Add ons (posts split from another thread)

[rob1963]

Please Note: This topic has not been started by the original poster in this thread. This topic has been generated by moving the posts from another thread.

*Admin*



I think if they realised what they would get for an extra £75, they'd be shocked. I don't see how a person who obviously isn't selling the gear to the client is charging that for 2 scanners. If you are selling a look or something to create atmosphere then fair enough, but you aren't! You are adding 2 scanners that whizz about the room and that's about it. If you were including that and quoting £350 then fair enough, but you have got very large balls adding that on at £75.00!


Fair comments there Rob.
I just always try to give the best I have got and I charge for that too. If someone asked for a couple of extra lights or something then I would just say "No problem" and provide them because it's all in the price anyway. It doesn't take 2 minutes to set up the extra stuff.
I would much rather (for example) charge say £350.00 for everything and get lots of jobs (as I do) than say £75.00 less than that by giving options. That may sound bad, it isn't supposed to but in my experience and around where I am (I am not suggesting overall ok Darren)...people don't generally go for extras. I used to do what you are doing Rob but it didn't work for me so that's why I just charge an overall fee and on the T&C's it says that the only extras are for Radio Mics and Background music if I have to be there.

It all comes down to how we sell our services.

If I told clients it was £275 for a disco and said they could have 2 more lights for an extra £75, I doubt many of them would pay the extra.

However, the majority of them DO book the larger disco, and this is clearly due to the way it's sold on my website. In other words, because it offers 50% more lighting than the standard disco, because it's the most popular choice for weddings and because the website suggests it's ideal for functions of 70-150 people (and virtually all weddings have 70-150 guests). It also helps to have the difference between the standard & deluxe discos as only £75, rather than £100 or more like some people do.

Therefore, the website does the upselling for me!

Although not often, I sometimes I get bookings by phone. When I ask them which disco they want to book, most (having obviously seen the website) say something like "We're having more than 70 guests, so we'll need the larger one"

Job done!

:D

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I don't do 'packages' either but I do have add ons that are either practical or make a great deal of difference to the look of the venue, not just an extra couple of lights. (Using Rob as an example but not having a dig)

What were your add ons that didn't sell Gary?

[Shakermaker Promotions]

I can see how that works Rob and maybe I should have done that. It's all down to the wording then isn't it. You are almost doing a Derren Brown on them and TELLING them what they should book. In other words, potential customers Mr & Mrs Groom have a wedding coming up and want to book a disco. They have 200 guests and immediately think "Oh, that standard option would be too small..."and so on..... I can see where you are coming from and quite like that idea to be fair. I may have to re-think things too but I like the way I am doing things myself at the moment and it works so maybe there's no reason to change.

The way you have put it above Rob makes it sound better than before.

[Shakermaker Promotions]

Darren, they weren't really 'add ons' to be honest mate. They were more down to the sizes as at the time, that's how everyone else seemed to do it. In the end I thought that wherever possible I would take the same out to every function and charge a general price I was happy with.

[rob1963]

I did loads of research looking around other companies websites and noticed that most of them did the multiple packages thing so I thought I would too. Most people went for the cheapest option which wasn't what I wanted.

That's probably why you DON'T do set packages and I DO...

...when you had them, most people went for the cheapest one, which clearly wasn't what you wanted..

...but I have them, and most people go for the dearest one, which clearly IS what I want!


I can see how that works Rob and maybe I should have done that. It's all down to the wording then isn't it. You are almost doing a Derren Brown on them and TELLING them what they should book. In other words, potential customers Mr & Mrs Groom have a wedding coming up and want to book a disco. They have 200 guests and immediately think "Oh, that standard option would be too small..."and so on

Spot on, Gary.

I think of it as "subliminal marketing"

Having decided on packages, I sat down to think of ways I could "encourage" most people to book the larger & more expensive disco.

I came up with the "50% more lighting" phrase (as it sounds better than "2 extra lights"), and only having a difference of £75 between the two discos rather than £100, but the main clincher was to advertise the deluxe disco as being "ideal for 70-150 people".....as I knew d@mn well that the majority of weddings have 70-150 guests.

It works for me, so I'm more than happy, and more importantly, so are my clients.

[Corabar Steve]

In other words, because it offers 50% more lighting than the standard disco


I came up with the "50% more lighting" phrase (as it sounds better than "2 extra lights"

So how many lights are in the cheaper package? 4?

[rob1963]

So how many lights are in the cheaper package? 4?

No, Steve...10.

The "50% more lighting" phrase refers to the wattage rather than the number of individual lights, as the number on its own is pretty meaningless. For example "one light" could mean a 30 watt pinspot or a 600 watt mushroom light...which are are two very different things.

My standard disco has 8 pinspots, a mushroom light & a gobo flower, with a combined output of 940 watts.

