Reading your post, it is hard for me to make the numbers add up. Please know, I am not trying at all to say that I think you are practicing poor business, but it is hard for me to understand. After adding up parts plus markup, adding up projected hours to complete the project at your hourly wage that includes your labor, training, retirement, rent, insurance, equipment, tools, and some profit, you can still add 20% to the total (to pay the referral fee) and get the job? Maybe it is just hard for me to see it because I am not there yet. This sounds like a very good thing. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: <JIMRPT@AOL.COM> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: Re: referall fees; last gasp??? > before getting into the main reply I'd like to say that referral means(to > me).... > "hey Jim Ms. yada wants her piano worked on why not give her a call?" > dollar value? 5% of anything over 1,000 including the first 1,000. > > wheras subcontracting means "hey Jim we have a possible contract to do Ms. > yadas grand here is the quote I have worked up, any thoughts before I present > it?" > dollar value? 20% of contract. > > In a message dated 30/08/01 1:29:09 PM, mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com writes: > > << Do you use the same system for a complete rebuild of the $10,000 to > $25,000 nature? Does the referring tech get 20% of that work? Seems to me > that $2,000 to $5,000 for the referral is steep. But of course that is the > view from my vantage point (as the one that would be shelling out the > referral fee). Seems to me there should be a formula for reduced percentage > as total project budget goes up. What is your (or anyone else) take on that? > >> > > Seems to be quite a bit of interest in this subject. :-) > From my perspective there are several salient points that need to be > addressed without regard to manner of agreement between prime contractor and > subcontractor. > While reading through these points(my opinions only) remember that without > the 'prime' contractor the 'sub' *would likely not have this work at all.* > > 1. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must have a FIRM handle on their > time/slash expenses. > 2. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must set their prices at a point > which allows an adequate margin of profit while supplying "earned fees" to > the 'prime' contractor. > 3. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must insure competent workmanship > and quality parts/materials are used in all shop work. > 4. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must supply 'on schedule' work as > per any agreements. > 5. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must be flexible as to actual work > which 'always' shows up during a rebuild and be willing to entertain this > work without added costs, within reason. > 6. To be successful the 'sub'-contractor must be trustworthy in all aspects > of the agreement as to workmanship and any customer contacts. > > ********* > A. To be successful the 'prime'-contractor must have a FIRM handle on their > time/slash expenses. > B. To be successful the 'prime'-contractor must be trustworthy in all > aspects of the agreement and to follow-on workmanship and any customer > contacts. > C. To be successful the 'prime'-contractor must be flexible as to available > shop times. > D. To be successful the 'prime'-contractor must be willing to act as the > go-between > from customer to 'sub' without regard as to the subject matter, if requested > to do so. > E. To be successful the 'prime'-contractor must have the 'customers' > interest in mind as they only they know, directly, what the customer needs, > wants , and expects. > > Those are some of the basics from my viewpoint...so this brings us to > amenable distribution of funds........................ > This area is open to 'any' agreement between sub and prime but I find that a > straight percentage agreement works best for me. This without regard to the > totals involved, be they 3,000 or 30,000. (my percentage happens to be > 80%/20% but is always subject to negotiation, *before* any individual > contract is accepted by me or presented to the customer, owing to > circumstances) > > If a prime tech brings me a rebuild contract worth say 20,000 I would just > as happily write out the prime checks totalling 4,000 as I would if the job > was 5,000 and the prime checks came to only 1,000. This for a number of > reasons: > > First because without this contract I probably would not have gotten the job > at all. > Second because it has not cost me any ''current' time/expense at all in order > to get this work > Thirdly because I can sit in my shop have the work brought to me and know > that once it leaves the shop I will never have to see this particular piano > again, barring unforseen developments of course. :-) > Fourth because The customer will get a well done piano, the 'prime' will get > a profit for their work/referral and I will make my margins as I have dete > rmined them to be. > > *That is a win for the customer because their piano will be ready to play, > hopefully better than ever. > *That is a win for the 'prime' because they will have provided a service for > their customer, gotten suitably rewarded for same in direct proportion to > their 'selling' efforts and along the way will have enhanced their reputation > with that customer. > *That is a win for me because I have managed to keep the wolf from the door > "one more time!" :-) > It don gets no mo bettur den dat. > Jim Bryant (FL)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC