tech fees

[Roger Jolly]

Wimblees wrote:
Hi William,
           I can't disagree with what you are saying, however I think I
am addressing the ethical side of the issue of fees, with some
assumptions. There are many very competent tuners in the market place,
not so many fully competent techs. The poor consumer does not have the
knowlege to even ask the right questions, with regards to the persons
experience or competence, and ends up paying for sub standard trial and
error workmanship.
 On the other side of the coin, we all have to gain experience some how,
and some where, and also get rewarded for our efforts. The point I am
making is that, if I routinely get paid $60-$70 per hour for jobs that I
am skilled at, should I be paid the same hourly rate for those that I am
tackling for the first time. I think not!
 For instance, pin block replacement. On some pianos its a relatively
straight forward.
On Stienways and Heinzmans, because of blind doweling, flang and case
fitting, the job has more glitches and is quoted at a fixed and fair
market rate. This is fair to the consumer. My first attempt I probably
earned, $10 to $20 per hour, thats counting the time I spent scratching
my head. Now that I have half a dozen of this type under my belt, the
hourly rate is nearer $50.
 The balance that I'm injecting is strictly a professional and moral
issue. Be FAIR to yourself and the consumer. We all have to learn some
how, but at who's expence? In our profession, thats unregulated, the
poor consumer is literally walking into a mine field.
As PTG professionals it could be worth while for us to form a table of
fair time for a given task. e.g. Major reg with hammer reshape 8hrs.
With string mating, leveling, and voicing, 12hrs. This would be useful
to the people that are trying to gain experience, to have a time quality
goal to strive for, and to know what would be a fair quote to the
customer, the hourly rate would be then based on a factor of the local
tuning rate. 
 I hope this helps to clarify my position.
Regards Roger
 
> Roger:
> 
> When figuring out how much the hourly rate should be, one has to know for what
> the income made is used. If a part timer uses the money to suppliment an other
> income, then the hourly rate and the number of hours spent should reflect
> that. On the other hand, if a person uses piano tuning and repairs as a sole
> means of support, then what ever income is needed to support that person needs
> to be earned.
> 
> How long it takes to do a job, is reflected in how much you charge per hour.
> If it take you 2 hours to tune a piano, but you have figured out you need to
> work at a rate of $50 per hour, thne you have to charge $100 for that tuning.
> If you can't find any customers who are willing to pay that much, then you
> have to figure out what you can charge, and work backwards. In other words, if
> the "going rate", or what the customers are willing to pay, is only $60 for a
> tuning, and it still takes you 2 hours, then you are making $30 per hour. You
> then need to adjust your expenses to reflect that.
> 
> There are a lot of poeple try their hand at making a living doing a particular
> thing (like tuning pianos), because they think it is "neat", and they want to
> be theri own boss.  The reason most of them fail is because they find they
> can't make enough money at it. They are too slow to do the work, to earn the
> income needed to support themselves. They have the misconception that charging
> $20 or $30 per hours is enough, reasoning that when they worked in the
> factory, they earned $10 or $15 per hour. They soon realize that earning $15
> per hour working in a factory is not the same as charging even twice that
> much, to meet the overhead.
> 
> If someone is slow at doing a job, the money they earn must still pay for the
> expenses. To do the math correctly, one needs to start with the expenses, and
> then figure out how much to charge per hour. If you charge a set amount for a
> job, not thinking about how long it will take, you are setting yourself up for
> failure, unless you have another source of income.
> 
> Willem Blees