The larger disco adds 2 mirror scanners increasing the total output to 1.44kW, which is just over 53% more, although I like to use round figures, so I describe it as 50% more.

How's that for a full and accurate answer?

:D

[JAMdisco]

My standard disco has 8 pinspots, a mushroom light & a gobo flower, with a combined output of 940 watts.
The larger disco adds 2 mirror scanners increasing the total output to 1.44kW, which is just over 53% more, although I like to use round figures, so I describe it as 50% more.:D

Hey, I could do that with my lighting, with my (low wattage) LED's, by offering 2 of my 250W scanners, that would be a massive increase. :p :D
How's that for a selling point "disco 2 has 500% more lighting" (this is a guess, you can work it out properly if you want to be pedantic) :p ;) :D

[rob1963]

Hey, I could do that with my lighting, with my (low wattage) LED's, by offering 2 of my 250W scanners, that would be a massive increase. :p :D
How's that for a selling point "disco 2 has 500% more lighting" (this is a guess, you can work it out properly if you want to be pedantic) :p ;) :D

Go for it JayDeeDrinker! :D :D :D

It's all about how you word things to make something sound better (without saying things that aren't true, of course!).

Plenty of businesses do it.

For example, a restaurant's menu is unlikely to just use the word vegetables, as that's a bit boring...so they become something like "fresh seasonal vegetables" and if a dessert has a little sauce poured over it, instead of the phrase "poured over" it will be something like "lightly drizzled with"

Still accurate descriptions, but they just SOUND better!

[Corabar Steve]

No, Steve...10.

The "50% more lighting" phrase refers to the wattage rather than the number of individual lights, as the number on its own is pretty meaningless. For example "one light" could mean a 30 watt pinspot or a 600 watt mushroom light...which are are two very different things.

My standard disco has 8 pinspots, a mushroom light & a gobo flower, with a combined output of 940 watts.

The larger disco adds 2 mirror scanners increasing the total output to 1.44kW, which is just over 53% more, although I like to use round figures, so I describe it as 50% more.

How's that for a full and accurate answer?

:DOnly if you have them all on at once. Seems to me as if your customers are getting hoodwinked into going for the more expensive option even though the sound remains the same (something which in most peoples eyes would need to increase as the audience gets bigger, although not necessarily the case as long as it's audible everywhere & sufficient on the dancefloor)


Hey, I could do that with my lighting, with my (low wattage) LED's, by offering 2 of my 250W scanners, that would be a massive increase. :p :D
How's that for a selling point "disco 2 has 500% more lighting" (this is a guess, you can work it out properly if you want to be pedantic) :p ;) :D
Proves my point entirely

Go for it JayDeeDrinker! :D :D :D

It's all about how you word things to make something sound better (without saying things that aren't true, of course!).

Plenty of businesses do it.

For example, a restaurant's menu is unlikely to just use the word vegetables, as that's a bit boring...so they become something like "fresh seasonal vegetables" and if a dessert has a little sauce poured over it, instead of the phrase "poured over" it will be something like "lightly drizzled with"

Still accurate descriptions, but they just SOUND better!

There's a difference between embellishment & misrepresentation. Your menu example above, contains embellishments to make the food sound more appetising. The addition of 2 lights to your existing 10 is not a 50% increase & I feel it misrepresents what you are doing. Do you state anywhere how many lights are used for the smaller set up?

The only way I can see 50% more lighting as an accurate statement is if you disregard the pin spots (as I can't imagine there is much output from there anyway), which clearly you are not.

[rob1963]

Only if you have them all on at once.

I do.


Seems to me as if your customers are getting hoodwinked into going for the more expensive option even though the sound remains the same (something which in most peoples eyes would need to increase as the audience gets bigger, although not necessarily the case as long as it's audible everywhere & sufficient on the dancefloor)

How dare you suggest I'm deceiving my customers.

Your statement above seems to suggest that it's ok to charge more if we increase the sound, but not if we increase the lights. What rubbish.

If you think I'm deceiving my customers, I dread to think how you feel about the forum members with websites saying things like "The best mobile disco in xxx" "The best night's entertainment money can buy" "You won't find a better wedding DJ & disco than ours" etc etc etc.


The addition of 2 lights to your existing 10 is not a 50% increase & I feel it misrepresents what you are doing.

As already explained you are wrong, as I'm basing the increase on the wattage rather than the number if lights, as this has more relevance.

If I used your thinking, I could offer a super deluxe disco with 40 lights...and just turn up with a ropelight.


Do you state anywhere how many lights are used for the smaller set up?

No, because a while ago I removed all references to specific descriptions of equipment, as the important thing is the SERVICE.


The only way I can see 50% more lighting as an accurate statement is if you disregard the pin spots (as I can't imagine there is much output from there anyway), which clearly you are not.

Rubbish.

A 1.44kw lightshow is about 53% more than a 940 watt lightshow...end of story.

