| Electronics > Repair |
| Charging by the hour is unfair! |
| << < (12/40) > >> |
| SteveThackery:
In summary, I think there is one principle that we should all stick to: never surprise a customer with a bill, and never send them away feeling they've been ripped off. (Hmmm... maybe that's two principles...) Firstly, and most importantly, I think this means never taking on a job, failing at it, and then charging them for your time regardless. This is utterly unacceptable and should never happen. It is unfair to the customer because it loads all the business risk onto the customer, while you take on no risk at all - fail or not, that'll be five hundred bucks, thank you kindly. Dumping all the risk on the customer is morally indefensible. Equally, taking on a job, failing at it and being unable to charge the customer (for good moral reasons) is equally unfair, but this time it is unfair on you. In that model, you take on all the risk, and the customer takes on none. They might like that idea, but it is unfair on yourself, as many of you have pointed out. So what is left? You and the customer share the risk. And make it clear that either party can avoid any risk just by walking away. Sharing the risk implies the following..... You tell the customer up-front that you need to evaluate the job, and that will cost $50 (say), regardless of the outcome (ie whether you can repair it or you can't). At that point the customer can take that risk, or walk away with their money. If they agree to go ahead, you get the money up front. Once evaluated, you say to the customer "I can do it and it'll cost $200" (say), or "I can't repair it because the parts are obsolete" (for example). If the customer decides to proceed, stick to your estimate (that's your side of the risk equation). Maybe you could agree to seek their approval if the bill is going to be more, but that does risk the customer feeling suspicious about being "gouged". So, TL:DR: 1/ Tell the customer there'll be an up-front evaluation charge. They can either accept it or walk away. After the evaluation: EITHER 2a/ Tell the customer you can fix it for $n (and stick to that quote). OR 2b/ Tell the customer the item is beyond economic repair. That seems to be the only way that the risk is shared - it's as fair as possible to you and as fair as possible to the customer. Nobody feels ripped off because both parties knew what risks and costs were involved up front. |
| SteveThackery:
--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 03, 2024, 04:11:31 pm --- You also don't seem to appreciate that there are two sides to every deal. --- End quote --- The opposite is true. See my post just above this one. I've been arguing that charging for your time even if you fail is one-sided. The rest of that post describes how to make the risk properly two-sided. --- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 03, 2024, 04:11:31 pm --- But most of all, you claim your point as god-given truth, and refuse to hear any disagreement --- End quote --- There is only one small point in my original, wider-ranging argument, that I refuse to move on, and that is presenting the customer with a significant bill AND their unrepaired appliance. You are right, I won't move on that one. But I have conceded all the other points! --- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 03, 2024, 04:11:31 pm --- You've abused our openness, our desire to exchange ideas; you are nothing but a troll. --- End quote --- Hey, come on now - just because I find an argument entirely unconvincing and illogical does NOT make me a troll. How about me calling you a troll for continuing to insist it's OK to charge a customer even when you aren't up to the job of fixing their widget? Defending that position looks awfully troll-like to me! --- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 03, 2024, 04:11:31 pm --- You're welcome to change my mind on the above statements, but it is clear that the points you came here with, are not in dispute; these latter points are, it seems, the only truly meaningful matters to dispute here. --- End quote --- I refer you to my previous post, which I believe addresses the entire discussion, whilst defending my one and only non-negotiable. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: SteveThackery on June 30, 2024, 10:35:07 pm ---Reading another thread on this topic got me thinking about all the things wrong with charging by the hour. ... Maybe every job should start with an up-front firm quote to the customer, and should include a no fix / no fee commitment. If that is too restrictive, then give the customer an estimate and say that you will contact them to ask their agreement to proceed if you find you need to charge more for the repair. But again, NO FIX, NO FEE! What say you? --- End quote --- I would say you're delusional. I get it, that from a customer POV, you want a quick, fixed-price transaction. But the fact is, everything you pay for (including goods you buy) are ultimately paying for someone's time. (OK, with the big exception of corporate profit and other forms of rent-seeking.) That's all labor is -- someone's time. And even raw materials are just the cost of people's time to collect the material, or to manufacture the tools needed to collect the material. Having worked as a computer technician, think of it from the technician's point of view: you don't know what's wrong with the thing. It might be simple, or it might be something completely unexpected that takes hours just to diagnose. If you don't charge for diagnostics, then with every repair, you're gambling. You have no idea what the issue is and whether you'll be able to fix it. And the nature of the fault is something you have zero control over! Would you gamble with YOUR income, based on a factor that's outside of your control? How is that fair to the technician? Sometimes repairs are complex, and success can only be determined after doing a lot of