How much do I need to charge...

Bob,
I highly doubt that your position matters.

You offer no proof to support your position or proof to support the contrary.

BTW, BOB! I'm sure that the suppliers and businesses that rely on my business appreciate the fact that I charge a rate capable of strengthening an economy...while making a living...while saving for retirement.

Wait a minute...

The perfect DJ has no expenses... :violent5:

Bob,

It is the cost of doing business... Ethically, Legally and Notoriously.

Bounce said:

Dude, what type of biz structure is your business? Corporation, Sole-Proprietor, Partnership, etc?

Click to expand...

Bounce,

Thank you for asking.

Sole Proprietor



Budget Breakdown:

1990-2005 Advertising: 07.84% - Last 5 year period {2000-2005} Advertising: 07.72%
1990-2005 Insurance : 04.74% - Last 5 year period {2000-2005} Insurance : 06.56%
1990-2005 Veh & Fuel: 11.07% - Last 5 year period {2000-2005} Veh & Fuel : 12.68% Budget Subtotal: 23.65% - 5yr: 26.96%

It would appear that an Insurance, Vehicle & Fuel increase has taken place in the last five years.

2006 fuel $14,692 Hmmm... LESS mile, more fuel... Could it be the cost at the pump?
2005 fuel $12,423 Hmmm... LESS mile, more fuel... Could it be the cost at the pump?
2004 fuel $10,859







Should one eat the cost...or pass it onto the consumer... Hmmmm...

BKSound said:

Between WOM and the world wide web, my ad budget is less than 2% these days.

Click to expand...

BKSound,

Thank you for your comparison.

Whether or not you find the Yellow Pages useful, some companies do.

As for spending too much on advertising, that is subjective.

I think you've made an assumption that 100% of the Adverting budget is focused on the Yellow Pages. However, it is not.

Here are a few areas of promotion, including but not limited to:

Yellow Pages
Newspaper
Magazine
Wedding Circular
Wedding Shows
Radio
Television
Community Sponsorships
School Related Sponsorships
Charity Sponsorships

From where I'm sitting, the budget seems very frugal.

Since there is no specific quide or percentage... no "rule of thumb" resource, I find that a 15 year average illustrates a certain consistency in my market.

BKSound said:

You have yet to acknowledge a single legitimate counterpoint in this thread, and there have been plenty.

Click to expand...

I can appreciate your concern, however, there is a difference between legitimate and myopic counterpoints.

Some have the wisdom to see the difference...

Proformance said:

Dude Walker said:

Should one eat the cost...or pass it onto the consumer... Hmmmm...

Click to expand...

How about figuring out if it's even cost effective at all?

That seems to be the ingredient you leave out each time.

"I spent it - therefore it is necessary" isn't a very convincing economic policy.

Click to expand...

This is not a valid counterpoint...it is a myopic one.

It calls for speculation that consideration was not entertained during the decision process.

I will agree that evaluating cost effectiveness is a valid approach. It is at the heart of the original post. If it appeared that a per event fee were too high for a given market due to production costs or desired salary...one would only need to apply the backend principle to set a budget limit to work within.

However, the key ingredient to this discussion would be comparisons...not condemnations of budget expenditures that you have little to no knowledge about.

I chose not to carry earthquake insurance. Although, the Red River Valley rests upon an ancient fault line, it was deemed as not cost effective.

Whereas, budgeting for snow-removal is a necessary expense for colder climates, warmer climates may not need it.

Bob, you are in no position to pontificate.

Proformance said:

Dude, why is your personal budget (i.e. "production cost") the standard from which you propose to measure all other DJs?

Isn't that "myopic" ?

Click to expand...

Bob, that assumption couldn't be further from the truth.

To reiterate:

Dude Walker said:

However, the key ingredient to this discussion would be comparisons...not condemnations of budget expenditures

Click to expand...

Hmmm...., that does not suggest an absolute...

In fact, your denigrating comments have been asserted on several occasions from an absolute..."your wrong"...position. Yet, you offer no substance to support your position...

Hmmm...

BKSound said:

Dude Walker said:

Some have the wisdom to see the difference...

Click to expand...

But clearly everyone in this thread is a mouth-breathing dolt who just cannot comprehend such complex marketing theories as you can?

Point taken.

Click to expand...

BKSound, those are your words...not mine.

It is unfortunate that you feel the reference was an observation of you.



So BK, Bob...et al...where would your budgets come in...percentage wise?

Advertising:
Insurance:
Vehicle & Fuel:

I thank BKSound for submitting his Advertising budget as approx 2%.

Has that increased, decreased or remained static from previous years?

Jeff Romard said:

Nope it doesn’t make it right but it remains the fact nonetheless....

Is thier business practice ethecial? Probably not in most peoples eyes but the fact remains they are not responsible to anyone but thier shareholders and thier customers

Click to expand...

Jeff, this is one of the pivotal points where we disagree.

Federal Trade Commission said:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm

An Antitrust Primer​

The antitrust laws describe unlawful practices in general terms, leaving it to the courts to decide what specific practices are illegal based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

n Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade," but long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act prohibits only those contracts or agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. What kinds of agreements are unreasonable is up to the courts.

n Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not necessarily illegal for a company to have a monopoly or to try to achieve a monopoly position. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.

n Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act outlaws "unfair methods of competition" but does not define unfair. The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Sherman Act also are violations of Section 5, but Section 5 covers some practices that are beyond the scope of the Sherman Act. It is the FTC’s job to enforce Section 5.

n Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." Determining whether a merger will have that effect requires a thorough economic evaluation or market study.

n Section 7A of the Clayton Act, called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, requires the prior notification of large mergers to both the FTC and the Justice Department.