I started this thread to find out how people respond to email enquiries, but it's ended up with you making personal attacks suggesting that I deceive my customers.

Apart from being way off topic, I find that extremely offensive.

[TonyB]

Sorry but I agree with Steve. £75 for two lights is a bit much.

As you said yourself quote:

"If I told clients it was £275 for a disco and said they could have 2 more lights for an extra £75, I doubt many of them would pay the extra."

So if you were honest and told them what they got, you doubt many would pay it.

But dress it up a bit with some clever wording to make the client think they are getting more than just two lights and they buy it.

In reality the £275 rig will be adequate to cover the same amount of people as the £350 rig. Lights on their own don't make that much difference for the number of people but, sorry to put it this way, you are deceiving people into thinking they should pay more as the smaller rig won't be powerful enough for more than 70 people.

Now, be honest, as its using the same sound system, could the £275 rig be used for more than 70 people?

[rob1963]

£75 for two lights is a bit much.

In you opinion maybe, but not in mine.

As I've already said, I've seen a number of discos who charge similar prices for extras as to what you could buy them new for!

Radio mics & smoke machines are good examples.

However...you couldn't buy a lighting stand, tbar & 2 mirror scanners for £75!

What gives anyone the right to say how much I should be charging my customers for extra lights? especially in a thread about how we respond to email enquirys?


"If I told clients it was £275 for a disco and said they could have 2 more lights for an extra £75, I doubt many of them would pay the extra."

So if you were honest and told them what they got, you doubt many would pay it.

Yes...because it's impossible for them to know what the extra lights look like or what they add without actually seeing them!


But dress it up a bit with some clever wording to make the client think they are getting more than just two lights and they buy it.

The clients don't think they are getting more than two lights, they have no idea how many lights they are getting, as I don't talk about specific numbers.


In reality the £275 rig will be adequate to cover the same amount of people as the £350 rig. Lights on their own don't make that much difference for the number of people but, sorry to put it this way, you are deceiving people into thinking they should pay more as the smaller rig won't be powerful enough for more than 70 people.

Yes Tony, the £275 rig will be adequate to cover the same amount of people as the £350 rig, but they have the choice of paying more for more lighting if they want to.


Now, be honest, as its using the same sound system, could the £275 rig be used for more than 70 people?

Of course it could...but the lightshow will be less comprehensive.

I wonder if there's any danger of this thread getting back on topic?

:shrug:

[Corabar Steve]

How dare you suggest I'm deceiving my customers.

Your statement above seems to suggest that it's ok to charge more if we increase the sound, but not if we increase the lights. What rubbish.
So lights are more important than sound then are they?

If you think I'm deceiving my customers, I dread to think how you feel about the forum members with websites saying things like "The best mobile disco in xxx" "The best night's entertainment money can buy" "You won't find a better wedding DJ & disco than ours" etc etc etc. That is entirely subjective & as such can't be quantified.





As already explained you are wrong, as I'm basing the increase on the wattage rather than the number if lights, as this has more relevance.........



A 1.44kw lightshow is about 53% more than a 940 watt lightshow...end of story.
Only if the optics are of the same quality. You may or may not remember a couple of posts on here where 100w effects have held their own against 250w 0r 250w against 300 or 400w. An increase in watts does not mean an increase in light.

Your statement misrepresents what you are giving & you know it. It's almost as ludicrous as the following


If I used your thinking, I could offer a super deluxe disco with 40 lights...and just turn up with a ropelight.


The clients don't think they are getting more than two lights, they have no idea how many lights they are getting, as I don't talk about specific numbers.& the reason for that is???


I started this thread to find out how people respond to email enquiries, but it's ended up with you making personal attacks suggesting that I deceive my customers.

Apart from being way off topic, I find that extremely offensive.
But something that you have been happy to discuss until somebody questions your practices.

I have not once made a personal attack on you. Merely stated how I see what you are doing. It seems that Tony also feels the same.

If you feel that there is any true grounds for a grievance with regard to personal attacks, please feel free to PM or email Darren, Angela or Shaun & they can deal with it as with any other member. Admins & Mods have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the site's members & as such, can be sanctioned the same way. If you truly believe my comments to be a personal attack on you, then I have no qualms with going through the same procedure as anyone else.

[rob1963]

So lights are more important than sound then are they?

I don't remember saying that anywhere.


That is entirely subjective & as such can't be quantified.

In that case, maybe it wasn't a good idea to suggest I'm deceiving my customers.


Only if the optics are of the same quality. You may or may not remember a couple of posts on here where 100w effects have held their own against 250w 0r 250w against 300 or 400w. An increase in watts does not mean an increase in light.

Yes, an increase in watts does not necessarily mean an increase in actual light, but I've never said otherwise.

My statement is based on watts and is therefore accurate.


Your statement misrepresents what you are giving & you know it.

No it doesn't, and that's something I'm 100% certain of.


