At some point ignorance is no justification. The business model is flawed and failing but it is still valid. In the final analysis the job is still profitable but programming and installation are not paid for in full by the client. They are line items but those line items reflect only a part of the real costs. The rest is made up from other, profitable parts of the job.

Let's try this. If I could tell you that you would earn 50K from a job that took 4 months to install and that your net profitability would still hover around 8-12% would you think you were doing well? If I told you that if you analyzed that part of your contract which concerned labor and that you lost 25K on it would it effect the conclusion your reached?

The point is not that the job is not profitable it is that labor is not. I can lower my equipment prices and increase labor but I have a zero sum situation. The client is going to pay X dollars for this job. As equipment profits shrink the business model where equipment sales funded labor becomes less and less tenable. Here the only relevant factor is to point out to the Gentleman from Texas that his assumption that the client paid for the code once was incorrect. He paid for the job, he purchased a working system. I funded unprofitable parts of the job from the profits of other parts of the job. In the end I make a profit. I just do not make a profit on labor and programming. These can be seen as loss leaders or as the cost of doing business. But they do back up my argument that if the client wishes the code he ought to pay for it.

Alan

I hope I have been entertaining................and informative, though I suspect we come out on different sides of this debate.

Alan

A valid point. I have argued that my salespukes sell feature sets not equipment but they are too dim to understand and that is my misfortune. This will change but change is slow.

Unfortunately, I cannot always predict where I will lose my shirt. I will not know when Crestron's firmware will break something that used to work, when a driver that used to work will cease to work on a new display. I cannot predict if the firmware in a WAP that used to work with a WiFi remote will continue to work. I cannot afford the spectrum analyzer that will tell me what is causing my wireless network, and my WiFi remotes, to work like crap.

I cannot know why a Kaleidescpae server failed and needs to be replaced. I cannot know why Lutron "A" modules don't work on Jobs A and B but work perfectly fine on other jobs.

Controlling type A clients is very, very difficult and the more successful the client the better he is at negotiating what he wants then I am.

That said, I do agree with you. My only point is that because one part of a job is unprofitable doesn't imply that the entire job is.

Ironically, I do get my hourly when I am the one called in to fix the system. When you are selling high tariff items clients just hit a wall where they don't want to go further. Better salespukes can overcome this to a point but I know mega CI firms who have told me the same stories I am retelling here and they have super salesmen.

Given equipment margins it is becoming a seriously flawed model and it will need to change.

Don't be surprised if Crestron and AMX do not become more insistent on the use of their wizards to deal with this issue. But I don't think the basic paradigm matters if you are dealing with C4, CQC or Crestron. At some point the client will only spend X on his system and you have to determine if making less on programming then you should makes the job one you should pass on. But it does alter the equation about whether the client should pay for the code if he wants it.

And this, finally, and I am sure to the relief of many, is my final post on this subject.

Alan

Too bad that was your last post on this subject.

Jeez, you sometimes write obtusely. Do you mean

OR


My first brou-haha with you came years ago when you left out a "not" in a final statement, making me think you meant the opposite of what you intended. You, of course, were offended that I took you at your (mistaken) word. Here you are at the final post using what appears to be subjunctive, which modern English has pretty much abandoned, using "should" in some form to clarify the meaning...and two almost opposite meanings emerge.

And this would be the customers problem how? You decide when to perform the install. If you choose to install with an incorrectly functioning network in place, seems like you are creating your own problems. Doesn't seem like any decent justification for why programming is expensive. Seems like a great justification of how not managing a business runs costs up for the customer.


I assure you that talking with my customers paying $1 for an IC is no easier. They fight tooth and nail for every percentage point.


Alan, please note the difference between "can't" and "won't". It's not that you can't bill for your time, it's that you won't because that may mean you don't get the job. If you feel it is necessary to provide programming as a "loss leader", then it may be a viable business tactic... But then don't show up here and complain about how the customers won't pay the true cost of programming, in such a model, it is a cost of doing business, and should be accounted for as so.