Some cases are easier than others. The courts decided many years ago that certain practices, such as price fixing, are so inherently harmful to consumers that a detailed examination isn’t necessary to determine whether they are reasonable. The law presumes that they are violations (antitrust lawyers call these per se violations) and condemns them almost automatically.

Other practices demand closer scrutiny based on principles that the courts and antitrust agencies have developed. These cases are examined under a "rule of reason" analysis. A practice is illegal if it restricts competition in some significant way and has no overriding business justification. Practices that meet both characteristics are likely to harm consumers -- by increasing prices, reducing availability of goods or services, lowering quality or service, or significantly stifling innovation.

Click to expand...

Federal Trade Commission said:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm

Maintaining or Creating a Monopoly​

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.
While the FTC has not found predatory pricing violations in recent years, it examines potential violations very carefully and maintains a close watch for other kinds of tactics -- like raising competitors’ costs -- that may disadvantage rivals.

Click to expand...

Federal Trade Commission said:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/illegal.htm

Resale price maintenance agreements​

Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.

The antitrust laws, however, give a manufacturer latitude to adopt a policy regarding a desired level of resale prices and to deal only with retailers who independently decide to follow that policy. A manufacturer also is permitted to stop dealing with a retailer who breaches the manufacturer’s resale price maintenance policy. That is, the manufacturer can adopt the policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.

Agreements on maximum resale prices are evaluated under the "rule of reason" standard because in some situations these agreements can benefit consumers by preventing dealers from charging a non-competitive price.

Click to expand...

Federal Trade Commission said:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/discrim.htm

Price Discrimination​

A seller charging competing buyers different prices for the same "commodity" or discriminating in the provision of "allowances" -- compensation for advertising and other services -- may be violating the Robinson-Patman Act. This kind of price discrimination may hurt competition by giving favored customers an edge in the market that has nothing to do with the superior efficiency of those customers. However, price discriminations generally are lawful, particularly if they reflect the different costs of dealing with different buyers or result from a seller’s attempts to meet a competitor’s prices or services.
Price discrimination also might be used as a predatory pricing tactic -- setting prices below cost to certain customers -- to harm competition at the supplier’s level. Antitrust authorities use the same standards applied to predatory pricing claims under the Sherman Act and the FTC Act to evaluate allegations of price discrimination used for this purpose.

Click to expand...

Jeff Romard said:

If you could get the product 30% cheaper where would you buy it Dude?

Click to expand...

Jeff, this is a qualifying question.

I would most likely consider the consequences of the initial savings against the customer service needs of the future. Customer loyalty has it’s benefits. I deal fairly exclusively with suppliers that I’ve been treated fairly by in the past.

30% cheaper...isn’t always better.

If there’s ever a difference in price...it usually shows up in the quality of the product or customer service.

Jeff Romard said:

Mabye just mabye the DJs in your market have a better business model than you thats why they are cheaper

Click to expand...

Jeff, this is the confused mantra that several have inferred in this thread. Ironically, the inference is baseless. Largely, because not one person with a contrary view has picked up their phone to discuss their curiosities with me.

To address the allegation:

Of 100+ companies within my immediate market. My company retains a 25+ percent market position, which is, coincidentally, the highest. There are 3 multi’s with 5+ systems, 9 companies with 2+ systems and several single op - some half-op. Amidst that competition, constant evaluation takes places to maintain an effective and profitable business model. With only one negative year of the past 17 (due to massive leg & thoracic trauma) it would appear that my business model is sound.

However, what I see on the horizon is not promising. Nationally, wedding statistics are down. Yet there is a constant influx of MDJ entering the marketplace vying for a limited customer base, selling largely upon unrealistic prices. In part, due to subsidizing hobbies with outside revenue.

What I find remarkably ignorant is the absolute naivety of inferring that a non-autonomous business model is a better one.

Jeff Romard said:

Its funny I was in the local Walmart sunday afternoon and although I didnt go looking for it the Rubbermaid stuff was jumping out at me. After a quick look I noticed there was alot more Rubbermaid than Sterlite on the shelves. I guess Walmart does know its customer base

Click to expand...

Jeff, I find that odd as well.

I called the area Wal-Marts and it appears that there has been a re-emergence of several Rubbermaid products.

I’m not sure if Wal-Mart's issues with Rubbermaid had the same effects in Nova Scotia. It appears that Rubbermaid may have separate manufacturing plants in Canada.

Rubbermaid Canada
Attn: Consumer Service Dept - 2562 Stanfield Rd - Mississauga, ON L4Y1S5
Toll-Free: (866) 595-0525 - Fax: (905) 279-5254

USA & International - Rubbermaid, Inc. Home Products & Food Storage Divisions
Attn: Consumer Service - 3320 W. Market Street - Fairlawn, Ohio 44333-3306 USA
Toll-Free: (888) 895-2110 - Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern



Seeking further information I contacted Rubbermaid which is now known as Newell Rubbermaid on Monday at the suggestion of Wal-Mart store managers.

At the store level, they seemed “cautious” about commenting on the Rubbermaid situation.

Upon calling Newell Rubbermaid corporate, I received many referrals up the chain of command to the Director of Corporate Communications.

I am currently awaiting a rely.



Getting back to the spirit of the thread...