Admins & Mods have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the site's members & as such, can be sanctioned the same way.

Presumably the same applies to taking threads off topic?

In that case, I want to complain that you have taken my thread way off topic, and even ignored my post (#120) highlighting the fact (when I asked if there was any chance the thread might get back ON topic), so I await your apology for this.

[rob1963]

Admins & Mods have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the site's members & as such, can be sanctioned the same way.


Presumably the same applies to taking threads off topic?

In that case, I want to complain that you have taken my thread way off topic, and even ignored my post (#120) highlighting the fact (when I asked if there was any chance the thread might get back ON topic), so I await your apology for this.

I guess I'll have to wait until after I get back from work to see your apology.

That's not a problem.

[theoloyla]

Rob I think they are giving you an unecessarily hard time. If you have snobby customers who want to pay that bit extra for not a lot then go for it.:)

[Vectis]

Rob I think they are giving you an unecessarily hard time. If you have snobby customers who want to pay that bit extra for not a lot then go for it.:)

:agree: (mostly)

I think it's a bit deceptive using the Watts measurement Rob, and if I was a customer who found this out after the event I'd be somewhat miffed. I certainly couldn't pull this ruse on my customers; I'd be too embarrassed to go through with it. But if it works for you, then so be it.

Refer anyone else who disagrees to the rather excellent Harry & Paul sketch "I Saw You Coming".

[Shaun]

As a complaint was made about the original thread going off topic, I've moved all the add on discussions into this separate thread to let the ongoing discussion on "add ons" continue.





In that case, I want to complain that you have taken my thread way off topic, and even ignored my post (#120) highlighting the fact (when I asked if there was any chance the thread might get back ON topic), so I await your apology for this.

I'm guessing the complaint was made about everyone that contributed in the posts above? As such, I've split the topics for you. As for asking for apologies, you've taken threads of topic just like we all have at times, so please don't be so petty. The thread is split, let that be the end of it.

[theoloyla]

Rob stop being a nitwit.

[wensleydale]

No, Steve...10.

The "50% more lighting" phrase refers to the wattage rather than the number of individual lights, as the number on its own is pretty meaningless. For example "one light" could mean a 30 watt pinspot or a 600 watt mushroom light...which are are two very different things.

My standard disco has 8 pinspots, a mushroom light & a gobo flower, with a combined output of 940 watts.

The larger disco adds 2 mirror scanners increasing the total output to 1.44kW, which is just over 53% more, although I like to use round figures, so I describe it as 50% more.

How's that for a full and accurate answer?

:D
whether factually correct or not i think it's very very very dubious.

how many punters know the wattage of lighting- they see shiny things and count them.

[PropellerHeadCase]

Personally, if I rely entirely on the way I word something to justify the price then I can't justify the price... If I can describe the added extra three different ways and still feel comfortable with charging the same amount, then I do. Hearkening back to your thread about accuracy on websites, Rob, I'd have to say that this lighting 'add-on' is very much down to splitting hairs.

[ppentertainments]

If it works for you, Rob, then I would say stick with it. I don't think it would work for me and not something I personally would feel comfortable with, but its my own personal opinion. There are things I do which other DJ's would be horrified with, but I am happy and they work for me.

[rob1963]

Rob I think they are giving you an unecessarily hard time. If you have snobby customers who want to pay that bit extra for not a lot then go for it.:)

Let's be honest, Theo...giving me an unnecessarily hard time seems to be a bit of a hobby for some people.

As for your comment about snobby customers, thanks - and I WILL continue to go for it!


I think it's a bit deceptive using the Watts measurement Rob

You're entitled to your opinion, Vectis, but obviously I don't agree.

Personally, I think it's the least confusing of the available options.

After all, I could work out the percentage increase by using the actual number of lights, but this would be very confusing, as I have some lights (pinspots) which are only 30 watts each, and a mushroom light which is 600 watts...so if I just talked about "2 extra lights" for the large disco, it could be 2 pinspots (60 watts extra) or 2 mushroom lights (1.2kW extra), which are two completely different things.

The only other option I can think of is to use the perceived increase in lighting output depending on the effects lenses, mirrors, efficiency etc...but that's something which is impossible to work out, so 50% more lighting (measured in watts) is the phrase which I'll continue to use.


if I was a customer who found this out after the event I'd be somewhat miffed.

But my customers WON'T find this out.

If they book the larger disco, they get the larger disco. They don't know what the standard disco would have looked like, and they don't know how many actual lights are used for either disco, so they have nothing to be miffed about.

On the contrary, they have two things to be VERY pleased about: my excellent service & extremely good value for money!


I'd be too embarrassed to go through with it. But if it works for you, then so be it.

It DOES work for me, so I'll continue with it.

