and actual outcomes the owner is proud of.
The give-it-away owner believes he is running a sales motion. The evidence he points to is real — he closes deals, his win rate looks healthy, and the deals he loses, he loses to someone else for reasons he can articulate. But none of the evidence supports the causal claim he is making. He has built a story on data he does not have. He cannot say with confidence that the onboarding give-away is the reason his deals close, because he has no counterfactual. He has not run the same buyer through a paid-onboarding pitch. He cannot say that competitors who charge for it are losing those same deals, because he is not in the room when those decisions are made. What he has is a pattern he likes, paired with an explanation that flatters his choice. The pattern is real. The explanation is not. The deeper problem is that the explanation has hardened into positioning. Buyers who arrive through referral hear about the free onboarding before they ever talk to the owner, and they buy from a vendor whose an ICP is a revenue strategy, not a description they wrote on a Friday afternoon. The owner has communicated something about who he is and what his work is worth, and the buyer is responding to that communication — not to the price tag on the onboarding line item.
The line in this episode is the kind of line that should be printed on a wall. There is no onboarding without an assessment. The two are the same part of the system, and when an owner separates them — or skips one and labels the other — the operating reality breaks in predictable ways. The owner who runs an "onboarding" without an assessment is installing agents on a network he does not understand, accepting alerts from devices he cannot name, and inheriting a backup posture he has not verified. The work to understand the buyer's environment, their VIPs, the person who runs payroll on weekends, the server quietly at the end of its lifecycle — that work exists. The only choice the owner gets to make is whether to do it in week one with eyes open, or in month three through pain. Owners who run a real assessment have a different financial signature in the engagement: cleaner agreement gross profit, fewer surprises, and a more honest QBR cadence because the surprises were already named. Owners who skip the assessment have the same surprises — but they discover them late, and they pay for the discovery with margin and trust. The assessment is the prerequisite to the onboarding, not a separate revenue line. Pricing it separately or pricing it bundled is a tactical choice. Whether to do the work is not a tactical choice.
The pattern is consistent enough to be a diagnostic. When an owner says "we give onboarding away," the financial reality of the business is rarely a generous discount. It is almost always a thin or non-existent onboarding paired with a P&L that shows underpriced agreements, low service-department margin, and low overall business profit. Free is the price tag on the absent work. The owner is not generously discounting; he is honestly naming the value of what he is delivering. And the question is not whether to charge more for the same thin onboarding. The question is whether to build a real onboarding the work, the assessment, the deliverable that goes back to the buyer with three fully baked remediation proposals at the end — and price that. Owners who do this find a second pattern: there is essentially zero chance the assessment does not surface a project that needs to be remediated. The buyer almost always learns something they did not know about their own environment. The MSP doing the assessment becomes the trusted source of that information, with conviction behind the price. The transition from give-it-away to charge-for-it is not a pricing exercise. It is the rebuild of the offer that was never built. Commoditization is a positioning failure, not a market condition, and free-onboarding owners are participating in their own commoditization without naming the choice.
Owners cannot sell a paid onboarding they do not believe in. The conviction has to be built before the sales conversation, and it is built by doing the math on the last ten engagements. Are they profitable? What does the project actually cost in hours? What is the elapsed time? What tooling is required that the owner is paying for whether he charges for it or not? Owners who run this exercise stop debating whether to charge for onboarding within an hour. The number stops being a marketing decision and starts being a financial fact attached to actual hours and actual outcomes. From that conviction, the sales conversation changes. The owner is no longer asking the buyer for permission to charge — he is naming the reality of the engagement. The same number lands differently when it is defended with conviction than when it is offered apologetically. The buyer can tell the difference. The buyer has always been able to tell the difference. The thing the owner thought he was protecting the buyer from — paying for something that should be free — was never the issue. The issue was that the owner did not believe the work was worth what the work cost.
The listener-asker frames his question as a fix-it-if-it-isn't-broken question. That frame is the actual problem. The thing that works in the short term is rarely the same thing that works in the long term, and the owner who refuses to examine the short-term win because it has not yet broken is the owner who eventually discovers the long-term cost the way most owners discover most things — late, expensively, and through pain. The signal "free" sends to the client is not "I am offering you a deal." The signal is "this is what my work is worth." The signal "free" sends to the team is "this is the work we deliver, and this is the standard we hold ourselves to." Both signals compound over months and years. The owner is not deciding whether to fix something that is broken. The owner is acknowledging the decision he is making to keep doing something that works in the short term and will most certainly cost him in the long term — because those are not the same thing.
It is almost always a positioning decision the owner made by accident. Sales decisions can be unwound next quarter. Positioning decisions compound across every prospect, every referral, every QBR. The give-it-away owner is not running a discount — he is telling the buyer what his work is worth, and the buyer believes him.
Ask whether the engagement includes a real assessment that names the buyer's VIPs, their goals, their backup posture, their lifecycle risks, and the next twelve months of remediation needs. If the answer is no, the onboarding is not the work — it is the absence of the work. Installing agents and setting up ticketing are necessary but they are not onboarding.
Scope it as a project. Look at what the project actually costs in hours, elapsed time, and tooling. The number that defends itself is the number attached to that reality — not one month of recurring revenue, not a goofy marketing-word negotiated on every deal. Bundled or separate is a tactical choice; doing the math is not.
You don't know your competitors are losing those deals — you have not been in the room when those decisions are made. You have built a sales story on data you do not have. Run the math on your last ten engagements and look at the financial reality of the give-it-away motion. The answer is usually visible in the P&L, not in the win rate.
Buyers want to feel known and cared for, not processed. The assessment is the intake — the listening before the procedure. Buyers will pay for special care once they understand they are receiving it. They will not pay for an undifferentiated agent install, because they cannot tell that agent install apart from any other MSP's agent install.
Sell the assessment first. Run a network discovery, charge for it, and hand the buyer three fully baked remediation proposals at the end. They can use the proposals with their current MSP, throw them away, or come back to you for the engagement. The work lowers the buyer's risk, generates revenue, and qualifies the relationship — and it is work you would have done anyway if they had signed.
Gary Boyle is a Partner for Strategy & Business Development at Bering McKinley. With a background spanning network engineering, entrepreneurship, and strategic consulting, Gary brings real-world operator experience to helping MSP owners build stronger, more profitable businesses. He has built and sold an MSP of his own, sat on peer teams across the industry for more than a decade, and now spends his weeks inside MSP businesses working through exactly the kinds of positioning, pricing, and operational decisions this episode unpacks.
Connect with Gary on LinkedIn →
Josh Peterson is the CEO of Bering McKinley and host of The BMK Vision Podcast. Since 2004, Josh has worked with hundreds of MSP owners to build operationally sound, profitable businesses through consulting, peer teams, and direct coaching.
Connect with Josh Peterson on LinkedIn →
The Vision Operating System is the framework BMK uses to help MSP owners build the offer-and-positioning underneath their business before they try to optimize the sales motion on top of it. If your last ten onboardings would not survive an honest financial review, the work is not the sales pitch — the work is the offer that lives underneath it.
Most MSP owners think the choice to give away onboarding is a sales decision. It is almost always a positioning decision they made by accident. The reason this matters is that sales decisions are unwound quickly — adjust the offer, adjust the language, run a different pitch — and positioning decisions are not. Positioning compounds. Every prospect, every referral, every QBR, every renewal conversation is shaped by the choice the owner made before the contract was signed. The owner who gives onboarding away is not running a discount. He is broadcasting an identity. He is telling the buyer that the work he is about to do is the kind of work that is not worth paying for. And the buyer believes him. By month three of the relationship, the owner is wondering why agreement gross profit is below the benchmark, why the service department feels strained, and why the QBRs surface problems that should have been on the desk before the contract was signed. The answer is in the choice he made the day he priced the onboarding at zero. There is a way to treat client engagement as one system from onboarding through QBRs, and there is a sales process that actually closes without the give-it-away mechanism. The owners who run both are not running the sales motion the listener-asker thinks he is running.
