A Business Dilemma

[bases-loaded@juno.com]

List -

I could not agree more with David Love's take on our role as consultants
for perspective buyers.  It is clear where our allegiances must lie.  It
is amazing to me that dealers wouldn't do everything possible to nurture
good relationships with technicians, even when a tech has found a piano
unsuitable for a client, and it means the loss of a sale.  I just came
back from appraising an old Mehlin and Sons grand that had been "gone
over" and was so far out of regulation as to be almost unplayable.  When
I pointed this out to the salesman his response was:  "it's probably just
the difference in the way you like to regulate".  

Yeah, right.....

Another parallel concern would be when dealers offer a percentage of a
sale to technicians for bringing in clients who subsequently purchase a
piano there.  I have had this offer made to me several times and I find
it quite unscrupulous.  Whose interests are being met in a sales
situation like that - the dealer's?  the client's?  or your own pocket?
That is murky water, and I prefer my water clear...

Mark Potter
bases-loaded@juno.com



On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:21:36 -0700 "David Love"
<davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> writes:
> Paul:
> 
> I have been in the position on several occasions of "killing" a 
> deal.  Each
> time I was hired by an individual (my tuning customer) to evaluate a 
> piano
> they wanted to buy.  For this service they paid me a fee.  For that 
> fee I am
> obliged to provide and honest and thorough assessment of the 
> instrument.  In
> each case there were problems with the piano that had not been 
> disclosed to
> the buyer.  Most of the problems involved either soundboard defects, 
> poor
> action work, misrepresentations of pianos having been "totally 
> rebuilt" with
> a corresponding price, etc..
> 
> Though the seller is under no legal obligation to disclose problems, 
> neither
> should they be shocked or disappointed if a technician, under 
> obligation to
> their customer, gives an honest report.  Ironically, most of the 
> time that
> the sellers have been miffed are times when the piano was obviously
> misrepresented or grossly overpriced.  The sellers could avoid 
> these
> problems if they communicated all the relevant information on an 
> instrument
> and priced it accordingly.   I would not necessarily reject a piano 
> with
> some problems if those problems were reflected in the price.  I 
> don't wish
> to deny any dealer a fair profit but to demand I should compromise 
> my
> principles and/or obligation to my client, and to hang a threat over 
> me of
> trashing my reputation unless I cooperate with their sale speaks 
> volumes
> about their business ethics and personal character.   In short, I 
> wouldn't
> do business with them and I wouldn't worry about it.  Businesses 
> like this
> tend to dig their own graves.
> 
> If the dealer is a member of the guild and is slandering you, then I 
> think
> the local chapter should respond in accordance with the bylaws and 
> revoke
> his membership.
> 
> David Love
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: October 04, 2001 6:01 PM
> Subject: A Business Dilemma
> 
> 
> > Dear Folks:
> >
> > I encountered a strange circumstance recently which may or may not 
> have
> > bearing on all of our one-on-one dealer relationships, as well as
> > chapter/dealer relationships. It involves only myself and no 
> other
> technician
> > as far as I know, yet.
> >
> > For years, I have referred people to Fandrich Pianos at the DePaul 
> Music
> Mart
> > (absolutely no business relationship with Del and Barbara 
> Fandrich) both
> to
> > look for pianos and as a place of business for which I had a 
> modicum of
> > respect. At one time, actually, I happily agreed to a request by 
> Ed
> Richards
> > for him to use space in our shop to prep a piano for a show at 
> McCormick
> > Place; he used space in our shop for about a week for this 
> purpose. At
> other
> > times, I have looked at pianos for clients at their store, and in 
> all
> cases
> > but one, advised the clients that the pianos were satisfactory; so 
> far as
> I
> > know, deals were made.
> >
> > Recently, a client called me to look at an Everett console at the 
> Fandrich
> > store. I called and spoke with Jim, their sales person, and made 
> an
> > appointment several days in advance to go down to the store and 
> examine
> the
> > piano; my client had already been there to see it. The night 