As for being too embarrassed to go through with it, I could say the same about upselling. In other words, someone rings up to book a standard disco for which they've seen the price on the website, but come away with a larger disco, or a number of extras, so they end up paying a fair bit more than they were expecting. That's a practice I would be too embarrassed to go through with, but many people do it. In my opinion, that's far worse than anything I do!


As a complaint was made about the original thread going off topic, I've moved all the add on discussions into this separate thread to let the ongoing discussion on "add ons" continue.

Yes, a complaint was made about the original thread going off topic, but an apology has not been received from the person concerned.


I'm guessing the complaint was made about everyone that contributed in the posts above?

You're guessing wrong, Shaun. The original complaint was about the ONLY person who not only took the thread off topic, but STAYED off topic, even AFTER I'd asked for the thread to get back ON topic.


As for asking for apologies, you've taken threads of topic just like we all have at times, so please don't be so petty

Yes, I've taken threads off topic, but when it's been pointed out to me, I've had no problem in apologizing...as you well know...so why can't Steve manage it? From where I'm standing, It appears there's one rule for the admins & another for the rest of us. Why has Steve totally ignored me since I asked for an apology?


The thread is split, let that be the end of it.

The thread is split...which I didn't ask for, and I haven't received an apology from Steve, which I DID ask for.

Why should I let that be the end of it?

Because Steve is Admin?


whether factually correct or not i think it's very very very dubious.

And I think upselling is even MORE dubious...and yet many do it, and I think all the websites with "We are the premier disco in xxx" type comments are even MORE dubious...but again plenty do it!


Personally, if I rely entirely on the way I word something to justify the price then I can't justify the price... If I can describe the added extra three different ways and still feel comfortable with charging the same amount, then I do. Hearkening back to your thread about accuracy on websites, Rob, I'd have to say that this lighting 'add-on' is very much down to splitting hairs.

Thanks for your opinion, Al.


If it works for you, Rob, then I would say stick with it. I don't think it would work for me and not something I personally would feel comfortable with, but its my own personal opinion. There are things I do which other DJ's would be horrified with, but I am happy and they work for me.

Thanks for your thoughts, PPentertainments. It DOES work for me, so I WILL stick with it.

As for it not being something you'd feel comfortable with, that's fair enough.

We are all different. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable in upselling to get more money out of people...but many do it, and I wouldn't be comfortable with saying something like "We offer the best mobile disco in Surrey"...but again there are MANY people who are happy to do this kind of thing.

[Danno13]

As for being too embarrassed to go through with it, I could say the same about upselling. In other words, someone rings up to book a standard disco for which they've seen the price on the website, but come away with a larger disco, or a number of extras, so they end up paying a fair bit more than they were expecting. That's a practice I would be too embarrassed to go through with, but many people do it. In my opinion, that's far worse than anything I do!

But what you're doing is upselling anyway, but instead your convincing people they "need" the extra because they have over 70 guests rather than giving them the choice by putting it in real terms of what they actually get. Watts of lighting output power aren't real terms to a client, whatever way you try and dress it up.

If you're going to scale your setup, then sound should be the deciding factor, with lights following, as lets face it, people don't really care that much about lights, but they would if it wasn't loud enough for the room and amount of guests.

If you're selling extra services they're acutally getting real differences that they're actually going to notice, and theres no sneaky selling by suggesting that if you have above a certain number of guests you "need" the extra...

[rob1963]

But what you're doing is upselling anyway

No it's not.

If someone phones up to book a disco & tells me they will have 50 people there, I will tell them about the larger disco, as it has more lights, but I wil recommend the STANDARD disco...as it's designed for up to 70 people, so should be quite sufficient for their function with 50 people.


but instead your convincing people they "need" the extra because they have over 70 guests rather than giving them the choice by putting it in real terms of what they actually get.

I'm not convincing people they need anything.

My deluxe disco is designed for 70 people plus, so if they have more than 70 people, that's the one I'll suggest to them. HOWEVER, I will also explain that if they aren't too worried about having extra lights, they can book the standard disco if they like & want to save a bit of money. This is exactly what I told someone who phoned up with a query yesterday.

Hardly upselling or convincing people what they need! More like DOWNSELLING, in fact!


Watts of lighting output power aren't real terms to a client, whatever way you try and dress it up.

I agree, which is why I my website makes no mention of how many watts the lightshow or sound system is for any of my discos.

It's simply the measure I personally use to work out the "50% more lighting"


If you're going to scale your setup, then sound should be the deciding factor, with lights following, as lets face it, people don't really care that much about lights, but they would if it wasn't loud enough for the room and amount of guests.

If I'm going to scale my setup, surely it's my OWN decision as to what the deciding factors are?

For the record, my sound system has been more than sufficient for functions of 300+ people in large halls.

The same can NOT be said for my standard disco lighting, as many people here seem to have more lighting than me.


If you're selling extra services they're actually getting real differences that they're actually going to notice

I can assure you people would be able to notice the difference between the lighting on my standard disco & that of the deluxe disco.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I can assure you people would be able to notice the difference between the lighting on my standard disco & that of the deluxe disco.

You think people will notice an extra 2 scanners and an extra 2 dots flying round the room? Lmao....

[rob1963]

You think people will notice an extra 2 scanners and an extra 2 dots flying round the room? Lmao....

Correct.

However, when I last checked, my scanners had gobos...not dots!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

This whole discussion really has turned into a farce. Customers will not notice 2 extra scanners Rob and you know that as well as I do, so there's not point in trying to convince anyone different.

If you can get away with charging an extra £75 for 2 lights, then fair enough.

[Vectis]

But my customers WON'T find this out.



So you never get any repeat business?

All it takes is for you to upsell the larger package to someone who's experienced the standard package who just happens to be a mate of the person who hired the smaller package and you could end up in an embarrassing situation.

My packages have very distinct extras. Take for example video playout. If I upsell to this package and don't show up with a video playout system, it'd be really obvious!

Anyway, as I said already, fair do's to you if it works but if it were me I'd be selling the big package as standard and then offering to 'downgrade slightly' for anyone who baulked on the price or insisted they only wanted a small disco, nothing too fancy etc.. Thats the reason I ended up with a "Junior" option and people then think you're doing them a favour rather than feeling as though they've received the hard sell. I'd urge you to reconsider how you sell your packages.
:zip:

[JAMdisco]

I think we should have a new smiley (or rename the old one from RiceandRob to SteveandRob) :p :D :D

:riceandrob:

[Corabar Steve]

Firstly, I'm not even going to bother with the actual topic of this thread as it's obvious we have another case of Rob right - Everybody else wrong & frankly it's becoming tedious.


In that case, I want to complain that you have taken my thread way off topic, and even ignored my post (#120) highlighting the fact (when I asked if there was any chance the thread might get back ON topic), so I await your apology for this.
As is obvious from the fact that the first time I appear in this thread is post #6, it wasn't me that took the original thread off topic.

I guess I'll have to wait until after I get back from work to see your apology.
You'll have longer to wait than that (see above)

I also note you conveniently ignored my response to this.....
Apart from being way off topic, I find that extremely offensive. which was

But something that you have been happy to discuss until somebody questions your practices.

But my customers WON'T find this out.
As long as they don't read this thread.
Yes, a complaint was made about the original thread going off topic, but an apology has not been received from the person concernedWhich upon re-reading the whole thread appears to be either Gary or Darren. I see no request of an apology to either of them


Yes, I've taken threads off topic, but when it's been pointed out to me, I've had no problem in apologizing...as you well know...so why can't Steve manage it? From where I'm standing, It appears there's one rule for the admins & another for the rest of us. Why has Steve totally ignored me since I asked for an apology? Let's see...... My last post in this thread was 16:09. You asked me for an apology at 16:23, I would've been in the shower. After that I had something to eat (taking the time to about 17:20). At 17:35, Angela & I went out to see Ed Byrne at Riverside Studios (I can post a scan of the ticket stub if proof is needed). We got in at around 00:15 & pretty much went straight to bed. I logged back into the forum at around 08:00. I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but I rarely visit the forum in the evening anyway.

In other words I'VE NOT REPLIED TO YOU BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE FORUM SINCE! Not too hard a concept to grasp is it?

The thread is split...which I didn't ask for, I can see why.
and I haven't received an apology from Steve, which I DID ask for.& you'll not get as it wasn't me who took it off topic & as stated above, you were happy to discuss this off topic "topic" until I questioned your practices.


Why should I let that be the end of it?
Because you are starting to look very silly

Because Steve is Admin?Why? I've already said we have to abide by the same rules.

[Shaun]

Why should I let that be the end of it?

Because Steve is Admin?
No, because I am, and I've kindly asked you to follow my instruction.

[rob1963]

If you can get away with charging an extra £75 for 2 lights, then fair enough.

Everybody please note!

It's probably a good idea if I'm the one who decides what extras to offer, what to charge for them and how to sell them. After all, last time I checked it was MY business!


So you never get any repeat business?


Of course I do!


All it takes is for you to upsell the larger package to someone who's experienced the standard package who just happens to be a mate of the person who hired the smaller package and you could end up in an embarrassing situation.


I don't think that's true, Vectis.

Darren has already said that people won't notice the difference with two extra lights.

In that case, if someone books my deluxe disco & one of their friends books my standard disco 6 months later...do you honestly think anyone at either gig will remember the other gig & notice the difference in the lighting.

I'd say that's a definate no...in which case, there's no chance of the embarrassing situation you allude to actually happening.


My packages have very distinct extras. Take for example video playout. If I upsell to this package and don't show up with a video playout system, it'd be really obvious!

That's fine, but it's each operator's own decision on what extras to offer, how obvious they are, what to charge & how to sell them.


Anyway, as I said already, fair do's to you if it works

It work very well! :D



I'd urge you to reconsider how you sell your packages.

Thanks for the advice. I just have...and I've decided there's nothing I need to change.


I think we should have a new smiley (or rename the old one from RiceandRob to SteveandRob) :p :D :D
:riceandrob:

Indeed...so it wasn't just Theo who noticed Steve was giving me a hard time, then!

Not just in THIS thread, either. It seems to be a bit of a hobby for some reason!



No, because I am, and I've kindly asked you to follow my instruction.

In that case, I will kindly follow your instruction, Shaun...unless anyone ELSE wants to tell me how I should be running my own business, of course...in a thread which I started to find out about email replies to customer enquiries!

:bang:

[Shaun]

In that case, I will kindly follow your instruction, Shaun.:

But you haven't followed my instruction. You still carried on with the "apology" and "off topic" conversation in your post above. I've taken the liberty of deleting that section from your post as you failed to follow my instruction.

Now, I'm asking you nicely a second time...enough already!

[djsteve10]

Sorry but I disagree with Rob here, Increasing the wattage doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the customer. They want to see a visual impact that is what makes it differ. You could tell the customer that you have increased the wattage on the lighting and they may not either have a clue or they might think you are talking out of your rear. Never oversell yourself on something that you cannot provide is the rule I have always gone by and I will stick to that.

[One Vision]

Am a bit late on this thread but I don't really think 2 extra lights make much difference unless its for say something that's really going to make a difference in a larger room were the standard show may look a bit lost or just not have the desired effect.

If it was adding some more sound then its an obvious upgrade as you would have say additional speakers and possibly additional amp which would increase the quality of sound at a louder level in a larger room.
Plus you increase the running costs and loading unloading time.

[Vectis]

I don't think that's true, Vectis.

Darren has already said that people won't notice the difference with two extra lights.

In that case, if someone books my deluxe disco & one of their friends books my standard disco 6 months later...do you honestly think anyone at either gig will remember the other gig & notice the difference in the lighting.

I'd say that's a definate no...in which case, there's no chance of the embarrassing situation you allude to actually happening.


Then I think you misunderstand me.

Customer #1 books a standard disco at which customer #2 is a guest.

Customer #2 decides to book a disco, calls you because they liked you, you upsell to the deluxe option and as far as they can tell (because they can't spot a couple of extra lights) you've turned up with exactly the same gear but charged them an extra £75.

That was my point Rob.

Maybe it's not the same round your way but in my limited geography I do see the same faces regularly at different events.

[Steve the DJ]

It all comes down to how we sell our services...

I don't really see the point of the smaller disco if it is so rarely chosen and personally would just offer a disco suitable for up to 150 guests and tailor the actual amount of equipment used to suit the number of guests/venue.

Most clients don't care about extra lights or more speakers, they care about good service, great music and an appropriate amount of equipment for their event that sounds good and adds to the party atmosphere.

The important thing to remember is you are the expert in terms of what is just right for a particular venue/scenario and what is overkill, not them.

[soundtracker]

I don't really see the point of the smaller disco if it is so rarely chosen and personally would just offer a disco suitable for up to 150 guests and tailor the actual amount of equipment used to suit the number of guests/venue.

Most clients don't care about extra lights or more speakers, they care about good service, great music and an appropriate amount of equipment for their event that sounds good and adds to the party atmosphere.

The important thing to remember is you are the expert in terms of what is just right for a particular venue/scenario and what is overkill, not them.
Completely right, as has been said many times - its not just about the kit!

[Javlingames]

When I used to do mobiles (sorry for making it sould like a war story) I would arrive at the venue with a truck full of gear and put in the amount of gear I needed to fill that particular venue, no matter how much money i was on.

Anybody else still do this?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

No. I can't see the point in wasting your time loading everything in a van initially, when you could check the size of the venue and requirements beforehand.

[Corabar Steve]

:offtopic: :whome: :sarc: :sj:

[ppentertainments]

Rob, why not buy one of these, must be worth an extra £100 as its 1000w and comes with free tripod. (sorry :D :D :D )

http://www.toolstation.com/?r=f&feature=33978

:sofa:

[Javlingames]

No. I can't see the point in wasting your time loading everything in a van initially, when you could check the size of the venue and requirements beforehand.


Sorry slightly off topic, but my van was always fully loaded.

[Steve the DJ]

Sorry slightly off topic, but my van was always fully loaded.

Sorry slightly off topic as well but I think some people with vans (and I believe quite sensibly) don't leave all of their kit in them overnight because you stand a chance of losing everything if it was stolen.

Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't leave all of DJ equipment in one either, alarmed or not.

[rob1963]

Rob, why not buy one of these, must be worth an extra £100 as its 1000w and comes with free tripod. (sorry :D :D :D )

http://www.toolstation.com/?r=f&feature=33978

:sofa:

:rofl:

No, I've decided to just have one price for discos in future, but to talk everyone into having loads of extras which they didn't ask for, so they'll end up paying twice as much as they expected.....but I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm also changing my website to say that I am the best disco in Surrey.

After all, nobody else seems to have a problem with this, and these things clearly work for a number of people on this forum, so there's no reason why they shouldn't work for ME!

Sorted!

:D :D :D :D :D

[Steve the DJ]

I'm also changing my website to say that I am the best disco in Surrey.

After all, nobody else seems to have a problem with this, and these things clearly work for a number of people on this forum, so there's no reason why they shouldn't work for ME!

Apart from the fact that you are not...:D

[Javlingames]

Sorry slightly off topic as well but I think some people with vans (and I believe quite sensibly) don't leave all of their kit in them overnight because you stand a chance of losing everything if it was stolen.

Each to their own I guess but I wouldn't leave all of DJ equipment in one either, alarmed or not.


I forgot to mention that mine was kept in my garage overnight.

I loved setting the whole rig up and making it look great, ive got a pic of it somewhere, i will upload it when i find it. I had a genuine passion for Mobile DJ'ing and was proud to own a large rig and loved giving everyone in the room the wow factor

[rob1963]

Apart from the fact that you are not...:D

:rofl:

Edit: Having just had a quick look at your website, I could see nothing saying you ARE...so I see no reason why I can't be (apart from the small fact that it's impossible for me (or anyone else) to prove it, of course!).

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Apart from the fact that you are not...:D

No, I am, when I work in Surrey. :D

[Steve the DJ]

No, I am, when I work in Surrey. :D

And I am working in Sussex...;)

[Corabar Steve]

And I am working in Sussex...;)

I thought it was Worthing in Sussex:confused: :sj::sorry: :offtopic: :sorry: :sorry: :BeerDevil:

[rob1963]

No, I am, when I work in Surrey. :D

Fortunately, that doesn't happen too often...

...becuse when it does, you sometimes end up with a very dodgy roadie.

:rofl:

[soundtracker]

I thought it was Worthing in Sussex:confused: :sj::sorry: :offtopic: :sorry: :sorry: :BeerDevil:

No Woking!

[Vectis]

No, I am, when I work in Surrey. :D

Ahem. I have been known to appear in Surrey. Once. :)

[rob1963]

Ahem. I have been known to appear in Surrey. Once. :)

Don't make a habit of it, Vectis! :D

[Steve the DJ]

I live just outside Woking in Surrey but travel to venues in Sussex quite often.

Dunno why...:eek:

[rob1963]

I live just outside Woking in Surrey but travel to venues in Sussex quite often.

Dunno why...:eek:

Maybe because clients in Surrey book the best disco in Surrey?

:p

[mikeee]

But, Gentlemen, I'm the best in Surrey :D and in Hampshire, Berkshire, Sussex :p :p :p :p :p

[rob1963]

But, Gentlemen, I'm the best in Surrey :D and in Hampshire, Berkshire, Sussex :p :p :p :p :p

No you're not, because I just checked your website & it doesn't say that anywhere!

After all, everything that people say on their websites MUST be true!

:p

[Corabar Steve]

No Woking!

No that is Surrey

[soundtracker]

But, Gentlemen, I'm the best in Surrey :D and in Hampshire, Berkshire, Sussex :p :p :p :p :p

Best what though?

[soundtracker]

No that is Surrey

No need to apologise .........on no that's Sorry!

[Shaun]

:ontopic:

[rob1963]

:ontopic:

:rofl:

[soundtracker]

I've looked at the top - there ain't no topic!

[Corabar Steve]

No need to apologise .........on no that's Sorry!

This thread is rapidly turning into a pile of......

Oh no hang on, that's slurry

[Shaun]

I've looked at the top - there ain't no topic!

The topic is a continuation of the "add-ons" discussion. At least that was my intention when I split it. :)

[JAMdisco]

I'd be tempted to close this thread if I were you Shaun. :confused: :confused:

[rob1963]

I'd be tempted to close this thread if I were you Shaun. :confused: :confused:

I couldn't agree more, JayDeeDrinker.

This thread was started in my name, but without my agreement, and is on a subject i would NEVER have started my own thread on...but my name is now associated with it.

Furthermore, by starting this as a separate thread, it merely encouraged the negative criticism about the way I run my business which started in the other thread to continue here.

Apart from that, it's been allowed to descend into a complete farce anyway.

:angry:

[Shaun]

There's a disclaimer on the original post stating that Rob was not the one that started this thread. Rob, this thread was started as a DIRECT result of you complaining that the other topic was straying off topic, hence the topic split - you can't have it both ways.

I see no reason for this threads closure. It'll come to a natural end just like every other thread on the forum.

*Edit: I've had a change of heart. In the interests of forum harmony I've closed the thread. Now.....can peace commence?