Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
-
Originally Posted by
funkymook
Again I don’t agree - we’re the experts, we know the industry terminology and jargon, so it’s up to us to make sure the client understands what we’re talking about. I think blaming the client because we’ve taken their understanding for granted and have failed to communicate effectively is a complete cop out.
I think it’s basics like this that need to be taught on DJ workshops.
I can totally respect that if that's what you do it's a great and very helpful... But I cannot remember that level of helpfulness when purchasing anything before. When you buy financial products you get a financial advisor if you're not clued up, why is it different... I'm not sure?
-
Dinosaur
Originally Posted by
ukpartydj
! Maybe we should educate people and try to help them...
That's been an aim of this forum since its inception, and I don't think it's likely to happen by next week/month/year/decade.................
.
Originally Posted by
ukpartydj
maybe they should do some research it's 50/50 .
And again,
Originally Posted by
funkymook
I think blaming the client because we’ve taken their understanding for granted and have failed to communicate effectively is a complete cop out.
Absolutely.
Originally Posted by
funkymook
I think it’s basics like this that need to be taught on DJ workshops.
I disagree. It shouldn't need to be taught at all, it should be ingrained in our psyches already.
Originally Posted by
Benny Smyth
The word 'uplighting' springs to mind.
Not sure why.
But true.
-
-
Ezekiel 25:17
Originally Posted by
ukpartydj
I can totally respect that if that's what you do it's a great and very helpful... But I cannot remember that level of helpfulness when purchasing anything before. When you buy financial products you get a financial advisor if you're not clued up, why is it different... I'm not sure?
Now I’d expect that basic level of service from any supplier or retailer, it isn’t gong the extra mile, it’s the starting post.
-
Dinosaur
Originally Posted by
Corabar Steve
So you'd let an employee sign, as opposed to a manager or the owner?
Why not " as well as "? Either that, or specify the person likely to be doing the gig.
-
Originally Posted by
Corabar Steve
So you'd let an employee sign, as opposed to a manager or the owner?
They are not employed by me,i just hire the gear and pass on work for a fee,were does it say they are employed by me ?
-
Dinosaur
Originally Posted by
TONYTIGER
They are not employed by me,i just hire the gear and pass on work for a fee,were does it say they are employed by me ?
Tony, that's a whole different ballgame, and not comparable to the case set out here, in my humble opinion.
-
Originally Posted by
Excalibur
Tony, that's a whole different ballgame, and not comparable to the case set out here, in my humble opinion.
I tend to disagree,its all about communication did the person who booked this service realize that the person who he booked this disco from was not going to be there on the night from what i read no.
-
Originally Posted by
TONYTIGER
I tend to disagree,its all about communication did the person who booked this service realize that the person who he booked this disco from was not going to be there on the night from what i read no.
I have acctually already said that when this client was booking i told them i might not be the DJ.
Even if I hadnt told them, I still don't think they should of assumed it was the person on the phone that would be there. And the reason I think that is because of the company name/Trading name.
If a customer rang a mobile disco company trading as DJ ****'s Discos or something like that, then the client would be right to assume they are booking that DJ. However, If they call a company with a trading name of TFN events or aything that is not named after the DJ themsleves, then I think that you can not assume you will get the person your speaking to. (You don't expect it with any other type of buisness) Out of curtosy I will always mention that we have a few experienced DJ's nd it could be any one of us DJing their party, Unless they speficaly want one of us that they have seen beofre or worked with before etc.
And with regards to signing contracts. Its a completely differnt scenario when you book other people/companies to fullfill your workload. What we have discussed is wether it should be the DJ (an employee) signing the contract or The company (Manager etc). If you pass the work on then yes of course that Dj would probably sign the contratc. However, If your company is supplying a DJ who works for you then surely you would not have that DJ (employee) sign it unless they were also a manager etc. And then they are signing it in their cappacity of manager etc and not as the DJ. it really boils down to the fact that The person signing contracts should be a representative of the company (Owner/Manager etc) and should never be the DJ JUST BECAUSE they are the DJ.
-
Ezekiel 25:17
Originally Posted by
jonezyr1
I have acctually already said that when this client was booking i told them i might not be the DJ.
Even if I hadnt told them, I still don't think they should of assumed it was the person on the phone that would be there. And the reason I think that is because of the company name/Trading name.
If a customer rang a mobile disco company trading as DJ ****'s Discos or something like that, then the client would be right to assume they are booking that DJ. However, If they call a company with a trading name of TFN events or aything that is not named after the DJ themsleves, then I think that you can not assume you will get the person your speaking to. (You don't expect it with any other type of buisness)
I think your logic is flawed, many sole traders do not trade under their own name, in fact I’d say it’s probably a rarity.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules