Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[drew gandy]

Anyone find themselves questioning their business (and perhaps general life) philosophies lately?

For instance, I always appreciated the simplicity of the concept that the 'wrong tool at the right price is still the wrong tool'. But it seems like a lot of people can get along alright with the wrong tools. A little extra effort and some spin seems to go a long way. Furthermore, this is a philosophy that I thought I believed but have probably not followed very well.

[Brian Jojade]

No, everything is going exactly how I planned.... Oh wait.

Yeah, it's always going to be a problem. The grass will always seem greener...

Some people have enough knowledge to be able to make the wrong tool work for the job. Others have no idea that they're using the wrong tool and just don't care, and some clients have no idea either.  They can only hope that things won't blow up in their face.  That used to be a bigger issue, but reality is, a lot of tools today are extremely versatile, and while they may not be the choice for you for a number of reasons, they could be adequate for the job and client expectations.

Part of this business is knowing what tools you absolutely need and having the self control to not spend on those that you don't.

Your competition may not be doing as well as you seem.  They may be heavily in the red, subsidizing their business with other income, or they may struggle at every show to get through without catastrophe.  The best you can do is make sure YOU are running the direction you want to.

[Tim McCulloch]

Since I'm no longer the management face of a small regional production company... there are lots of corners that can be cut.  Whether or not any, some, or all should be cut is the exercise in professionalism, ethics, and value of effort.

The last company I worked for paid the bills on time, never had a paycheck problem, never had insurance issues.  Some of their competitors were constantly on the edge... of... well, the edge.  They misclassified employees, didn't carry some necessary insurance, didn't remit sales/use taxes, used questionable rigging and electrical safety practices and for many of those there has not been a penalty.  Why play honest and legal when there is no immediate downside?

[drew gandy]

No, everything is going exactly how I planned.... Oh wait.

Chuckle.

...but reality is, a lot of tools today are extremely versatile

Word.

Your competition may not be doing as well as you seem.

I'm not in a position where I'm paying much of any attention to my competition. (Perhaps that's the problem;)

I've looked at the wrong tool adage as an appeal to clarify goals and do research before making decisions. But there is another philosophy where you try things, and keep trying things until you either get the job done or, in the best case, actually find longer term success. This makes some sense to me for small things. For instance, if I buy something at the big box store and once I get it home find it doesn't fit, I can simply return it and, with the gained dimensional knowledge, purchase a different item that does fit. Iteration. The cost of being wrong the first time is low and easily absorbed. But compare that with a high dollar investment that is not easily undone. In the right moment, those kinds of mistakes can sink the entire company.

Just pondering the usefulness of a philosophy, I guess.

[Russell Ault]

{...}
I've looked at the wrong tool adage as an appeal to clarify goals and do research before making decisions. But there is another philosophy where you try things, and keep trying things until you either get the job done or, in the best case, actually find longer term success. This makes some sense to me for small things. For instance, if I buy something at the big box store and once I get it home find it doesn't fit, I can simply return it and, with the gained dimensional knowledge, purchase a different item that does fit. Iteration. The cost of being wrong the first time is low and easily absorbed. But compare that with a high dollar investment that is not easily undone. In the right moment, those kinds of mistakes can sink the entire company.

Just pondering the usefulness of a philosophy, I guess.

I've been thinking about this recently, too, and I agree that "iterative investment" has its place (and isn't often discussed around here). For me, a big part of the advantage of iteration is that there's only so much that can be learned by reading the spec sheet/manual/product reviews, and thus to a certain extent it's impossible to truly know whether a particular tool is going to be the "right" one in advance. I also think the economic cost of the time involved in research also ought to be accounted for (e.g. spending hours research which pair of $30 universal IEMs to buy probably isn't a good use of time). It seems to me the trick is knowing when to iterate and when to "buy once, cry once", and I'm not sure there's a really good bright-line test for that.

Maybe this is part of the reason I subscribe so closely to the philosophy of "don't buy anything you can easily rent".

-Russ

[Brian Jojade]

Some of their competitors were constantly on the edge... of... well, the edge.  They misclassified employees, didn't carry some necessary insurance, didn't remit sales/use taxes, used questionable rigging and electrical safety practices and for many of those there has not been a penalty.  Why play honest and legal when there is no immediate downside?

There may not be an IMMEDIATE downside, but there is a huge risk of a massive eventual downside.  Some people are willing to take that risk. Some are able to get ahead, others end up falling on their face (or worse)

On the short side, those that cut corners can appear to be far more successful. However, those businesses are ones that often flame out the hardest.  It's not unlike investing.  You can invest in hight risk stocks and make a pile of money, then get out, or you can invest and lose it all.

Playing more conservative lessens the risk, but also lessens the profit.

For example, you can constantly buy high end gear and tons of backups, knowing it's going to work, but at the end of the day, your profits get sucked into gear and depreciation.  Or, you can buy cheap stuff and hope for the best. If it works, you keep money in your pocket, but if it fails, your reputation can be destroyed.

Finding that happy medium that works for YOUR business is what matters.

[Caleb Dueck]

Whether or not any, some, or all should be cut is the exercise in professionalism, ethics, and value of effort.

To build on this - for me, the question isn't, "How many corners can I cut and not get burned?"  Rather, it's, "How do I align with the clients that also aren't in a race to the bottom?".

The other key foundation is how do you measure if your company is successful or not?  I would argue that short-term, financial gains are not a metric to be used. 

Instead - response time, spares/backup, cross-rental relationships, a focus on making the client's event incredible even if it involves going over and above, audio intelligibility, aesthetics, plays well with other trades, speed of setup and tear-down, etc.  Also overall efficiency that doesn't compromise the above, and a strong culture of personal development for any person that comes into contact, not just employees.   

[drew gandy]

Instead - response time, spares/backup, cross-rental relationships, a focus on making the client's event incredible even if it involves going over and above, audio intelligibility, aesthetics, plays well with other trades, speed of setup and tear-down, etc.  Also overall efficiency that doesn't compromise the above, and a strong culture of personal development for any person that comes into contact, not just employees.   

Can we combine all that together into a single "score"?
And then provide a system whereby sound companies can market with their score?

Furthermore,
If the Association of Competent Sound Companies suggests that you should only hire a company with a score above 72, then I might try to score around 75. [And I think that would be called good engineering.]

[ProSoundWeb Community]