Would You Fit Cheap Tyres on Your Aston Martin?
A client enquiry is received and a consultation at the building is arranged. You sit down with the client and discuss their requirements and budget. As they tick off the items on their wish list, a familiar feeling hits as you realise that the client’s budget is not going to cover this project. Nevertheless you are frank with the client and warn them of exceeding budget. They understand and you assess all that is required, liaise with suppliers and put together a valuation. A quote is then finalised and presented…to a somewhat underwhelmed customer, who did not expect it to be that price. You have no doubt as to the next question:
To be honest, I can’t blame them opting for the cheaper supplier; they approach their potential new customer with a big smile and a ‘can do’ attitude – they tell the client that they can do the install at half the price quoted – that these bigwig companies always choose the most expensive components, when a cheaper version will perform just as well.
Yes, a cheaper version can be sourced (we could do that if we wanted to!) but often it works out more costly to the client when that cost-effective component has to be replaced relatively soon in order for an upgrade of equipment. “Adding a source or destination to a system designed with “maxed out” equipment is more expensive because equipment has to be replaced.” says Allen Schultz, SeeHear Audio Video, “For example, changing a DA out for a larger switch is almost always more expensive than buying a larger switch to beginwith.”
Methods can be explored to keep the cost down on installation, but a lot of money-saving shortcuts involve significantly less amplifier and speaker capacity, long audio runs, distribution amps are unbalanced, racks are particle board with plastic castors, power strips are plastic, laying in the bottom of the rack instead of rack mounted, no wire labels or control labels and the ever-helpful lack of documentation.
If the desired budget is not available now or the client is open to adjustments, perhaps create a system with budget-friendly peripherals that are fully accessible to build upon. It’s not ideal, but the client can work with you to build in what they want, when they are able to. Plus if that relationship is well maintained, you can ensure they will continually return to your company for upgrades and add-ons.
There is only so much equipment, wire and connectors a contractor can omit and still have a system that makes noise or produces a picture. I keep hearing of quotes where there appears to be no limit of hours, pieces and equipment that companies choose to withhold in order to become the lowest bidder, but how does this benefit both parties in the long run? Do you really expect the client to put their trust once again in you after it is clear the system has never worked at its best and has required more time and money to fix issues, than it ever did at point of installation? And how about the client themselves? When they’re once again sitting on the end of a phone, trying to get advice as to why they are losing sound, are they really thinking, “Well, at least I saved a few quid!”
It’s easy to pigeon-hole these suppliers as ‘rogue traders’ with no consideration for a client’s best interest, but sometimes it’s a smaller company whose budget is on a shoestring, others have the best of intentions and simply cannot always provide the best solution or have access to the right gear for the job. Often it’s a case that they do not feel in a position to pass up the opportunity, and plan to work out the details later. In this climate it’s great to hear of companies in the industry thriving, but businesses finding themselves in the above scenarios need to find a way to approach new projects without potentially damaging reputations with quick fixes, sub-standard gear and (sometimes) limited capabilities.
It is also important for a client to understand that we are selling integrated systems and not an assortment of gadgets. They are not just paying for the hardware but specialised and trained knowledge of how to make it all work. We all know this, but perhaps some forget that our customers don’t understand that complexity. Another issue pointed out to me is that people are used to seeing AV equipment being used on TV talent shows, and they don’t understand that each moving light on the stage is worth thousands of pounds — and the board running it is more than they spent on their car. Scott Tomashek, Systems Consultant at Camera Corner, refers to this as the “American Idol effect.”
Ultimately, it is your company’s legacy being left behind in each of your projects, so if that client stands firms and you’ve ensured they clearly understand the potential consequences of a budget-oriented approach, you are free to walk away knowing your integrity remains intact. Surely it is better to disappoint a client than risk your company’s credibility and reputation by carrying out low quality work that the client will inevitably regret, all in the name of them saving money and you gaining the project?
The final words go to Sanal Sreedharan, Manager at Mitsubishi Electric, who often tells his customers, “The bitterness of poor quality remains a lot longer after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.”