What the give-it-away owner is not naming, and what makes the conversation in this episode worth re-reading three times, is that "free" is rarely the price of a real onboarding. "Free" is almost always the price of an onboarding that does not exist. The owner installs the agents, sets up the ticketing, hands the client an after-hours number, and calls that onboarding. It is not. The onboarding is the assessment — understanding what the buyer does, who their VIPs are, where their backups are stored, who works weekends, what is on the wrong-end-of-its-lifecycle list, and what the next twelve months of remediation needs to address. That work exists on every engagement whether the owner does it on purpose or finds it later through pain in month three. Free is not the discount the owner thinks he is giving. Free is the financial signature of the work the owner never built. The way out of that pattern is not to charge more for the same thin onboarding. The way out is to scope the assessment-and-onboarding as a real project, look at the last ten engagements honestly to see whether the financial reality supports the price, and arrive at a number the owner can defend with conviction — not a goofy marketing-word number negotiated on every deal, but a price attached to actual hours and actual outcomes the owner is proud of.
The give-it-away owner believes he is running a sales motion. The evidence he points to is real — he closes deals, his win rate looks healthy, and the deals he loses, he loses to someone else for reasons he can articulate. But none of the evidence supports the causal claim he is making. He has built a story on data he does not have. He cannot say with confidence that the onboarding give-away is the reason his deals close, because he has no counterfactual. He has not run the same buyer through a paid-onboarding pitch. He cannot say that competitors who charge for it are losing those same deals, because he is not in the room when those decisions are made. What he has is a pattern he likes, paired with an explanation that flatters his choice. The pattern is real. The explanation is not. The deeper problem is that the explanation has hardened into positioning. Buyers who arrive through referral hear about the free onboarding before they ever talk to the owner, and they buy from a vendor whose an ICP is a revenue strategy, not a description they wrote on a Friday afternoon. The owner has communicated something about who he is and what his work is worth, and the buyer is responding to that communication — not to the price tag on the onboarding line item.
The line in this episode is the kind of line that should be printed on a wall. There is no onboarding without an assessment. The two are the same part of the system, and when an owner separates them — or skips one and labels the other — the operating reality breaks in predictable ways. The owner who runs an "onboarding" without an assessment is installing agents on a network he does not understand, accepting alerts from devices he cannot name, and inheriting a backup posture he has not verified. The work to understand the buyer's environment, their VIPs, the person who runs payroll on weekends, the server quietly at the end of its lifecycle — that work exists. The only choice the owner gets to make is whether to do it in week one with eyes open, or in month three through pain. Owners who run a real assessment have a different financial signature in the engagement: cleaner agreement gross profit, fewer surprises, and a more honest QBR cadence because the surprises were already named. Owners who skip the assessment have the same surprises — but they discover them late, and they pay for the discovery with margin and trust. The assessment is the prerequisite to the onboarding, not a separate revenue line. Pricing it separately or pricing it bundled is a tactical choice. Whether to do the work is not a tactical choice.
The pattern is consistent enough to be a diagnostic. When an owner says "we give onboarding away," the financial reality of the business is rarely a generous discount. It is almost always a thin or non-existent onboarding paired with a P&L that shows underpriced agreements, low service-department margin, and low overall business profit. Free is the price tag on the absent work. The owner is not generously discounting; he is honestly naming the value of what he is delivering. And the question is not whether to charge more for the same thin onboarding. The question is whether to build a real onboarding the work, the assessment, the deliverable that goes back to the buyer with three fully baked remediation proposals at the end — and price that. Owners who do this find a second pattern: there is essentially zero chance the assessment does not surface a project that needs to be remediated. The buyer almost always learns something they did not know about their own environment. The MSP doing the assessment becomes the trusted source of that information, with conviction behind the price. The transition from give-it-away to charge-for-it is not a pricing exercise. It is the rebuild of the offer that was never built. Commoditization is a positioning failure, not a market condition, and free-onboarding owners are participating in their own commoditization without naming the choice.
Owners cannot sell a paid onboarding they do not believe in. The conviction has to be built before the sales conversation, and it is built by doing the math on the last ten engagements. Are they profitable? What does the project actually cost in hours? What is the elapsed time? What tooling is required that the owner is paying for whether he charges for it or not? Owners who run this exercise stop debating whether to charge for onboarding within an hour. The number stops being a marketing decision and starts being a financial fact attached to actual hours and actual outcomes. From that conviction, the sales conversation changes. The owner is no longer asking the buyer for permission to charge — he is naming the reality of the engagement. The same number lands differently when it is defended with conviction than when it is offered apologetically. The buyer can tell the difference. The buyer has always been able to tell the difference. The thing the owner thought he was protecting the buyer from — paying for something that should be free — was never the issue. The issue was that the owner did not believe the work was worth what the work cost.
The listener-asker frames his question as a fix-it-if-it-isn't-broken question. That frame is the actual problem. The thing that works in the short term is rarely the same thing that works in the long term, and the owner who refuses to examine the short-term win because it has not yet broken is the owner who eventually discovers the long-term cost the way most owners discover most things — late, expensively, and through pain. The signal "free" sends to the client is not "I am offering you a deal." The signal is "this is what my work is worth." The signal "free" sends to the team is "this is the work we deliver, and this is the standard we hold ourselves to." Both signals compound over months and years. The owner is not deciding whether to fix something that is broken. The owner is acknowledging the decision he is making to keep doing something that works in the short term and will most certainly cost him in the long term — because those are not the same thing.
It is almost always a positioning decision the owner made by accident. Sales decisions can be unwound next quarter. Positioning decisions compound across every prospect, every referral, every QBR. The give-it-away owner is not running a discount — he is telling the buyer what his work is worth, and the buyer believes him.
Ask whether the engagement includes a real assessment that names the buyer's VIPs, their goals, their backup posture, their lifecycle risks, and the next twelve months of remediation needs. If the answer is no, the onboarding is not the work — it is the absence of the work. Installing agents and setting up ticketing are necessary but they are not onboarding.
Scope it as a project. Look at what the project actually costs in hours, elapsed time, and tooling. The number that defends itself is the number attached to that reality — not one month of recurring revenue, not a goofy marketing-word negotiated on every deal. Bundled or separate is a tactical choice; doing the math is not.
You don't know your competitors are losing those deals — you have not been in the room when those decisions are made. You have built a sales story on data you do not have. Run the math on your last ten engagements and look at the financial reality of the give-it-away motion. The answer is usually visible in the P&L, not in the win rate.
Buyers want to feel known and cared for, not processed. The assessment is the intake — the listening before the procedure. Buyers will pay for special care once they understand they are receiving it. They will not pay for an undifferentiated agent install, because they cannot tell that agent install apart from any other MSP's agent install.
Sell the assessment first. Run a network discovery, charge for it, and hand the buyer three fully baked remediation proposals at the end. They can use the proposals with their current MSP, throw them away, or come back to you for the engagement. The work lowers the buyer's risk, generates revenue, and qualifies the relationship — and it is work you would have done anyway if they had signed.
Gary Boyle is a Partner for Strategy & Business Development at Bering McKinley. With a background spanning network engineering, entrepreneurship, and strategic consulting, Gary brings real-world operator experience to helping MSP owners build stronger, more profitable businesses. He has built and sold an MSP of his own, sat on peer teams across the industry for more than a decade, and now spends his weeks inside MSP businesses working through exactly the kinds of positioning, pricing, and operational decisions this episode unpacks.
Connect with Gary on LinkedIn →
Josh Peterson is the CEO of Bering McKinley and host of The BMK Vision Podcast. Since 2004, Josh has worked with hundreds of MSP owners to build operationally sound, profitable businesses through consulting, peer teams, and direct coaching.
Connect with Josh Peterson on LinkedIn →
The Vision Operating System is the framework BMK uses to help MSP owners build the offer-and-positioning underneath their business before they try to optimize the sales motion on top of it. If your last ten onboardings would not survive an honest financial review, the work is not the sales pitch — the work is the offer that lives underneath it.
-3.png)
1 min read
Josh Peterson : Oct 22, 2025 11:00:00 AM
In 2023, the total number of Managed Service Providers (MSPs) worldwide was estimated to be 150,000. As this figure continues to grow, one thing is...
1 min read
Gary Boyle : Jun 8, 2026 6:00:00 AM
There is an email an MSP owner sends a peer roughly once a quarter. The wording varies, but the position is identical: I am serious about growing...
1 min read
Gary Boyle : Jun 29, 2026 6:00:00 AM
The most common emotional response in MSP owner-compensation conversations is some version of the line one partner said with real disdain in a...
Gary Boyle