<HTML>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: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> 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 </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>