Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Dr Peter Head of Purchasing Here
This is certainly not a matter for the IFA it is a matter for advertising standards.
David said: "People do like to make a big thing about being a member of this or that... personally, I leave letters off .. "
what letters do you have after your name David? I use this not to have a go at David but to illustrate just how careful you have to be when making public statements.
The bottom line is simple who is the cheapest person to do the job. I have looked at virtually every archaeological company website and their are some which are questionable.
Peter
I thought it was Dr Peter Wardle not Peter Head, sorry couldn't resist!
It is true that it is a matter for advertising standards, but I doubt they are going to police these matters themselves. In terms of the IfA you could argue that some cases might be bringing the organisation into disrepute.
And yes the bottom line is price, but at the moment there is a serious risk that the bottom line could be pushed a long way down. How many of us really want to go there?
Websites in general are problematic - you can put what you like and as long as it is not illegal, libellous or breaking some other sort of law then who is to contradict it. It's just as bad with people making great claims about their archaeological discoveries/abilities/whatever via their own website. It is effectively a licence to publish your own version of the truth. The only obvious answer is to ban the entire internet! Erm, oh never mind!
And as for the noble tradition of organisations being started in a garage - that's great, but a bit backward looking. How many would want to go back to that? Again, it harks back to this unfortunate conflict in archaeology: we want to be seen as professionals (and have the benefit of decent pay/conditions/etc etc) but we quite like the slightly unorthodox and dare I say it ad hoc and amateurish. What are we to do?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Redearth said:
"it's a bit crappy to undercut someone who has gone to the effort of acquiring overheads ..... Or am I still being mean?
If you have a problem report it to the right people
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
"The ASA is here to make sure all advertising, wherever it appears, meets the high standards laid down in the advertising codes. Our website will tell you more about the rules for advertising, let you complain online, and explain how the ASA is working to keep UK advertising standards as high as possible."
Why waste the IFAs time on something like this.
There is nothing wrong with washing finds in the kitchen or using a bowl in the garden. I did just that the other day. Keeping your overheads down is a key part of being a successful business
As I said before send the link to me and I will have a look at it and give a view. I am sick and tired about the biased comments about people working from home and being a small business. I am also sick and tired of the notion that we have to look professional, rather than be professional, to be paid well.
Dr Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Agree with that
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
As a matter of interest... why is it amatuer to be a sole trader running out of a house?
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I do know of lots of other businesses run from people's homes; surveyors, structural engineers. It really is pretty common for subcontractors in the construction trade (which is what this guy is). From what you've said about the website, its not even misleading. I don't expect a sole trader builder to have a sparky or a corgi registered plumber on the books all the time, but I would expect him to be able to get one if I contracted him or her.
As for the notion that it isn't fair that you have higher overheads than them, well, life isn't fair.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Redearth said:
"it's a bit crappy to undercut someone who has gone to the effort of acquiring overheads ..... Or am I still being mean?
If you have a problem report it to the right people
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
"The ASA is here to make sure all advertising, wherever it appears, meets the high standards laid down in the advertising codes. Our website will tell you more about the rules for advertising, let you complain online, and explain how the ASA is working to keep UK advertising standards as high as possible."
Why waste the IFAs time on something like this.
There is nothing wrong with washing finds in the kitchen or using a bowl in the garden. I did just that the other day. Keeping your overheads down is a key part of being a successful business
As I said before send the link to me and I will have a look at it and give a view. I am sick and tired about the biased comments about people working from home and being a small business. I am also sick and tired of the notion that we have to look professional, rather than be professional, to be paid well.
Dr Peter Wardle
My concern all along has been for the archaeology not being dealt with properly by people making claims about the size of their organisation. Hence the potential interest that the IfA might take in the matter.
Again, keeping your overheads down is indeed part of a successful business, but how far can you push it in archaeology, where things such as finds and archives are supposed to be dealt with appropriately. This stands whatever the size of the organisation.
I brought this whole issue up because of concerns about looking professional, rather than being professional. That is surely the entire problem with having a website that makes grand claims that would seem to overstate the facts.
For the record, and once again in case no-one is paying attention, I work for a very small company, our overheads are already about as low as they can be (without laying everyone off or cutting wages), I have nothing against 'sole traders', I have nothing against a degree of amateurishness (or some less offensive term) in professional archaeology, and I would like to see work that actually is professional rather than just appearing to be. I object to a website and other media that give what I consider to be misleading information about a contractor who is busily undercutting everyone in the area. It would appear that I have touched a few raw nerves and that doing more or less anything to cut your overheads is acceptable practice.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Thanks for the clarification RedEarth .. hoever, my one concern is equating 'sole traders' with amateurishness (or other word)
The point of looking professional, rather than being professional is more the point.. and this is as true in a big company as a small one.. see HBOS, RBS et al for example..
send me details (via a PM ) and I will have a look.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Red Earth said.
"I have nothing against a degree of amateurishness"
I dont believe this statement. You think the web site is that much of a problem report it to the ASA. Send me a link and I give an independent view of the situation.
Redearth then said "that doing more or less anything to cut your overheads is acceptable practice"
Yes provided that the functional specification for a project is adherred to. I would suggest that if this chap is undercutting everyone (I doubt there is actual proof of this)and fulfilling his contractual obligations GOOD. If his work is bad then the curators will stop him very quickly. If he has so much work he cant fulfill his contractural obligations the clients will drop him very quickly.
If he does manage to do a good job then I suspect he will expand and start renting premises or similar and his prices will increase.
If the person whose web site is being criticised is reading this please send me your marketing material. What is important is being able to do the job and at what price. It sounds like this chap is doing something right and hence why he has rattled the competition to rant on sites like this.
On my desk today is a letter from one such contractor who I asked if they wanted to tender for the job. After discussing this situation we decided that the project would be, on balance, too big for him but he will be just right for another job. He wrote to me thus:
"Thankyou for your interest in us being the contractor on.....This sounds like a very interesting site and will be a rewarding to any potential contractor.....In the mean time consider .....X Archaeology for any future fieldwork."
In my experience everybody is sensible about what they take on especially the smaller organisations. There are misleading web sites and there are people trading as professional archaeologists who really should not be.
Dr Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I cannot agree more
I for one know what I can do... and what I can't
I do a good job... and say so.. I have the proof to show for it.
A website does not maketh the good reputaion... it is the archaeologist behind it. and I let the curator/client judge me
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
