The Games Customers Play

Which raises an interesting point about how a company should view the ratings systems online: e.g., Yelp, Angies List, etc. I think most ratings are favorable and we evidently have no problem with them publicly rating us this way but the worm turns... it chafes when a bad review occurs. Should either try to respond to it if it is false or malicious, but otherwise accept that people have a right to review companies who offer their services in the public domain. Individuals, on the other hand, are not offering themselves as public services nor are they allowed to be presumed guilty before innocence, etc. I am over my head, but I must confess that redflagged.com is (despite its brilliance) going to be a very limited platform on account of these reasons.
 
It would be worth running it pass a litigation lawyer that specializes in libel and defamation cases. Most review sites do give the companies an opportunity to resolve issues raised in a review. At least, Angie's List does. However there are plenty of non-commercial blogs that leave it up to the company itself to respond. It behooves you to set up a google alert to keep on top of any sort of online reporting involving your company or yourself.
 
Insurance companies have some sort of list just like the one we're talking about, if you don't pay your bill it's hard to get insurance from any company, and of course if you're a bad driver therefore likely to cost money it can be difficult. In either case if you can get insurance you'll pay through the roof for it.
 
Just wanted to take stock here at mid-thread. A lot has been said. I want to emphasize that "game" isn't necessarily a pejorative term. Some games are fun, some are even expected. Bargaining to get the best price is a kind of gaming and it is acceptable up to a point. On the other hand, gaming after the contract is penned is usually not appreciated by either party and that's why the contract exists: to prevent any misunderstandings that could give rise to disagreement. Most of your customers won't be games players, although a very small fraction will.

I wanted to classify games that these customers play according to their type so that we could avoid the obstacle before crashing into it. Most of the excellent responses have been in that vein, anyway. Making your contracts more thorough, providing exclusions, billing for certain provisions, releasing liability, adding more detailed language about existing conditions, etc. Professionalism demands that we do our best and that includes pre-anticipating sources of confusion or opportunities to game the contract.

The following is a rough list . I will be editing this comment with the aim of providing a clearer presentation. Again, I don't want to allow this thread to degenerate into a bitch session about difficult clients--although things of value can be pryed loose from even these ramblings--but more of approaching the thing somewhat systematically and ,with a bit of good natured humor, find professional strategies for handling the game.