Regarding my belief about your business model being "not accurate". It's a bit hard to tell what you mean. I fully believe you charge as discussed. I believe many installers do. Doesn't mean I have to accept it as your customer. Know full well that I would never sign a contract that doesn't spell out my rights in the area of licenses, programming, and the source. Those involved in a system with me as the customer will provide the source as requested, or not be contracted for in the first place. I believe this will happen at some point with the majority of customers, as they become educated.


Not sure what this has to do with the disussion...


You are great at talking "around" issues. Which "it" is it that I don't see?

The fact that you have "salespukes", and would call them that, tells me plenty. You hold disdain for your employees, yet won't take the effort to remedy the situation. This is supposed to be some grand reason why I have to accept how you wish to do business?


That determination would be a function of the customer, why the calls are needed, and the contract both parties agreed to. But I understand why you love to trot out this old tired argument. No one here has once implied that customers who refuse to pay the contracted price, should receive source.


So, you are trying to say, that a customer has been blind-sided by programming costs not contained in the proposal, and you are surprised by how a client might wish to negotiate on this? If they are not being blind-sided, no need to cave in and accept 10K rather than 100K, take em to court. Seems like that would be an easy decision.


I've heard similar, in similar situations, and walked away from deals because of it. Many times the best decision in a business relationship, is not to make it a business relationship! If the work won't pay, I am not forcing you to take it.


I fully understand the "shell game" being played by many of the CI's here. I believe your customers understand it as well. That is why we don't want to play it on your terms.


This again sounds like the same old arguments. A decent contract would state who is responsible for customer supplied equipment. Not holding customers to the contract, and requiring change order for changes to the contract. Again you are using "cannot" when you really mean "won't".


And the fact that it doesn't reflect the true cost, is because your proposal incorrectly states the cost. Doesn't sound like anything the customer would be held liable for to me.


Oh, I fully believe you practice what I consider a broken business model. I believe my arguments do a nice job of pointing to the illogic. I believe the business model is irrational. I believe you intend to stay with such an illogical business model. Perhaps now you are confusing the word "believe", with "agree with". I fully understand your business model, I agree that it is the norm. Doesn't mean it is right, or what I must accept.


"...unreal reality." Sometimes I believe you intend to confuse the issues by throwing out such sayings.

I believe Julie will educate consumers on this issue. I believe she will warn them how to protect their interests, and this will be yet another nail in the coffin of this business model. Change is hard, but in my past experience, not changing often results in extinction!

PS: To those of you who feel the need to hurl comments laden with swear words at me... LOL My spam filter has caught all but a couple. I would never have known how many people I'd incited to "Foaming at the mouth" but for the fact that 2 made it into my mail box. Grow up, and learn to express yourself as an adult.

hmm...

Sounds to me that your ideal hourly rate for programming is too high then. If you can only charge 2k for what you perceive as 10k worth of work, your math is obviously flawed.

Could it be a Crestron programmer isn't worth 150+ dollars a hour? Unless it's a service call to repair something, and they then have the cilent bent over a barrel. Of course if the cilent had the source code he could contract someone else.....ohhh....now your angle makes sense.

Bottom line is... If you can't get paid for what you think your time is worth. It isn't worth what you think. ...and there's more to it then just an hourly rate Alan. It's your hourly rate multiplied by hours needed to do the job. You can skew your math and say the cilent isn't paying what it's worth to you, but if they paid in full, blame yourself for short changing yourself and hand over the code the cilent paid for.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if Julie does an article about this issue, maybe she should encourage clients to sue companies and/or individuals from whom they got programming, but from whom they did not get a method of updating their system using someone else.

As I see it after all of this, it is the programmer's responsibility to educate the client as to the dangers of buying programming without recourse if the original programmer is a jerk or goes out of business. Alan says, accurately, that consumer education is needed. I don't see you all saying "and that's OUR responsibility." Well, if not the guys who know that the client is up sh#t creek if there's a problem, then who?

If the client is going to balk at the real price, they don't get the system! When a client balks at the price of a car, does the car dealer reduce the price, eliminate the warranty without telling the buyer about it, then complain about how hard it was to make the sale?

One of my clients was in this situation a few years ago and I was livid that any programmer would NOT tell the client about it ahead of time.

Maybe Julie is trying to gather information to write an article that's balanced, showing both sides of the stories. Maybe it can't be balanced. Maybe programmers are silently ignoring their responsibilities of full disclosure to their clients. Maybe the right thing is to tell people to sue programmers.

Thank you, Ernie.

I don't know how I could recommend an integrator who would answer "no" to this question:

If you go out of business or I despise your work, will another authorized dealer be able to take over, or will I have to start all over from scratch?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS.... originally I said "answer Yes" I meant "no"

Hmmmm, last I checked you needed Viewport at a minimum and preferably Toolbox for loading compiled code to a Crestron processor. Since this software is not available to unauthorized end users I believe that indeed you do need special software tools. I've only loaded 4 projects this morning so maybe I am missing something. Also, last I checked, an ethernet cable is NOT a software tool.


Yes, locking a module generally prevents another programmer from dissecting how the module was built. No, it does not stop them from using the modules in their programs. So what? This makes the assumption that ALL programmers are willing to steal from their competition. My experience has been just the opposite.

I doubt there will ever be a job lost by any a/v integrator based on your competition having a copy of your unique module. I do not see modules as giving me a competitive edge. My experience level, my many letters from happy clients and my dedication to providing the customer with more than they expect is my competitive edge.

Yes, another authorized dealer will be able to take over. You couldn't recomend someone in that situation? I can understand the second part.

OOOOOPPPPPPPS .... I meant "answer no"

Your taking my resonses out of context. Any crestron progammer will not need any special tool.


I dont know how you got that quote about locking a module with my name in it but i didnt write it. Locking modules doesnt work. We all know anything with a lock can be unlocked so theres no reason i would have brought that up.

Surely, if you despised their (programming) work you would WANT someone else to start from scratch?

Its not a case of despising their work. As an end user I would like to give some history. It either works or it doesnt, its not a matter of despising work. At some or most points..relationships change.
Case in point, I had a fabulous programmer/installer and got to be socially friendly. BIG MISTAKE. At some point he was billing me for all time at my house and many times I found him on MY PHONE. (This was the days before NetLinx so he was in the house) I asked him very nicely to please NOT do that. At that point he downed his "tools" and walked off my job. I am CONSTANLY changing and upgrading.
After many calls AMX finally jumped into save me. I have since found an independant programmer who probably does $20 000.00 worth of programming for me every year for the past 5 years at least. I continue to make changes and have everything that opens and shuts on an automated basis. Twice a year he sends me the full blown code and source into an ftp folder on one of my computers. IN CASE THE PLANE GOES DOWN. I wouldnt have it any other way.
He also encourages me to design my own panels and has GIVEN me the software for my use only. I have purchased GUI stuff and its fun to do. If I get into trouble he then fixes it for billable hours. So its a win win..he gets paid and I keep busy.
I wouldnt have it any other way. And if programmers dont want to share their code or programming there are plenty that do, so just use them. I think the article is a good idea. As was said in the AMX forums..these are not TOP SECRET ISSUES.

I cringe to think of engaging in social time with some of the programmers who have responded to this thread. I'm sure they think the same about me, and that's just fine.

I like that line: IN CASE THE PLANE GOES DOWN. I think that about covers the installer's responsibility to cover the client.

You programmers who aren't telling your clients how screwed they will be if the plane goes down, you have neither the confidence in your ability to sell and to program, nor the faith in your customer to tell them the truth (nasty secret, it was called somewhere) about your programming. You think if they know all about it, they won't buy. They will "balk." HELL, YES! ! ! They should not buy if they are ignorantly signing up for a bad plan! And their ignorance is on you.