Another opinion on rollbacks
UPD: Kickbacks are bad.
UPD2: And still let it be:
As one intelligent person once said, everything is relative . What I mean? Here's what: We usually have 3 or 4 figures, in the relationship between which we have to figure it out.
')
1. A contracting company (in this case, a web-studio) represented by a gene. directors
2. The representative of the contracting company (sometimes it is the general director himself, if the office is small, and so often happens with us)
3. The client company (in this case, almost any organization, the head of which, for certain reasons, chose as the contractor just “1”).
4. A representative of the customer company (rollback, commissioner, an interested person, etc., as soon as this character is not called, and for good reason, because the root of evil is always in it).
At first glance, everything is very simple. We have the charter of the contractor, the charter of the company-customer and the legislation of the Russian Federation. And none of the four figures involved in the transaction has the right to violate these legal documents. The charters, of course, must describe in detail the process of concluding “contract” and “for the provision of services” contracts, respectively, as well as responsible persons, decision makers and the amount of bonus (commission) fees for a representative of each party. And in the legislation of the Russian Federation, for sure, it is written in great detail, for what you need to pay taxes, and which activities representatives and representatives of the parties can do and which not. That's all.
But, as usual, the blame is human greed. The contractor (web-studio) is ready to pay, and a representative of the customer company, he is - friends and girlfriends, of course, is ready to receive. When such a situation arises in the market, they will still find each other, even if the Hague Tribunal threatens them for it. And to exclude this situation is impossible for one simple reason. Because a representative of the client company at the time of negotiations with the contractor company for a few minutes forgets about whose representative he is and acts in his personal interests, to the detriment of the interests of the company (and always to the detriment). The reason for this behavior in the nature of people. The representative of the customer company feels that he is a part of the company only when the director pays him money or scans him on the carpet. When such an unprincipled office plankton gets the opportunity to feel “at the helm”, he does not feel himself a part of the company, he himself.
So, why is everything relative? Because, regarding himself, the recipient of rights is 100%. For he uses honest methods (he has the right to choose this particular contractor) and concludes a fair deal (he is a representative, after all), and receives dishonest money (which, as we know, does not smell). Go ahead. Regarding his employer, the recipient acts in violation of the charter, and if the charter is not violated, the commissioner’s actions are in any way harmful to the company. First, the money he receives must belong to the company (the difference between the real cost of services and the “return” cost is the customer’s money). Secondly, the rollback’s decision to choose a contractor is not due to the quality of its services, not to the cost, not reputation, not favorable (for the company) terms of the transaction, but only its own vested interests. And this practice prevents the “right” competition and stifles the “healthy” development of the market. Therefore, by the way, it is in the “information” market that the most inappropriate competition and the most “unhealthy” market development. He even wrote about this “you-know-who” five years ago. But we are not talking about that. As a result, the practice of kickbacks is absolutely unambiguously harmful for both client companies and contractors who want to “play fair”.
Go ahead, consider the behavior of the contractor regarding itself. Well done. Real "sellers", as any eminent marketer would say. Task: make a profit. Resources: labor, medium or low quality, dumping, kickbacks. At the conclusion of the "rolling back" contract, the task can be considered completed. Now we will look at them from the client. For him, choosing such a contractor is tantamount to admitting his own incompetence, because the hedgehog is clear that an office that pays kickbacks cannot attract a client anymore (nobody will just pay), which means it’s not profitable to work with them. And if this is not just dumping, but a rollback, then the client is also being shod on the size of this very rollback, and not only and not so much the contractor’s shoes as his own representative.
If a contracting company justifies itself by allegedly paying for “advertising”, then this is a profound error. Such an approach has the right to exist only if the person bringing the client (commissioner) is not an employee of the company that becomes the customer, that is, he does not have “special privileges”, does not use his official position, namely “advertises” the contractor , quality of services, terms, conditions of the contract and so on. Then he has something to pay for.
So, the only honest way to earn money for a representative of a client company is to take an active part in the work of a contractor (for a web-studio, preparing materials, for example, or subsequent administration, etc.). If the work is really worth it to the employer (the customer company), it even makes sense to pay bonuses to your employee for the fact that he really chose the “right” contractor based on the interests of the company, and thereby benefited the company, rather than rolling back. In addition, the contractor’s company can pay bonuses to this representative, if his work (exactly the real job) will be useful for them, of course, the maximum amount of these bonuses must be specified in the contract.
The practice of such relationships will be really useful for both customers and contractors. All the rest is unequivocal evil. If one of the companies concluding the transaction (represented by the general director of the client company, for example) is not aware of these or other details of the transaction, this will definitely have a bad effect on work, and on their future relationships and on the situation as a whole.
Thus, kickbacks in one form or another are always evil. Money should be paid only for "real" work (proper advertising and protection of the interests of your own partner are also work). For disinformation pay, obviously, not worth it. It hurts everyone, like any “foul play”, like any lie. This is how I see this problem, although I myself received kickbacks, unfortunately. But we all need to be corrected if we want to work in a “civilized” market, and not at a market tray with crumpled peaches.
