Last Minute Dj Dilemma

[McCardle 1]

This is an hyperthetical situation, but it could happen to any of us.

 

Here is the scenario......

 

Its late on Saturday afternoon, you are booked for a Wedding Reception for a fee of £250 at a venue 15 miles away. At 4.30pm the phone rings, with one of those calls that we all dread, a Family Emergency which requires our attendance - URGENTLY.

 

There seems no way, at the moment, that you could be there at the venue for 6pm to set up and do the gig, and you wouldn't take the risk of a late turn up anyway, you need to arrange some cover quickly. You first manage to get hold of the Groom on his Mobile, between the ceremony and the Wedding Breakfast, and he is very sympathetic to your personal situation, but insists that the disco should go ahead, however he is happy for you to substitute yourself with somebody of equal quality who you can personally recommend, but it must be somebody who you have seen work and whom you can personally underwrite as being reliable and a good entertainer.

 

So playing Russian Roulette with random Deejays is out, as you would be responsible if he / she didn't turn up, and the Groom has insisted that it has to be somebody whom who have seen for yourself, and somebody fairly local as they need to be there in less than 1hr 30.

 

You have seen three local deejays work, and whom have good reputations and several years experience.

 

You phone DJ 'W' who has a Wedding herself, and cannot attend

 

However the final two DJ's you know are both free this evening and both willing to cover the booking for you. Both also live between 30 and 45 minutes away from the venue, and assure you that they can be suited, booted and at the venue to set up at 6pm. Which do you choose?.

 

DJ 'X' is an excellent DJ, and has been in business for 8 years, he is a good DJ and very reliable, but likes to only cover the higher priced venues, and can pick and choose his bookings and you are aware that he charges a little bit more than you. When asked how much the DJ wants to cover for you, he replies, £275 + £30 for the late call out. A total of £305 to be paid.

 

DJ 'Y' is also an excellent DJ, again he has been in business for almost as long as you and DJ 'X' and always seems to fairly busy, to your knowledge he has never let anybody down nor had any complaints. Upon contacting him, he asks how much you have already quote the client, realises your situation and agrees to cover for you, for exactly the same figure. The problem at the back of your mind, is that you are suspicious that 'DJ Y' uses illegally obtained music on CD's bought down the local pub and from the market, you also seem to remember something he posted on a forum a few months back that may also indicate that he is using a laptop, and his name never came up on the Pro-Dub site when you searched previously.

 

Now, you are 100% certain that BOTH DJ's are capable of pleasing the client, and will be on time, suitably dressed and will maintain your reputation, at least as far as the audience are concerned they are guranteed a good night from either DJ because you have seen them work at other weddings.

 

There is no clever 3rd option either , you simply don't have the time that you have now to think of something else! , you need cover and you need it quick so you can get on your way to the emergency.

 

So do you choose DJ 'X' and pay the £55 difference from out of your own pocket or do you throw caution to the wind and pass the work to DJ 'Y'.

 

Please remember that votes are anonymous and cannot be linked with the voter, but please also remember that they only work if everyone is 100% honest. So if you don't like the question or intend to vote for the complete opposite to what you would probably do in real life (for whatever reason) then please do not cast any vote and select the (view result - null vote option).

Edited February 2, 2009 by McCardle

[Kingy 0]

Either. The show must go on. I would in all honesty try DJ "Y" first. This is a business and as a one off I don't want to be out of pocket, so a slight possible infringement means that the customer is still satisfied.

 

Some times common sense attitude has to prevail.

[andyw 0]

agree with kingy,i wouldn't mind paying the other dj his normal rate but would be extremely upset he was charging me a £30 late booking fee, that i would expect him to waiver in these circumstances.

[DJTREV 0]

For me its a no brainer.

DJ Y every time. The attitude of DJ X would probably mean I would take him off my standby list.

You are in a muddle and you need help to save your good reputation and all he can think of is money.

He's having a laugh.Get rid.

[UKHero 0]

Y for me also for all the reasons above.

 

Nik

[DiscoandKaraoke 0]

Well, there was no mention of whether the venue would insist on seeing PLI or PAT certs, or whether either substitute DJ has them, so let's assume that's not an issue. And as not one single venue manager I have spoken to has even heard of Pro Dub licences, I wouldn't worry about DJ Y getting turned away for that.