Pre Bid Games
*Cherry Picking The Competitor's Bid: This game pertains to the first point in after the initial bid. Here they are getting you to lower your bid on a comparative basis with certain items on another bid she has from the competitor. She might say, "I want you to do this and this, but so and so had such and such a price on it. Can you do it for that?" You are hereby forced to either accept her counteroffer and lower your margin to win the bid or you punt. Either way you are at a loss and it is powerful strategy. I usually counter with asking for a complete description of what the competitor's bid entails and showing the differences (and there are always differences!) why mine costs such and such.
*Molalla Bids: I call it this as it is named after a town far on the outskirts of the metropolis. Its in the hinterlands. People don't often have a whole lot of money there, but they have big acreages. Customer calls you up to give a complete itemized quote on all of the trees on her 5 acre estate, detailing the priorities of things to be done and when. You diligently prepare it, knowing there is some uncertainty as to the outcome but convinced that duty requires you to complete your free estimate to the customer. You never hear from them again or, if you do, they mention that they don't have the money or will just do it themselves (the husband is an old logger). This is when a free quote becomes a give away tree evaluation/informal plant disease assessment/ tree inventory.
*Queen Bee Games: This game occurs when a potential customer represents neighbor's work as though it were theirs to acquire bids on and have done. It can be a way of getting a vendor to offer a bulk price on work and then, at the last, when the other neighbor's work doesn't pan out, you still have just the one price to refer to and must offer her the work at a bulk rate pricing or make another visit and try to tell her why you have to charge her more (surely an obstacle to completing a smooth sale).
*other "Free Quote" games
*Real Estate Games occur around the buying and selling of property. There are two sides to the real estate game: buyer and seller. The buyer's interest is in getting a free quote on tree work around the property in order to lower the seller's price by suggesting all sorts of work that the new buyer is going to have to put in to the property. Sometimes work follows from this, but a lot of times the buyer's only interest is in lowering the sale price not in scheduling tree work. Once the sale goes through and the escrow funds are released, the buyer will often enjoy the funds in other ways and not do the work they were intending to do before the sale. Once the property is in their hands, the "necessary" work looks a little less necessary. On the other hand, the seller's interest consists in preventing the buyer from asking for too much for supposed tree work on the property. They really want to know what a reasonable price would be for all of the tree work said buyer is going to try to insist on either having done before the sale or compensation for the work to be done after the sale. In both cases, one must be on guard lest one give away free estimates where there is little possibility of actually doing the work (in the next 6 months, say). Few are those places in which the arborist is so ill served by the free estimate paradigm as on those occasions in which quotes are given free of charge to those in the process of buying or selling real estate. Be sure to charge for this service or insist upon signing a work contract on the spot before giving a free estimate here.
Games after Accepting Initial Bid
*Bait , Wait, and Switch: In this class of games, the customer gives indication that they would like your service, but they delay and at the last minute go with a cheaper competitor's quote. This is not ordinary soliciting of bids and choosing a provider, sealing the contract. Here the customer has accepted the proposal but requires that you wait a lengthy period before the work is to be completed. She wants to be booked out 6 months in advance. In the meantime, she has you file tree removal permits with the city and get that part of it clear. When she finally gets the permit she becomes elusive and unavailable. At the last minute you discover that she has chosen another service contractor because you were "hard to get a hold of" or some other obviously untrue rationale.
*Renter-Owner Games deserve classification as a genus, rather than a species of games. I can think of a number of them off hand: renter commits to owner paying for the work; owner denying renter was authorized to contract the work; renter paying for work which owner didn't authorize but forcing you to wait til he gets compensated by the owner who is refusing to pay; owner denying they agreed to let you contract with the renter even though he told you as much, etc., etc.
Games around Scheduling the Work
*Bait, Wait, and Switch, ibid.
Games Around Adding On Work
*The "while you're here" game: a game whereby informal add ons are requested on game day, usually towards the end of the job. It is a way of circumventing the price structure of the quoting apparatus. When the sales arborist is not consulted about the add on, it is both an occasion for unscrupulous employees to make a quick buck but also for the client (who knows this about human nature) to benefit from the arrangement at the company's expense. When the sales arborist is consulted, unless there is a strategic value in doing work at the end of the job at a cut rate price, all prices should remain rational and not be offered at irrationally low levels (status quo). This is not to say that it is not a great opportunity to provide the client with the work they want at a reasonable price. Sometimes adding an extra 45 minutes on a job, however, will magnify into 1.5 hours on the freeway during evening rush hour traffic. The crew leader is not equipped to understand the pricing on these jobs and should always speak directly with the sales arborist before approving any work.
Games around Settling up for the Work
*Priceless Shed/Priceless Vase game: An already significantly damaged shed or mouldering terra cotta plant vase half in the ground becomes an item of great concern after damage is sustained during a removal. Collecting the bill, you undergo a penalty phase and are asked to compensate for unavoidable damage to already broken materials. This is not ordinary damage recompense you might pay for genuinely damaged objects: this is shakedown street. 'gotcha'.
*Authorization games: Games that occur when some portion of the work is represented as being unauthorized. If there are 2 authorizing parties, there can be a strategy of approving a portion of the work, then suggesting that the other portion is authorized, then finally repealing the authorization on game day or afterward.

