Member Since: 26th Sep 2011
29th Jan 2019
To make money? More money.
20th Dec 2018
I feel sorry for those, especially the small businesses, who have gone out of their way to develop bridging software on the basis that VT announced they would not be MTD compliant and would not be working to be. Good news, but poorly handled.
25th May 2018
Anyone working on a commission basis is a low-life sc*m in my book.
You need to rewrite the book. It wouldn't happen if buyers didn't want it to. The reason it does is that some buyers like to waste people's time for their own advantage while knowing that their use of the service is 'free'.
How often have you used an estate agent but not bought or sold through them, or used a recruitment agency that you didn't recruit from and paid nothing as a result? A commission basis enables you to do this.
So Alan, you be honest and pay people when you want to use their services.
24th May 2018
What a dull piece from someone with a superior attitude. I stopped counting the number of things I disagreed with when I ran out of fingers.
What Mr Fisher seems to complain about is that, firstly, he is too weak to ignore cold callers or to tell them to get lost. Secondly, that the firm and the recruit are so daft that they can not determine themselves whether or not they are a good fit and instead trust the judgement of the 'inarticulate and badly trained'.
It seems to me you are making excuses for chronically lazy employers and at the same time you seek to restrict the opportunities of good employees whom you want to keep without paying them their worth or developing them at their speed.
10th May 2018
I am not sure what the point is. Some clients are prepared to pay more than others. The ones that pay more get a better service. Quelle surprise!
That doesn't leave the money-conscious client with a 'terrible' service, it leaves them with a service that suits their budget. You might call this 'basic', 'standard' or something else, but it is not by default 'terrible'.
Firms that provide terrible service will, I believe, have a culture that is evident to clients irrespective of what they pay. Not always do you get what you pay for.
We know that clients like their advisors to be proactive, to be ahead of the game, to be offering them ideas on tax savings and business improvements. The trouble is, relatively few clients think it important enough to pay extra for. There is still the belief that accountants are an overhead, not an investment, and businesses like to keep their overheads low.
The ranking of clients, in part, reflects the gap between what they are prepared to pay and the services they need, along with the ease or difficulty the business relationship with them presents.
This is such a long way from 'giving poor service has become the norm'. I do not recognise it. Clients who receive poor service, but demand good service will surely look for pastures new. They are welcome here, but only if they resist seeking a fee reduction as well. That's the usual reason for changing firms . . . isn't it?
3rd May 2018
Gillian, if your clients think you are good and they like you you might be surprised at their reaction to increasing your prices by 10%.
I would bet that nearly all of them will swallow it without a murmur. I am confident about that because I have done it. I reckoned that if 10% of my clients walked, I would be no worse off for doing less work. That would still be a winning position. As it happened, none did.
29th Apr 2018
If you are technically competent and have a good relationship with your clients it is always a good time to put up prices.
19th Apr 2018
This isn't a male v female thing.
This is about spurious conclusions being made from data in pursuit of a political agenda and Sift, shamefully, reinforcing it either in pursuit of populism or through ignorance.
9th Apr 2018
The heading should read, "Blog on first gender pay reporting figures embarrasses Sift."
That Sift is still perpetuating the unsubstantiated interpretation of data as fact is depressing and, frankly, a bit 'Mickey Mouse'.
6th Apr 2018
Do you think that is good reason for data to be misused?
If you 'demand' change the data to support your argument should be analysed rigorously and irrefutably. It should not be the perversion of truth that this article conveys. This article does not help you, it sets you back.
The data informs us that the gap between 22-39 year olds in negligible and in 2015 for 22-29 olds the gap was actually in favour of women. Did you know that?