AI prompts clients to question expert fees, report finds

Research published by Teamwork.com shows that one in three businesses believe AI can replace external experts, highlighting a shift in how clients view professional services.

The company's Client Work Report draws on insights from more than 1,000 senior business leaders and its global customer community. It found that 33% of respondents believe clients now see AI as giving them the tools to take a do-it-yourself approach and bring work in-house.

That shift is creating new pressure on firms that deliver client work, particularly on pricing and turnaround times. As AI tools become more widely used, clients are increasingly questioning whether work supported by those systems should cost less and be delivered faster.

Teamwork.com argues that this reveals a gap between what clients expect from AI and what the technology can do on its own. It points to a study by Scale AI and the Centre for AI Safety, which found that even advanced AI systems can independently complete only 2.5% of projects.

Pricing Pressure

The issue is especially important for agencies, consultancies and other service businesses whose value depends on specialist knowledge and judgement rather than routine output. If clients conclude that software can handle more of that work, they may bring more activity in-house or push external providers for lower fees.

Daniel Mackey, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Teamwork.com, said, "Access to AI isn't the same as delivering results. Clients now have powerful tools at their fingertips, and that's shifting expectations around speed and cost. Many clients now believe that AI-assisted work should automatically be cheaper and quicker to deliver. But judgment, accountability and real expertise still separate great work from average output."

"What we're seeing is a fundamental misunderstanding of where AI's value actually lies. It's an incredible tool for speed and efficiency, but it doesn't replace the strategic thinking, creative problem-solving, and years of experience that clients are actually paying for. It means showing clients what AI cannot do, like reading the room in a boardroom presentation and adjusting your approach on the fly, or knowing from years of experience that a strategy needs to change because the market shifted overnight, before the client has even noticed. The teams that understand this distinction will be the ones that protect their value."

"There's also a real risk here that businesses can't afford to ignore. When clients believe AI can do the heavy lifting, the natural next question is why they should pay the same rates for work they think a tool can handle. If client-facing teams don't articulate what they bring beyond the tools, they will find themselves in a race to the bottom on price. And that's a race nobody wins."

"The danger is that businesses respond to this pressure by cutting fees to stay competitive without realising they are chipping away at the very foundations that make their work valuable. Price is easy to compete on in the short term, but it's an incredibly difficult position to recover from once clients have reset their expectations of what things should cost."

"The businesses that thrive won't be the ones who panicked and dropped their prices. They'll be the ones who invest in their people and use AI to deliver work that clients simply couldn't get anywhere else," said Mackey.

The report reflects a broader debate across professional services about where AI fits into client work. Many firms are using generative AI to speed up drafting, research, administration and internal workflows. Still, the commercial impact depends on whether clients see those tools as enhancing expert work or replacing it.

For service providers, that distinction has direct consequences for margins. If the market starts to treat AI as a substitute for external advice rather than a support tool, providers may face greater pressure to justify fees, explain their methods and show where human judgment still changes outcomes.

Expectation Gap

Teamwork.com's findings suggest this pressure is already emerging. Clients may see access to public AI tools as evidence that specialist work has become easier to replicate, even when projects still require context, accountability and experience to complete successfully.

Teamwork.com develops project and resource management software for firms that deliver work to clients. Its platform combines project planning, task management, time tracking, budgeting, resource management, and reporting, giving managers visibility into delivery, staff time, and profitability.

That operational focus helps explain why the report centres on the commercial effects of AI adoption rather than the technology itself. For firms that sell expertise, the immediate concern is not simply whether AI can produce acceptable output, but whether clients believe that output is enough to replace outside specialists.

The research suggests perception may shape pricing before the technology is fully capable of replacing complex work. That leaves agencies and consultancies with a familiar commercial challenge: proving that faster tools do not remove the need for experienced people.