*Chiselling & Whittling games: This class of games refers to a variety of strategies used to lower the price of the quote and or invoice after the work has been accomplished. Because the quote has a specific number, chisellers will often recall bits of the conversation in which a low number may have been mentioned, they may fabricate lowball numbers whole cloth in order to draw you down. etc.
Games to get Free Work
*Ambiguous Lot Line Game: In this case it comes in after the work has been already done. It goes like this: neighbor A and neighbor B share a group of trees with an ambiguous lot line. Your client--Neighbor A--wants to have as many of the trees dead wooded as possible. Neighbor B probably does too. Neighbor A indicates to do all of the trees in that area are to be deadwooded. After the work is done, Neighbor B calls to complain that you have dead wooded his trees in that area without his approval and wants remuneration for "damages" . Neighbor A contends that it is your responsibility to know where the ambiguous lot line is. Neighbor A and Neighbor B thus play a cooperative strategy of getting maximal work while getting you to accept a substantial reduction of their bill.
 
Last edited:
About two months ago, we head out to a ranch compound (80 acres with the owners residence, and 5 rentals on it) and do some work. I had everything itemized, signed contract in hand. We get the job done, goes well, and the lady asks if we could look at another tree. Not wanting to write out another contract (40 miles away from office) I throw a number at it, end up underestimating and we work until dark to finish. She hands me cash though and we leave.
I make mental note to self, not doing that again.
Yesterday I head over there to fall ( and leave) some small grey pine ( Pinus sabiniana) trees around one of the cabins. Job goes real well, nice sunny day, way better than tromping around all day in the snow like I've been doing.
She comes out at the end and asks me if I can look at a couple more trees while I'm there.
I fall for it again.
I end up cutting them both (not as underbid this time) but called it good, when she handed me cash again.
Maybe the " while you're here with all that equipment and you did such a great job we will lure you into additional work when you're getting ready to leave" game.
 
JasonRoland said:
About two months ago, we head out to a ranch compound (80 acres with the owners residence, and 5 rentals on it) and do some work. I had everything itemized, signed contract in hand. We get the job done, goes well, and the lady asks if we could look at another tree. Not wanting to write out another contract (40 miles away from office) I throw a number at it, end up underestimating and we work until dark to finish. She hands me cash though and we leave.
I make mental note to self, not doing that again.
Yesterday I head over there to fall ( and leave) some small grey pine ( Pinus sabiniana) trees around one of the cabins. Job goes real well, nice sunny day, way better than tromping around all day in the snow like I've been doing.
She comes out at the end and asks me if I can look at a couple more trees while I'm there.
I fall for it again.
I end up cutting them both (not as underbid this time) but called it good, when she handed me cash again.
Maybe the " while you're here with all that equipment and you did such a great job we will lure you into additional work when you're getting ready to leave" game.
Click to expand...
Jason, I think you've put your finger on it. The "while you're here" game: a game whereby informal add ons are requested on game day, usually towards the end of the job. It is a way of circumventing the price structure of the quoting apparatus. When the sales arborist is not consulted about the add on, it is both an occasion for unscrupulous employees to make a quick buck but also for the client (who knows this about human nature) to benefit from the arrangement at the company's expense. When the sales arborist is consulted, unless there is a strategic value in doing work at the end of the job at a cut rate price, all prices should remain rational and not be offered at irrationally low levels (status quo). This is not to say that it is not a great opportunity to provide the client with the work they want at a reasonable price. Sometimes adding an extra 45 minutes on a job, however, will magnify into 1.5 hours on the freeway during evening rush hour traffic. The crew leader is not equipped to understand the pricing on these jobs and should always speak directly with the sales arborist before approving any work.
 
Last edited:
ward said:
Jason, I think you've put your finger on it. The "while you're here" game: a game whereby informal add ons are requested on game day, usually towards the end of the job. It is a way of circumventing the price structure of the quoting apparatus. When the sales arborist is not consulted about the add on, it is both an occasion for unscrupulous employees to make a quick buck but also for the client (who knows this about human nature) to benefit from the arrangement at the company's expense. When the sales arborist is consulted, unless there is a strategic value in doing work at the end of the job at a cut rate price, all prices should remain rational and not be offered at irrationally low levels (status quo). This is not to say that it is not a great opportunity to provide the client with the work they want at a reasonable price. Sometimes adding an extra 45 minutes on a job, however, will magnify into 1.5 hours on the freeway during evening rush hour traffic. The crew leader is not equipped to understand the pricing on these jobs and should always speak directly with the sales arborist before approving any work.
Click to expand...

We can play this game ourselves, let's call it the "While I'm here" game: it goes like this, "I noticed x, y and, z. Since we're here we could get this done right now and at a better price than if we had to come back". Oft times it's a good add on as it will increase the total dollars on the job, sometimes making up for the underbid of the initial work or, filling out a short day. A good crew leader has been trained in sales and estimating, knows to call the sales arborist to confirm pricing (this good be one of those "good customers" that they give special pricing to), understands the "arc" of the work day to take into account potential increase in travel time and, most importantly, is scrupulous such that any add on paid in cash goes to the company and not into the crew's pocket.

Even when the client plays it, I personally find it a great opportunity. I can price it the way I want to realize any objectives I have on the day or with that particular client.

Each and every game you've named is an opportunity for us to win. It's the nature of business and up to us to be able to leverage these opportunities to our advantage.
 
treehumper said:
We can play this game ourselves, let's call it the "While I'm here" game: it goes like this, "I noticed x, y and, z. Since we're here we could get this done right now and at a better price than if we had to come back". Oft times it's a good add on as it will increase the total dollars on the job, sometimes making up for the underbid of the initial work or, filling out a short day. A good crew leader has been trained in sales and estimating, knows to call the sales arborist to confirm pricing (this good be one of those "good customers" that they give special pricing to), understands the "arc" of the work day to take into account potential increase in travel time and, most importantly, is scrupulous such that any add on paid in cash goes to the company and not into the crew's pocket.

Even when the client plays it, I personally find it a great opportunity. I can price it the way I want to realize any objectives I have on the day or with that particular client.

Each and every game you've named is an opportunity for us to win. It's the nature of business and up to us to be able to leverage these opportunities to our advantage.
Click to expand...
I don't think what you're doing here is a form of games playing. It looks like the service that is provided by an exemplary crew leader with a lot of good experience, one who can discern "the arc of the day" and organize the work around this. I hope they are giving you good money for your contribution. I suppose if you were making up work that needed to be done and pressuring the customer into doing it on the day of the scheduled work, that would be a form of games playing. In fact, "games which tree services play" might not be a bad thread--filled with all the games and strategies played by the worst guys in our industry. I already have a handful in mind. But, again, I don't think what you are doing here is a "game" in the way we have defined it up till now.
 
I know a game a lot of "tree services" play - use fear and a lot technical language to pressure the client into removal. I come across many recommended removals in this area when giving a second opinion- the tree is perfectly healthy.

Often, this results in a long-term customer. I see a benefit and opportunity in keeping a tree maintained over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I had another one that happened, not sure if I'd classify it as a customer "game" or just a bad business move on my part.
I'll call it the "half - cleanup" game.
A new client had me go and give an estimate on removing a fairly large (36"DBH), dead, white fir (Abies concolor) from a backyard.
It is at a vacation cabin, client lives approx 3 hours away. I quote price A and he accepts. Before I have a signed contract, he asks how much it would be to just get the tree on the ground and someone else cleans it up. I quote price B and he accepts. We send a proposal, he signs the contract, we go wreck out the tree. As I'm chunking it down it occurs to me that I would go about it a little different if I was cleaning it up ( not putting large chunks down on a bed of dead branches and making a bigger mess, etc) but...
We complete the job, he pays really quickly, I'm happy.
A couple months later, he calls up with bad news ( he says). Turns out he is getting a divorce, they have to sell the cabin and split the proceeds, and his guy only cleaned up about half the mess of the tree.
I feel bad for him, and instead of going back to the job to look at the tree mess ( only like ten minutes away) I write a proposal that says " clean all debris from backyard" and put a price at price A-price B divided by 2 (his guy cleaned up half, right?)
He signs the new contract, and we head over there a few days later to find that maybe a quarter of the mess is cleaned up. But we are standing in the yard with a signed contract that says we will "clean all debris from backyard" with a set price.
A lesson learned.
 