work. Is it fair for the technician to invest lots of time and parts (which could be expensive) only to discover that it cannot be repaired, meaning that all the parts and labor are donated for free? Some technicians/companies choose to offer free estimates/diagnostics and/or "no fix, no fee". But what that means is that the cost of those services is baked into a higher price for all the services that do get performed: paying customers are then subsidizing those free services. Is that fair to them? I work as an in-house electronics technician at a university, and one of my duties is repairing lab equipment. We have literally hundreds of magnetic stirrers, including probably hundreds of just one model. Because of that fact, it made sense for me to invest hours into reverse-engineering the control circuit and figuring out the various failure modes, because a fault I encounter once, I am likely to encounter again and again. I have had multiple units where the failed component is a resistor. Literally a 1 cent part. But given the hours it took to figure out how the circuit works, just to make it possible to diagnose a bad component, is only worthwhile because the labor cost is spread across many units. If it were a device that we only had one of, my boss would have told me to spend an hour on it at most, and then declare it BER (beyond economical repair). Only because we have literally hundreds was it worth investing more time. Imagine if a customer came into a repair shop with one of those things, which they'd never seen before, with the same broken resistor. Is it fair to the technician to spend 6 hours on diagnostics, and then only be able to bill the customer the 10 minutes it takes to open the housing, replace the resistor, clean the board, and close it back up? Plus the one cent for parts? Certainly not. Would a typical customer be willing to pay you to spend 6h to fix it, when that is more than the unit cost new? Likely not. So in practice, you'd take only a quick look at it and declare it unrepairable. Fixed-price repairs are sometimes offered. But because of the unpredictability, they tend to cost more than the average for that type of repair might cost on a per-hour basis. Or they are moderately priced but come with VERY strict prerequisites. (Ever wonder why Apple won't perform a battery replacement, which they offer as a fixed-price repair, on a phone that has any visible damage whatsoever? It's because you don't know what unexpected problems that damage might cause. For example, and I have had this happen when attempting to do a repair on a device, if the screen bezel is deformed even a tiny bit, then once you get the screen out, you won't be able to get it back in, at the risk of causing the screen to shatter.) Anyhow, this is just scratching the surface of the topic. There are many ways to price technical services. But one thing I can tell you: consumer tech support and repairs are the worst business. Consumers need support that is ultimately often just as difficult and time-consuming as business stuff, but they aren't willing and/or able to pay for it. This is why e.g. computer tech support services come in exactly two price categories: high-schoolers charging $15-40/h doing it as a hobby, and professionals charging $100-500/h. What doesn't exist is a middle ground. I tried it. What happens is that consumers penny-pinch every minute. Business customers are happy to pay your $200/h. When I went back to school in 2003 after already being an established computer consultant, and did some support on the side, for business clients I used this billing model : $75/h (with one hour minimum) plus a $75 flat charge to cover travel (within a reasonable distance). In other words, you had to pay $150 for me to show up, up to an hour. Then beyond that billed in 15 minute increments. The business clients didn't bat an eye at this (even if the outcome after 30 minutes is "it's broke, you need to buy a new one"). (My former employer used a different model: no base charge, but $90/h. Cheaper for short visits, but more expensive for long ones.) At the same time, I tried (and quickly abandoned) doing a lower rate for consumers, $35/h + $35 base charge w/1h minimum. But it just wasn't worth it. Taking a half hour to drive over, another half hour back, and then even two hours there, for $105 just ain't worth the time, mileage, and tools you need to have. But moreover, consumers would try and haggle you down, trying to get you to round down 90 minutes to an hour, or to only charge 30 minutes for a 30 minute visit (even though it was still an hour travel in total). And they'd always come up with another "quick question" after writing you the check... I felt somewhat bad at having to leave those people without support, but it simply wasn't worthwhile, and dealing with the penny-pinching is just plain unpleasant. It makes you feel like they don't value your time and expertise. I kept the business customers only. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Geoff-AU on July 01, 2024, 06:40:35 am ---The more competent you are the higher your hourly rate. Doubles as an excellent filter. --- End quote --- Yep. When my sister (who is a singing teacher) went into business for herself, I gave her exactly that advice: price filters out the clients you don't want. The ones who recognize your value as a professional-tier teacher (as in, she teaches professional singers how to improve) will be happy to pay a high rate and won't complain. High rates also send a really strong message outwards about how good you are claiming to be. Or more importantly: if you charge too little, many clients won't take you seriously. So paradoxically, you often get more business by charging more! |
| watchmaker:
I agree; I sell my time. And it is a non renewable resource. Once used it is gone forever. Regardless of what physics sez. Discount parts; never your time. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |