Pricing: was Reshaping VS new hammers

[David Love]

Ron:

Am I wrong or is this getting under your skin just a bit.  Clearly, this is
complicated discussion to do it real justice.  The subject is replete with
clichés that attempt to describe how prices are set and what the code of
conduct is with respect to what constitutes a fair price both in terms of
the value of my time for me and the value of the service I provide for the
customer.  Most of them are worthless.

But to digress for a moment, I was probably premature in my comment.  The
genesis was whether or not $2000.00 dollars for a hammer filing and
regulation was a fair price.  Granted, we don't know the real details of the
service that was to be provided and it is often the case that services as
represented by the customer are different than those delivered or intended
by the technician.  That being said, however, if the service was accurately
represented, then $2000.00 for a filing and regulation is on the high side.
Even at $100.00 per hour, 20 hours to accomplish that task would have to
include at least an extra inning game at Royal's Stadium.  But since we
don't know the extent of the service that was to be provided, to jump up and
say it is an outrageous price is not fair to the technician who proposed the
work.  It would be a mistake to send this inquirer back to the tech
screaming foul when we don't really know the details.  He/she should at
least be given the benefit of the doubt.  At the same time, the pianist who
went to the trouble to post the question to the list deserves as honest an
appraisal as can be delivered.

Back to the main point, I was sincere in my post that I think most techs
undercharge.  I think Ed Foote's comments on the fear factor were very
apropos.   I think we generally represent a group of highly skilled
craftsman who, in order to do a job well, require substantial training
and/or experience.  In addition, we have to be diligent in keeping up with
changing technologies and ideas and be able to implement those new ideas
efficiently and effectively.  We play psychologist to insecure performers.
Concerts and recordings live or die by our skill or lack of.  We are noticed
mostly when things go wrong.  We spend too much time in our cars and too
much of the air we breath contains toxic materials.  For that we should be
highly rewarded.  Then,  we also tune Lester spinets for those who don't
know regulation from constipation.  The same ones that say, after you've
raised pitch a minor third, "Was it much out of tune".  We should be highly
rewarded for that too, but that person doesn't understand the justification.

So, somewhere in there we set our sights on a price that seems fair and
reasonable, that makes it worthwhile.  We use the industry as a guide.  We
do it based on what "feels" right, and like Ed said, we usually set our
sights too low.  We could try and compare ourselves to other industries, but
it's difficult.  Architects?  Engineers?  Doctors?  Who knows.

If you want to analyze the issue financially, then you  have to consider all
the factors of self-employment:  tax penalties, retirement, health care,
vacations, sickness, and the opportunity cost of what you might otherwise be
doing.  Then you have to look at your real earning potential in terms of all
sources: tuning, rebuilding, sales, commissions.  You have to then determine
what kind of income you need to allow for living and investment and price
yourself accordingly.  If that price puts you way outside of what the market
currently will bear, then maybe you should consider some other line of work
or find a way to broaden your income potential by expanding the scope of
what you do, specializing to the trade, etc..  I also think that frequent
market research (how much are others charging) and regular and periodic
price adjustments are necessary in order to be sure that you stay at the
edge of the envelope.  There is a line that can be crossed, I believe,
though I can't say I know how to quantify it.  There is no guarantee that
charging top prices won't alienate some customers (the Lesters of the
world). At the same time, customers expect to pay for quality and the
reverse is also true: they don't respect what they don't pay for.  Nothing
tends to compromise one's work more than the nagging feeling that you're not
getting paid enough for what you are doing.  But if you deliver consistent
quality and always give a little more than is expected, then I think you can
charge top dollar, feel good about it, customers will appreciate what they
are getting, and best of all, they will refer you.

David Love


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: August 01, 2001 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Reshaping VS new hammers - Condition etc


> >All due respect, charging what you're worth is not synonymous with
> >overcharging.
> >
> >David Love
>
>
> Fair enough, David, and I agree in principal. So who or what determines
the
> difference? Is it what the market will bear, cumulative public outrage
> (even though within what the market will bear), specific private outrage
of
> self appointed watchdogs, an industry wide conspiracy of price fixing
> policies, or a random judgement call? Doesn't the free enterprise system
> imply a self balancing dynamic where the over pricers are weeded out by
non
> participation of the victims, and the under pricers starve as they work
> themselves to death? Isn't the whole point of being in business to squeeze
> the maximum buck out of every minute of our professional existence so we
> can quit doing it as early as possible with as comfortable a retirement
> income as we can manage within all the limitations?
>
> Ok, maybe that's a tad on the extreme side, but my point in making that
> post is that no one seems to be proposing a definitive standard as to what
> constitutes undercharging, overcharging, or charging just right. Everyone
> has an opinion, but no criteria. In any given region, for any given
> clientele, as it relates to the technical and political skill level of any
> given tech, and the type of work that tech is actually doing, it is nearly
> utterly pointless to argue what does or doesn't constitute an ethical
> price/performance ratio. Pricing according to who's taller or wears the
> ugliest socks is, in the long run, a saner and more easily determinable
> criteria - and doesn't in itself make any more (or less) sense than what I
> read here daily. This stuff can, and apparently will be debated to the
last
> dying breath of the species, but is never going to be quantified to the
> point where any of us folks discussing it can give any acceptable
> indication that we know what the heck we're talking about - so why is so
> much time and energy expended in this unproductive direction? Is it logic
> or glands talking? Being a closet hopeful in spite of overwhelming
evidence
> to the contrary, I'm looking for evidence of logic, but the doubts are
> mounting.
>
> Incidentally, while I really do appreciate the "all due respect", I don't
> consider it a factor in points of logic and technicality. For what it's
worth.
>
>
> Ron N