referall fees

[Tom Servinsky]

Jim,
Your situation with the story you told is in the "unethical" category, and
that would ruffle my feathers,tarnishing any hope of working with that tech
again. The tech was technically in the legal boundaries but not being
upfront with you, hindering any chances of you performing services for him.
But lets say Jim Bryant lets it be known to all the techs in the area he is
making his services available for the wholesale trade at a wholesale prices
( which many rebuilders do), full knowingly making his services financially
attractive for retail techs, he betters his chances for keeping his shop
more busy.  He accepts the notion that his work will be being sold to the
public for a higher price than what he is actually charging to the
work...the same as if Wal Mart buys an item for $x and sells it for $xx.
What you make is what you establish you particular profit margin to be.
What the tech charges the public for obviously has to be within the accept
marketed price for the area, but if he can command more and the public is
willing to pay a premium price for a premium job, technically he is well
within rules of the game.
  Now if both of you are in the same market area competing for the same
retail business and the tech approaches you for a subcontracted price and
situation unfolds as you tell it....than toes get tramped on, and things get
ugly.
You are wise to bring this type of situation to this discussion because its
a classic example when things can and could go sour. Your story is complete
with deceit and warrants a word of caution for any tech considering a
subcontracting relationship, or aligning oneself with a rebuilding shop. One
should be completely upfront with subcontractor, and visa versa.
Again, as always, good to hear your many years of wisdom come through.
Tom Servinsky, RPT
----- Original Message -----
From: <JIMRPT@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: referall fees


>
> In a message dated 27/08/01 5:05:52 PM, tompiano@gate.net writes:
>
> <<" Jim,
>
>   I guess I opened a can of worms and ruffled a few feathers along the
way.
> ">>
>
> Tom...worms are good for the soul occasionally and you ruffled not 'my'
> feathers. :-)
> Ethical concerns didn't even enter my mind in my response.......hmmmm
perhaps
> I need to think about that one.(?)
>
>  The primary tech has the right to set whatever price he and the customer
> agree on and the primary tech needs to take into account his own business
> needs.....................
>
>  Our own experience does indeed color our opinions and attitudes for
> example...........severrrrral years ago I undertook the rewhatever of an
S&S
> with the *stated* price of *8,400* with 20% going to the primary tech.
After
> the job was done, and several months later, the customer called me to tune
> the piano since the primary tech was out of town. While I was there she
> mentioned how pleased she was with her piano and that she thought the
price
> of *14,200* was really well spent. The customer did not know that I had
done
> the work. I asked her who had done the work and she told me....yada
> so&so..........................and pulled her copy of the contract out of
the
> bench along with her other records of the piano. The price quoted was
indeed
> 14,200, it was 'my' quote printed on the other techs letterhead.
> Unethical?...... Between the customer and primary tech? No absolutely
> not....Unethical between the primary tech and myself?...........'possibly'
> not really...... except that I had been told the quote was for 8,400 and I
> agreed to work with those figures. Will I 'ever' work with that tech
again?
> Absolutely not. Did the primary tech do anything wrong? Not really, but
they
> can now do that "nothing wrong" with someone else.
>
>  The question of "ethics" never entered my mind but the question of
'trust'
> certainly did. Subcontracting and/or cross referrral is a great thing for
> everyone involved. As long as the playing field is honest, open and
> trustworthy......... This includes the 'add-on' contracts you describe.
>
>  So we really agree Tom..huh?
> Jim Bryant (FL)
>
>