JasonRoland said:
I had another one that happened, not sure if I'd classify it as a customer "game" or just a bad business move on my part.
I'll call it the "half - cleanup" game.
A new client had me go and give an estimate on removing a fairly large (36"DBH), dead, white fir (Abies concolor) from a backyard.
It is at a vacation cabin, client lives approx 3 hours away. I quote price A and he accepts. Before I have a signed contract, he asks how much it would be to just get the tree on the ground and someone else cleans it up. I quote price B and he accepts. We send a proposal, he signs the contract, we go wreck out the tree. As I'm chunking it down it occurs to me that I would go about it a little different if I was cleaning it up ( not putting large chunks down on a bed of dead branches and making a bigger mess, etc) but...
We complete the job, he pays really quickly, I'm happy.
A couple months later, he calls up with bad news ( he says). Turns out he is getting a divorce, they have to sell the cabin and split the proceeds, and his guy only cleaned up about half the mess of the tree.
I feel bad for him, and instead of going back to the job to look at the tree mess ( only like ten minutes away) I write a proposal that says " clean all debris from backyard" and put a price at price A-price B divided by 2 (his guy cleaned up half, right?)
He signs the new contract, and we head over there a few days later to find that maybe a quarter of the mess is cleaned up. But we are standing in the yard with a signed contract that says we will "clean all debris from backyard" with a set price.
A lesson learned.
Click to expand...

That was definitely your mistake. Even a picture from the homeowner would have helped the situation, or taking a quick look yourself.

The other thing, even if he had cleaned up half the mess, the way you put it on the ground, plus the added travel time, and the new paperwork, I wouldn't have done it for the A-B difference. If I'm cleaning it up, i'll chunk it down nicely so my guys can move it. 95% of the time I'm not cleaning it up it's a demo job, brush gets dropped and 6ft logs get dropped on top of that for the excavator to play with. If they changed their mind on the clean-up, I won't be coming back for the cost of the difference.

I tell people ahead of time when they tell me they'll clean it up themselves, that if I come back to clean this up for you it will be X cost, not A-B
 
Indeed, it was my fault. That's why we did the job and moved on. The reason I was mostly upset with the customer and why I included it as a customer game was the "my guy cleaned up half" part. There was no way anybody would have seen the pile and said it had been halfway cleaned up.
Although one of the people that should have looked at it should have been me..
Also as stated above, even if half the tree HAD been cleaned up it still isn't the A-B difference because it takes more work to clean the second half of the pile up and make it look like there wasn't a 36" DBH white fir tree wrecked out and left in the yard for two months.
 
I've done that to myself- got busy, forgot what was on the job, had the customer call me back because the cleanup wS more than they could handle, and underbid the second visit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NorCalBrock said:
I know a game a lot of "tree services" play - use fear and a lot technical language to pressure the client into removal. I come across many recommended removals in this area when giving a second opinion- the tree is perfectly healthy.

Often, this results in a long-term customer. I see a benefit and opportunity in keeping a tree maintained over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The tree is always guilty until proven innocent. It is not uncommon to find a causal relationship between the size of the operation and the willingness of the sales arborists to label everything a removal, to use tree risk assessment as a green light for unnecessary work, cloaked in the officialese of tree risk assessment. I call the distorting influence the "Hungry Hippo" effect: to the hungry hippo everything looks like FOOD!

 
Last edited:
I think the fear of the tree service company is "someone else" is going to recommend removal, so I will first. Also, I think there is a financial incentive for the ones doing the bidding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom