Reshaping VS new hammers - Condition etc

[Eugenia Carter]

Hi Ron,

With "no respect" <g>, this discussion can never be logical; it can only be
emotional for we are one of the fortunate few trades remaining that is not
government regulated. Because we are not regulated, we have the freedom to
set our prices where we, as individuals, want them. We set our own criteria.

I set my prices at a point, after examining my profit/loss statement to
define the absolute minimum I must earn, where I will make as much money as
I possibly can in the amount of time that I will spend. If I perceive that I
am not earning enough to warrant my time, energy, knowledge and reputation,
I'm not going to do as good a job that I will if I perceive that I am.
That's human nature. The rewards must be there. (This criteria does not
include the pro bono stuff I do just to reward myself.)

Simple, a little bit of logic, and a lot of emotional input.

Best,

Gina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:43 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