Hi,

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> 
> thanks for the advice mike! my business owes exactly ZERO dollars.  I don't
> even have debtors accounts with my labs.  I am still too small to do that,
> and actually it is a really safe way to run things.  If my customers
> disappeared tomorrow, I would owe nothing and own everything.  It can be a
> pain in that my clients have to pay me at the time of their sitting/when
> they place their orders rather than when their prints come back, BUT it does
> save alot of time trying to track people down for their money!  Been
> thinking of taking out a loan for that *istD though! (j/k, I am going to see
> how things pan out, looks likes Stan might be shopping for me on that one!)
> tan.

<slaver>
I wouldn't presume to give advice to someone who is so blatantly
successful.
</slaver>

Our business is running in exactly the way yours is but about two orders
of magnitude (= x100) slower.  Our market is less obvious and is partly
forced to use us by government regulation.  This means that many
customers just get the cheapest option they can - which is not us.  It's
a hoop they need to jump through to make progress.  Not like getting
your wddding photos done.

Still, we managed to run and expand without going into (other than
personal) debt and that does feel good.  You do have an advantage in
being able to extract the juice from your client before you do the
work.  We sometimes have to resort to me looming over some poor
secretary's desk (and I can do that very well, no matter how much I
dislike it) while the cheque that has been "in the post" for a few weeks
suddenly materialises in a drawer.

I _would_ say that, if you have to think of a loan for a £1000 piece of
equipment at your level of turnover, you are charging seriously less
than the market can stand.

BTW, did you notice this:
> Tanya Mayer Photography wrote (on Fri, 3 Oct 2003 04:25:11 +1000)

The date on your computer is wonky - makes all your posts appear
together, at one end of my inbox.  It's a bugger to work out what you're
talking about 8-)

mike

Reply via email to