| Electronics > Repair |
| Charging by the hour is unfair! |
| << < (15/40) > >> |
| SteveThackery:
--- Quote from: David_AVD on July 03, 2024, 10:42:12 pm ---Even with an estimated price range, there will be times when the true nature of the fault reveals itself and the item becomes uneconomical / impossible to repair. In those cases the upfront fee covers me for at least some of my time. In those cases the customer is out of pocket with no result. Occasionally I'm effectively out of pocket too if I've spent more time and parts on it than I can recover. --- End quote --- Yes, I agree that sometimes, even after the evaluation and agreeing the price range, it can happen that it is beyond economic repair after all. This is an example where you both lose out a little. The customer has spent the evaluation fee without getting a repair; you have spent whatever time was required to reach that conclusion, so you have lost out, too. That is fair and equitable - you've both lost out a bit. The customer willingly paid the evaluation fee - in effect they were willing to take that risk - so they aren't getting stung. Compare that with the approach advocated by so many in this thread, whereby in that circumstance the customer always loses and you never do; you get your $200 and the customer eats shit. |
| SteveThackery:
--- Quote from: thm_w on July 03, 2024, 11:14:42 pm --- Its not true for a lot of cell phone repairs. Most of the rates are fixed, eg. battery replacement iphone xyz $60, screen replacement iphone xyz $100, etc. But that is because: the fault is known, the repair time is known, and the parts cost is known. If you know all of these and provide them to the person performing your repair, I'm sure many would be happy to take a fixed rate. --- End quote --- Thanks for correcting me, @thm_w. Earlier in the thread we discussed a similar circumstance, whereby the time to fix the most common faults in most cars is determined (or even dictated) up front. This is because car makers and mobile phones repair companies know what I've been saying all along: the customer just wants a price for the repair, so they can make a go/no go decision. Further debate established that that approach is tilted too far in the customer's favour, and against the repairer, when the repairer has no way of knowing how long the repair might take. The solution advocated for by others in this thread - where the customer gets stuck with the full labour cost incurred AND gets a broken appliance back is, in my opinion, too far in favour of the repairer. The customer takes all the risk and has no control over the final bill. The repairer takes none of the risk and gets the full fee every time, successful or not. That's why I think the middle ground is the only fair way. The customer pays you to do an initial evaluation, knowing that whatever happens next, that money is gone. They know they are buying an evaluation, and they know how much it will cost. They have the choice to take it or leave it. If they decide to proceed with the evaluation, they are knowingly taking a risk, because they might be told it's irreparable, or it might be a higher repair cost than they are willing to pay. In that case they take their appliance and walk away, and you keep your evaluation fee. In the spirit of sharing the risk, you agree to do the repair for a particular price (or price range). If the customer accepts it, and it turns out to be irreparable after all, then you give the appliance back to the customer for no extra charge. That is your share of the risk - you've done some work you can't charge for. But this risk-sharing is fair and equitable, unlike a system which dumps all of the risk on one party. |
| David_AVD:
Coincidentally I just dropped my work van into the dealer to have the gear shifter looked at. They charge AUD $165 for the diagnostic and if the fault is solvable within that time (1 hour I think) that's all I'll pay. I do expect however that it will need parts, but they will call before doing more. If I decline I still have to pay the minimum $165 which if fine by me. |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: SteveThackery on July 03, 2024, 03:13:09 pm --- --- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 03, 2024, 11:16:43 am ---One could equally well argue that, hey I put in however many hours doing the thing, work is work, pay me. You've constructed no argument from moral principles (which framework, even!), you've just asserted that you think it is so. --- End quote --- I've already explained this: no customer wants to buy your time or your work, they want to buy a repair. The customer doesn't need to know or care how much time it took you - they go away with a repaired appliance or they don't. --- End quote --- If someone quotes an extortionate price, but is sure to repair the device, then you would be happy? The ultimate result of such a policy is that the price of your, or anybody else's repair is inflated to compensate for those repairs which would otherwise incur a loss to the repairer. Such a policy would work well if the repairer was in the business of selling new devices, and/or modules which make up a large part of the device, as they have a good bargaining point towards using either of the latter options. On top of that, not all devices are created equal------- some manufacturers go out of their way to make things difficult, others don't! Those who do often also "charge like wounded buffaloes" for parts. When I worked at the hearing aid place, we were also the accredited calibration & repair site for audiometers & other hearing test instruments. One such device displayed its results on a 9 inch black & white CRT display, which was really a small picture monitor, which could be unplugged from the instrument. We received one with collapsed vertical scan. As we were not set up to fix monitors, normal practice was to remove the display & send it to the USA, where the manufacturer would send us back a refurbished display, charging $A1200. On contacting them, we were informed that they no longer refurbished the displays, so we would have to buy a new one at a very much higher price. Our customer said "EEEK!" when we approached them, & had to check with higher management. About this time, I had a few free moments to look at the PCB of the display, which looked vaguely familiar, but of course, we had no schematics, & the IC part numbers had been sanded off. On a hunch, I contacted a former workmate, who arranged the loan of a workshop manual for an Electrohome 9 inch BW picture monitor. With the aid of the EH schematic, I was able to confirm that our display was virtually identical. With the EH monitor, there was a standard fault which caused loss of vertical scans, failure of an underrated diode. Upon replacement, the display was normal---all for the cost of a $1.00 diode! The customer was happy as they paid less & got their revenue earning device back faster, we were happy, but that was just the blind luck that I recognised the architecture of the display. If I hadn't, as there was no fixed price for the repair, unlike for the calibration, at least we didn't have the invidious choice of "eating" the extra cost of a new display, or charging nothing & handing the customer back a useless piece of equipment. The customer wouldn't have been happy with either of those choices! Needless to say, a photocopy of the "Electrohome" monitor schematic found its way into the equipment file!! |
| CatalinaWOW:
The discussion of who is taking the most risk requires further discussion. The two parties are not equally invested in this process. The customer has a broken device that is worthless to him. His options are all costly, and some involve risk. If it is still under warranty he can send it back to the manufacturer either for replacement or repair. If the device is still in production he can buy a new device. He can buy a different device that performs a similar function. He can try to fix it himself. He can do without the device. Or he can try to get someone to service it for him. But every option except doing without means he really wants the device and wants some combination of rapid restoration of function and low price. All of the options listed will not exist for every device, but by the time the customer walks into the repair shop door he has made a significant decision and commitment to expenditure of time and money. This model even applies to the eBay reseller with a subset of the options. The repair shop owner has a very different perspective. All that is in play for him is an increment of business. In many cases there is far more work than he needs or can handle (for example sewing machine repairmen in my area have literally months of work backlog. I have been forced to learn sewing machine repair to keep my wife's machines in operation). Taking on a lengthy repair will negatively impact his performance for other customers. He is aware that bad service can result in reducing or eliminating that backlog, but there is no emotional, operational or significant financial investment in any one repair. His issues are paying the bills. The very different customer/repairer investments result in completely different risk analyses. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |