(competing with cheap tools) AI Agency owners have heard this objection before: "We found a cheaper tool that does the same thing, so why would we pay x5 the price?" And most will panic and scramble for a defense: "Well… uhh… ours is more this... better that... safer because..." But it's weak, and that objection shouldn’t surface in the first place… How? By revealing your development story. Your prospect can't tell the difference between your custom AI solution and the $200 tool they found online. To them - it's all "AI Automation." They don't see the iceberg beneath the surface… They see the tip of what your solution does, and assume that's all there is. Your job is to reveal what’s beneath the surface… What separates your solution from the cheap alternatives: • What you trained it on that they didn't • What edge cases you solved that they missed • Why those gaps matter to their business That’s when they can’t compare you with the cheap tools. So, let’s put this into practice as you pitch your customer support solution to finance teams: "Unlike the automation tools that work across every industry… We custom-trained ours on 500+ support tickets from financial service companies… It understands terms like 'ACH reversal' and 'regulatory compliance'... Not just the generic customer service language… That's why it handles 95% of your tickets - unlike 50% from a typical chatbot…” Now… If they still hit you with that objection, here’s your counter: "The cheap alternatives work great… Until they hit an edge case… Then they break or send nonsense responses, damaging your reputation… We tested ours against 200 edge cases we collected from 5 beta clients… Failed scenarios, angry customers, complex refund situations, you name it… Ours is built to handle what breaks the other tools…" You’re not justifying your price here… You're revealing what you built that the cheap tools didn't, and why that gap matters. Your development story is your differentiation.

Built 12 document workflows. Realized 80% of logic was identical. Only difference: trigger, schema, destination. Created template library. Deploy new workflows in 20 minutes vs 8 hours. Template library closed 8 clients last month. Couldn't have handled that volume building custom for each. THE TEMPLATE TYPES: Invoice Processing: Email → Extract → Validate → Post to accounting Contract Analysis: Upload → Extract parties/terms → Route for signature Form Submission: Submit → Extract responses → Post to CRM Receipt Processing: Photo → Extract → Categorize → Log expense Application Processing: Upload → Extract → Score → Route to team Five templates cover 90% of document automation needs. THE CUSTOMIZATION POINTS: TRIGGER: Email/folder/webhook/manual SCHEMA: Define fields to extract VALIDATION: Client-specific business rules DESTINATION: Where data goes (API/database/spreadsheet) NOTIFICATIONS: Slack/email/Teams 20 minutes to customize per client vs 8 hours from scratch. THE DEPLOYMENT: Sales call identifies need. Match to template. Day 1: Client sends samples Day 2: Customize template, connect systems Day 3: Test with 10 samples, refine Day 4: Deploy to production, monitor first 50 Day 5: Handoff working system 5-day implementation vs 3-week custom builds. CLIENT EXAMPLE: Healthcare supplier, 120 invoices monthly, 8 vendors. Customization: Connected Gmail, added vendor list, connected QuickBooks API, customized Slack, added healthcare validation. Time: 45 minutes. Deployed same day. THE BUSINESS IMPACT: Before templates: 2-3 clients monthly (limited by build time) After templates: 8 clients monthly (limited by sales, not delivery) Revenue increased 3x. Not working harder, working smarter. THE TEMPLATE STRUCTURE: n8n workflow JSON (import-ready) Configuration guide Sample schemas for common industries Testing checklist Troubleshooting guide New team member can deploy without my involvement. THE PRICING ADVANTAGE: Standard client pays $2,200 setup.