9th April 2009, 08:19 PM
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
"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