Reshaping VS new hammers - Condition etc

[Paul]

Gina,
You elude to what I do for establishing my rates. I look what I've made for
the year, and the time and money it took to do it-a profit and loss
statement if you will. With hours, activities and mileage logged on a daily
basis, totals are calculated for a profit or loss. I compare this figure(s)
to the last 5 or so years and see if and how much I should increase my
rates. The IRS has blessed us with the Schedule C that forces us to tabulate
the results of our income and expense activities, which (for me) is a soul
searching activity that answers the question of business viability. To these
figures, I add in the nondeductibles, divide by my time figures to arrive at
my charging rates. The only emotions involved hear is the reality of how far
off from my goals the real numbers are.
After a period of ruminating, I make my adjustments. The process can be
painful or pleasing but, for me, always educational. Hope this helps
someone.

Paul Chick

----- Original Message -----
From: Eugenia Carter <ginacarter@carolina.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Reshaping VS new hammers - Condition etc


> 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
>