 

The other thing is his illegal music. Have any of us ever had PRS turn up to a wedding? I've never heard of anyone who has, so that also wouldn't concern me.

 

Therefore, my only concerns are: Is he any good, and will he turn up? As these questions have already been covered, I have to vote DJ Y.

 

DJ X is a rip-off merchant.

 

[deejaymitch 0]

It is of course worth noting that is is perfectly possible to use a laptop leagally without a pro-dub license, using legal downloads. Often along with CD decks .

[McCardle 1]

that i would expect him to waiver in these circumstances

 

Just out of interest, Why?.

[dj will 0]

Don't really understand the scenario but I would choose DJ Y unless I happen to know that the venue is particularly proactive in checking Pro Dub etc. I think that the charge of the 'late booking fee' is not particularly important, as DJ Y may normally charge £220 and have built a £30 'late booking fee into his price himself. If DJ X does not particularly want the gig then he may have decided to charge more than normal. If he is a friend with whom you pass work onto, then yes I would be annoyed about the surcharge.

[TonyB 0]

I voted Y if given the choice but in reality, if I was in a rush to get to a family emergency, I would pass the gig to the first person I called that could do it. I don't think I would worry about the surcharge at the time, or the perceived problem with using a laptop, main thing is to get the gig covered and get on my way.

 

If I had no intention of passing the gig to DJ Y then I wouldn't have phoned him in the first place.

[Bouncy Dancefloor 0]

id go for Y, but then again either would do

 

However i would remember how Y helped me out and i would remember how dj X surcharged you in your moment of need

 

so basically, id get the DJ sorted, then id remember who helped me and who took advantage of me!

[McCardle 1]

Not directed at any one person, but just an observation in as to the general feeling as to DJ X's additional charge.

 

Why do you feel that DJ X is a rip off merchant?.

 

Surely it is his perogative to charge a small premium for the inconvenience of shelving any other plans he has made, and going out with less than 1 hours notice, after all some have said in the past that if they had made other plans (meal, night out, taking the night off etc) that they wouldn't go out at all if a client contacted them, I wonder, whether this decision also apply to a fellow Dj in trouble??????.

 

Do other trades not charge a seperate call out / emergency call out for their immediate attendance, some with figures far greater than the £30 quoted here. Why should the fictional DJ in this equation not do the same?.

 

Surely that makes the majority of 'on call' service providers 'rip off merchants' too?

Edited February 6, 2009 by McCardle

[DiscoandKaraoke 0]

Do other trades not charge a seperate call out / emergency call out for their immediate attendance, some with figures far greater than the £30 quoted here. Why should the fictional DJ in this equation not do the same?

 

Surely that makes the majority of 'on call' service providers 'rip off merchants' too?

Yes, it absolutely does. No question. Otherwise, people who carry out emergency cover in ANY industry are clearly only doing it for the money.

 

If I'm asked to cover some amateur, "cheap" DJ who hasn't bothered to turn up, at short notice, and I'm available to do so, I charge the same as I would have done if I'd been booked for it months in advance. Obviously more than the no show, but no late notice premium. That's just taking the pee.

 

[McCardle 1]

but no late notice premium. That's just taking the pee

 

So whats the difference between this example, and a DJ charging extra, for say, working a Bank Holiday / December / Christmas Eve / New Years Eve?.

 

If somebody is not in it for the money, then their charges should be the same for the same venue / function whether they are working on July 11th, December 5th or even December 31st?

Edited February 7, 2009 by McCardle

[DJTREV 0]

Personally,as he is helping a fellow DJ out I would not expect the extra charges but maybe if it was an agent or promoter than I think a call out charge would not be unreasonable.

As for the fact that he is either doing something else or having the night off.Gunnards,you either want to work or you dont.

[andyw 0]

So whats the difference between this example, and a DJ charging extra, for say, working a Bank Holiday / December / Christmas Eve / New Years Eve?.

 

If somebody is not in it for the money, then their charges should be the same for the same venue / function whether they are working on July 11th, December 5th or even December 31st?

 

simple answer from me is i would expect you to help me in the same circumstances.

 

Edited February 9, 2009 by andyw

[McCardle 1]

Okay, lets assume that 'DJ X' has waived his call out fee, and is charging his standard rate of £270 - he is still £20 more than the original DJ and also 'DJ Y' who has agreed to work for the original £250 fee.

 

Would your vote remain unchanged, or would you now foot the £20 difference from out of your own pocket?.

 

simple answer from me is i would expect you to help me in the same circumstances

 

N.B there is nothing in the original post that suggests that the DJ in the situation has ever previously passed any work to either of the DJ's in the scenario and vice versa. We assume that these are DJ's whom they have seen work, and whom have a favourable word of mouth reputation, but are not friends or otherwise on anything more than a nodding aquaintance with the Dj who is in the current situation.

Edited February 9, 2009 by McCardle

[Dukesy 0]

Have been following with interest. What I cannot understand about this industry - is it twists and turns constantly and certainly could never be considered as being consistent (but maybe that's what makes it interesting!!!) smile icon

 

I've noticed one thing on this tread which has been brought to light, but which others may have missed or are too polite to say, but also has some relevance.

 

On one post you have various people accusing those DJ's who may be using pirated material, or may not have this license or that certificate and stating that those individuals without those tokens are actively able to undercut the legit members of the industry who have to charge more to cover their extended costs.

 

But in the next breath, we are faced with a poll & discussion like this one where we actively and collectively are seen to be encouraging, supporting and helping those lower charging elements (whom we despise on other threads) with dubious paperwork and moody music by actually passing our work to them, but this is only OK when it suits us right?! :shrug:

 

On several other threads, the general feeling is that we would perhaps expect 'our' client to pay a little bit more for the services of the 'legit' DJ - the one whose CD collection is 100% legal and who has all of the licenses and certificates on the basis that he deserves (and needs to charge) more, because regardless of his experience, his expenses are naturally higher than the corner cutting one. Yet when we actively assume the role of the client and we ourselves have the option of choosing either the questionable DJ at the more 'attractive price', or paying a bit more ourselves in order to secure, for our client, the services of the legit DJ who like 'us' has the legit music collection, then we seem to choose price over morals?!

 

In the grand scale of things, why should our clients demonstrate any selection process which differs from our own, when deciding what to pay for their disco and how can we persuade them to pay more for 'us' based on a principle that even we cannot follow?

 

I chose the cheaper option too along with the majority of others, but without intending it to, it has created other points too of relevance and it was only later on when I sat down and read the replies and thought about it, that I suddenly saw the blatant double edged sword that the thread contained.

 

Perhaps now, anybody who was using the age old excuse to justify a higher price or the fact that they charge "£xxx" more than others, should perhaps be looking at other more unique ways of marketing themselves, above the fact that we buy our CD's legitimately, or that we have PLI or PAT because obviously, we don't put them as major factors in justifying a higher fee structure when we become 'clients' ourselves, so it probably won't work with the general public either!

 

Time for a whole new way of thinking methinks? :eek:

[Kingy 0]

I can fully appreciate what Dan is saying above, but I voted for the cheaper one because I run a business. The ideal answer I would like to pick was the fully legitimate DJ however as I am in this business for a profit I am not prepared to pay some one out of my own pocket to do the work for me. The number of DJs I have personally helped out with other things over the last 30 years would mean I could sort something out with a respected colleague without involving a "last minute fee" being added, which I think is a down right rip off, one I would never add under any circumstances - to me a job is a job and I am happy to receive that work.

 

Put it hyperthetically, how about if through this illness or whatever, I couldn't cover 10 gigs...and needed to pay over the charging price to cover them....goodbye business, running at a loss is not an option.

 

Thankfully I charge more than average in this area, so there should never be a problem.

[DJTREV 0]

Actually I dont necessarily agree with Dan on this point.When he says that the legit guys in this industry(I dont think of it as an industry either)are concerned about those fly by nights that dont have this that or the other licence and undercut everybody and play pirated tracks.You are only talking about a very small minority that complain on this site alone when you think of how many members we have.Personnally I really dont care whether A B or C is legit on not.They are running the risk not me,if clients want cheap and nasty they will go looking for it.

As for the solution to the thread I would still stick with Y.I would not pay X the extra money-the fee is 250-take it or leave it.

[McCardle 1]

They are running the risk not me,if clients want cheap and nasty they will go looking for it

 

Thats a very true sentiment if the client was booking and choosing the DJ themselves, but in this scenario the replacement Dj is being given the booking by the original DJ and the client is entrusting all of the last minute changes / choice of Deejay to his discretion and his knowledge, because he/she is no longer able to attend themselves.

 

It would be a million to one chance and extremely rare, but lets say the replacement did turn up and was refused entry because he/she didn't have a pli certificate or a Pro-Dub license or the many others things that you see marketed on websites like awards, and for whatever reason the client was left DJ-less with no entertainment, wouldn't the client remember WHOSE choice and decision the replacement was? and who sent them to cover for them? and at least hold them partly to blame, if not fully?. Doesn't the original DJ then run the risk of being tarred with the same brush and having an angry and disappointed Bride and Groom to deal with as a direct result of those choices. Remember that the client never actually got to see you work either so what is stopping their opinion based on what occured also reflecting badly upon you.

 

I know that if I booked an Electrician, who in turn subcontracted part of the work out to a plasterer, and the plaster fell off the wall a week later, I would be back on the phone to the Electrician with my complaint, after all, he was the subcontractor and the choice of plasterer was his and not mine. I probably wouldn't use the same electrician again in the future either, just in case he decided to use the same plasterer.........

Edited February 10, 2009 by McCardle

[DJTREV 0]

 

It would be a million to one chance and extremely rare, but lets say the replacement did turn up and was refused entry because he/she didn't have a pli certificate or a Pro-Dub license or the many others things that you see marketed on websites like awards, and for whatever reason the client was left DJ-less with no entertainment, wouldn't the client remember WHOSE choice and decision the replacement was? and who sent them to cover for them? and at least hold them partly to blame, if not fully?. Doesn't the original DJ then run the risk of being tarred with the same brush and having an angry and disappointed Bride and Groom to deal with as a direct result of those choices. Remember that the client never actually got to see you work either so what is stopping their opinion based on what occured also reflecting badly upon you.

 

 

I realise this is a hyperthetical situation but you do seem to be adding different situations as you get answers.

In your original question you should have stated the complete scenario because if it was essential that he was completely legit and lets remember that not all venues bother,then your answer from me would have been completely different.

 

 

[McCardle 1]

I realise this is a hyperthetical situation but you do seem to be adding different situations as you get answers

 

Yes its totally hyperthetical. I've tried to keep it fluid based what has been coming back though as if it was mimicing a real life phone call, for example when 'DJ X' eventually agreed to waive his / her premium fee after pressure to do so.

 

I'm sorry, i'm not aiming to confuse the issue further, if you point out where else it conflicts with the original post i'll correct them.

Edited February 10, 2009 by McCardle

[DJTREV 0]

This is an hyperthetical situation, but it could happen to any of us.

 

Here is the scenario......

 

 

There seems no way, at the moment, that you could be there at the venue for 6pm to set up and do the gig, and you wouldn't take the risk of a late turn up anyway, you need to arrange some cover quickly. You first manage to get hold of the Groom on his Mobile, between the ceremony and the Wedding Breakfast, and he is very sympathetic to your personal situation, but insists that the disco should go ahead, however he is happy for you to substitute yourself with somebody of equal quality who you can personally recommend, but it must be somebody who you have seen work and whom you can personally underwrite as being reliable and a good entertainer.

 

There is your answer.You wouldn't recommend anyone who wasn't legit would you.

Having read my previous reply again,my answer was to this very scenario

[McCardle 1]

however he is happy for you to substitute yourself with somebody of equal quality who you can personally recommend, but it must be somebody who you have seen work and whom you can personally underwrite as being reliable and a good entertainer

 

What media people choose to use and how they run their businesses doesn't detract from the fact that they may turn up on time and in essence do the gig to the total satisfaction of the client, and actually be a good and talented DJ. DJMitch also highlights this in a later thread elsewhere on the forum.

 

The criteria on the part which you have chosen to quote is in relation to our dj, providing the client with a reliable replacement, based on his / her abilities as a dj, as highlighted clearly here;-

 

and whom you can personally underwrite as being reliable and a good entertainer

 

At this point the DJ in the hyperthetical situation doesn't even know which DJ's are available to cover for him, if any.

 

You wouldn't recommend anyone who wasn't legit would you

 

But according the vote, when faced with the hyperthetical options available, over 93% of us would. You and me included. smile icon

Edited February 10, 2009 by McCardle