> before I was
> to
> > go down, both my client and I were left messages that the 
> appointment had
> to
> > be cancelled. When I spoke with my client that next day, he told 
> me that
> he
> > had been told that I was not welcome in the Fandrich Piano store 
> because I
> > had "blown a deal on a Steinway for them", that, "because he 
> sells
> pianos",
> > he (I) had disrecommended the transaction. When I called the 
> store, I
> spoke
> > to Jim, the sales person who said that he was acting on orders 
> from Ed
> > Richards; when pressed about the reason, he was unclear about why, 
> and
> became
> > quite insulting in the process. I had asked for him to ask Ed to 
> call me
> at
> > his first opportunity, but as yet (a week later), I have not heard 
> from
> him.
> >
> > As you may or may not know, I (we--Oksana and I) do not buy or 
> sell
> pianos.
> > All of our business is by contract, although we at one time 
> experimented
> with
> > rebuilding speculatively (not at the time of all of this). When I 
> looked
> at
> > the Steinway at Fandrich for a client, we were not selling 
> anything
> > ourselves, and had we been, I would have recused myself from such 
> an
> > appraisal as a conflict of interest. I advised the client in that 
> case
> that
> > the piano was good, but at the very highest end of the price range 
> and so
> > should be excellent. I never heard again from him or what the 
> results of
> his
> > dealing with Fandrich were.
> >
> > I had encouraged my current client (for the Everett) to go ahead 
> and think
> > about it seriously since it was a good price fit and a good 
> use-fit for
> his
> > kids (if the piano was any good, as I expected it to be given my 
> prior
> > experience with Fandrich). My client had already gone out of his 
> way to go
> > down to Fandrich and look at the piano. My client has decided, 
> only on the
> > basis of what had happened and through no persuasion from me, not 
> to deal
> > with Fandrich and to look elsewhere.
> >
> > This situation, although an insult to a customer and disconcerting 
> to me,
> > leads me to a few observations of a broader nature, which you may 
> or may
> not
> > be inclined to think about for yourself, or for your chapter.
> >
> > 1) If techicians cannot neutrally evaluate pianos for clients in a 
> store
> > setting, then there is a problem. This neutrality is important on 
> both
> sides
> > of the coin, technician and dealer. We very strongly recommend 
> that buyers
> > have us look at pianos prior to purchase because of the complexity 
> of the
> > instruments and all of the other factors involved in piano 
> transactions.
> Is
> > Fandrich pianos going to make such exclusions a common practice, 
> or decide
> > whom they like and don't like based on whether the technician 
> always
> > recommends a transaction. Should we now become wary of being 
> honest?
> > How should we need to posture ourselves? As the client in this 
> matter said
> to
> > me in an email, "I believe that, as a neutral technician seeking 
> to
> operate
> > in this market, you have a legitimate gripe that should be aired 
> for your
> > sake and for the sake of all technicians who want to provide 
> clients with
> > honest evaluations of pianos."
> >
> > 2) If our chapter arranges to have a chapter meeting at Fandrich 
> (or any
> > dealer), and Ed Richards (or any dealer) specifically excludes one 
> member
> of
> > the chapter from coming into the store, what position does this 
> put the
> > chapter in?
> >
> > Just so you know, as well, I sent a copy of this email to Ed at 
> Fandrich
> last
> > week so that he might have a chance to respond one on one and keep 
> this
> > personally between us; I had asked that he recant his story of the 
> events
> and
> > apologize for the slander regarding my behavior and for the 
> unprofessional
> > manner in which he dealt with my client. He sent back the letter
> unaccepted
> > and unopened. Ed is also a member of the PTG (associate in the 
> Waukegan
> > Chapter); while there is obvious recourse to us through the 
> ethics
> committee
> > and the disciplinary code, I and Oksana choose not to take this 
> path.
> >
> > I am quite baffled by all of this. I would welcome any comment or
> > recommendations on future business dealings from any one of you. I 
> have
> tried
> > to do my business as faithfully as I can, and to make ethical 
> judgments as
> > well as I can.
> >
> > Regards all.
> >
> > Paul Revenko-Jones
> 
>