Fees

[PNHISTIC1@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
List,

I have long used the same method for billing the customer as David.  It has 
worked well for me.  I explain to the customer how I charge beforehand, and 
there has never been an issue.  I can spend a little more time getting the 
piano up to pitch, or getting rid of a rattle or buzz, doing a minor repair 
without fretting about how to tell the customer.  

I recently encountered a beautiful but neglected 1922 Steinway A.  It hadn't 
been tuned in 8 years, and I don't think the soundboard had been cleaned for 
a couple of decades.  The music desk had lost screws(and some wood along with 
them).  In addition to my basic tuning fee(based on 1 1/2 hours like David), 
I spent an extra hour getting this beauty so that it sounded and looked like 
it should.  No complaints about "fine print" from the customer, extra $ and 
satisfaction for the tech.  

>From my experience seems that people have an easier time with a base fee and 
an hourly rate thereafter than with being told that their piano needs this 
adjusted, that changed, this tweaked, that regulated, all for an extra fee.  
Everyone has a way that feels more comfortable to them; this is the one that 
works for me.

Just my 2 cents(pun intended),

Dave Stahl

In a message dated 3/15/02 3:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net writes:


> 
> I have gone around in circles about the best way to bill for my services 
> that is fair to the customer, adequately compensates me for my time, and 
> allows me to provide the best service possible.  Inequities stemming from 
> frequency of service, problem pianos, customer expectations, combined with 
> my desire to avoid having to explain every nickel and dime operation that I 
> see as necessary, have finally led me to structure my fee schedule as a 
> pure function of time.  
>  
> My basic fee is now based on a 1.5 hour service call.  In that time, if the 
> piano is serviced regularly, I can usually complete a tuning in about an 
> hour.  That leaves me 30 minutes to do whatever else I see as most 
> pressing: lubricating, cleaning, voicing, etc..  If the piano requires a 
> pitch raise or lowering prior to fine tuning, I can usually accomplish both 
> comfortably in 1.5 hours, usually with a little time left over.  If the 
> amount of work required, or requested, exceeds 1.5 hours then I bill the 
> additional hourly.  If the piano is a Steinway F or some other such monster 
> I will usually require the entire 1.5 hours if the piano is at pitch to 
> begin with (not my problem, they bought the stinkin' thing without asking 
> me).  But generally, I can then leave the piano having taken care of 
> something other than tuning.  The customer will be more satisfied with the 
> instrument and the instrument will better represent my abilities.  
>  
> In the past, when I have suggested that a piano needs something to a 
> customer, they have often replied, "Gee, why didn't the last technician 
> tell me that."  The truth is that we get into such a mindset that customers 
> are unwilling to entertain the idea of doing something that entails an 
> additional cost, that we often neglect to do things that really should be 
> done routinely.  Using this method I can, over time, address most of the 
> needs of a piano if the customer is servicing the piano on a regular basis. 
>  
>  
> Going to this method required a slight increase in my fee and I was a bit 
> concerned about this at first.  But I am finding little or no resistance 
> when I explain that the fee buys a block of time.  Overall, it has allowed 
> me to reduce my appointment load on any given day to a maximum of 4 (before 
> it was 5).  There is less driving and less stress involved in making it to 
> the next appointment on time when I run into something unexpected.  I can 
> deliver better service and feel more satisfied with my work.  Customers are 
> ultimately more pleased with the instruments (even if they don't know 
> exactly why) which is good for referral business.  I suggest you all 
> consider it.  
>  
> David Love
> 
> 
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-pianotech@ptg.org>
> Received: from  rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) 
> by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id MAILINZA11-0315183045; Fri, 
> 15 Mar 2002 18:30:45 -0500
> Received: from  bridget.rudoff.com (bridget.rudoff.com [206.168.112.96]) by 
> rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA46-0315183010; Fri, 
> 15 Mar 2002 18:30:10 -0500
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>     by bridget.rudoff.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09550;
>     Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:58:20 -0700 (MST)
> Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net 
> (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120])
>     by bridget.rudoff.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09545
>     for <pianotech@ptg.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:57:47 -0700 (MST)
> Received: from dialup-166.90.41.21.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net 
> ([166.90.41.21] helo=crc3)
>     by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
>     id 16m0au-0006bg-00
>     for pianotech@ptg.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:54:41 -0800
> Message-ID: <008201c1cc74$649a7000$15295aa6@concentric.net>
> From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Subject: Fees
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:54:37 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>     boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01C1CC31.543E08E0"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
> 
> 
> 



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/fa/33/3d/16/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--