UPD2: I apologize to all who have spent time reading this text, all these updates are due to the fact that some gentlemen reacted negatively to this text. And I temporarily removed it. And then, after all, I thought that it would be better to let him be than just “Kickbacks are bad.” And returned the text back.
UPD2: And still let it be:
As one intelligent person once said, everything is relative . What I mean? Here's what: We usually have 3 or 4 figures, in the relationship between which we have to figure it out.
')
1. A contracting company (in this case, a web-studio) represented by a gene. directors
2. The representative of the contracting company (sometimes it is the general director himself, if the office is small, and so often happens with us)
3. The client company (in this case, almost any organization, the head of which, for certain reasons, chose as the contractor just “1”).
4. A representative of the customer company (rollback, commissioner, an interested person, etc., as soon as this character is not called, and for good reason, because the root of evil is always in it).
At first glance, everything is very simple. We have the charter of the contractor, the charter of the company-customer and the legislation of the Russian Federation. And none of the four figures involved in the transaction has the right to violate these legal documents. The charters, of course, must describe in detail the process of concluding “contract” and “for the provision of services” contracts, respectively, as well as responsible persons, decision makers and the amount of bonus (commission) fees for a representative of each party. And in the legislation of the Russian Federation, for sure, it is written in great detail, for what you need to pay taxes, and which activities representatives and representatives of the parties can do and which not. That's all.
But, as usual, the blame is human greed. The contractor (web-studio) is ready to pay, and a representative of the customer company, he is - friends and girlfriends, of course, is ready to receive. When such a situation arises in the market, they will still find each other, even if the Hague Tribunal threatens them for it. And to exclude this situation is impossible for one simple reason. Because a representative of the client company at the time of negotiations with the contractor company for a few minutes forgets about whose representative he is and acts in his personal interests, to the detriment of the interests of the company (and always to the detriment). The reason for this behavior in the nature of people. The representative of the customer company feels that he is a part of the company only when the director pays him money or scans him on the carpet. When such an unprincipled office plankton gets the opportunity to feel “at the helm”, he does not feel himself a part of the company, he himself.
So, why is everything relative? Because, regarding himself, the recipient of rights is 100%. For he uses honest methods (he has the right to choose this particular contractor) and concludes a fair deal (he is a representative, after all), and receives dishonest money (which, as we know, does not smell). Go ahead. Regarding his employer, the recipient acts in violation of the charter, and if the charter is not violated, the commissioner’s actions are in any way harmful to the company. First, the money he receives must belong to the company (the difference between the real cost of services and the “return” cost is the customer’s money). Secondly, the rollback’s decision to choose a contractor is not due to the quality of its services, not to the cost, not reputation, not favorable (for the company) terms of the transaction, but only its own vested interests. And this practice prevents the “right” competition and stifles the “healthy” development of the market. Therefore, by the way, it is in the “information” market that the most inappropriate competition and the most “unhealthy” market development. He even wrote about this “you-know-who” five years ago. But we are not talking about that. As a result, the practice of kickbacks is absolutely unambiguously harmful for both client companies and contractors who want to “play fair”.
Go ahead, consider the behavior of the contractor regarding itself. Well done. Real "sellers", as any eminent marketer would say. Task: make a profit. Resources: labor, medium or low quality, dumping, kickbacks. At the conclusion of the "rolling back" contract, the task can be considered completed. Now we will look at them from the client. For him, choosing such a contractor is tantamount to admitting his own incompetence, because the hedgehog is clear that an office that pays kickbacks cannot attract a client anymore (nobody will just pay), which means it’s not profitable to work with them. And if this is not just dumping, but a rollback, then the client is also being shod on the size of this very rollback, and not only and not so much the contractor’s shoes as his own representative.
If a contracting company justifies itself by allegedly paying for “advertising”, then this is a profound error. Such an approach has the right to exist only if the person bringing the client (commissioner) is not an employee of the company that becomes the customer, that is, he does not have “special privileges”, does not use his official position, namely “advertises” the contractor , quality of services, terms, conditions of the contract and so on. Then he has something to pay for.
So, the only honest way to earn money for a representative of a client company is to take an active part in the work of a contractor (for a web-studio, preparing materials, for example, or subsequent administration, etc.). If the work is really worth it to the employer (the customer company), it even makes sense to pay bonuses to your employee for the fact that he really chose the “right” contractor based on the interests of the company, and thereby benefited the company, rather than rolling back. In addition, the contractor’s company can pay bonuses to this representative, if his work (exactly the real job) will be useful for them, of course, the maximum amount of these bonuses must be specified in the contract.
The practice of such relationships will be really useful for both customers and contractors. All the rest is unequivocal evil. If one of the companies concluding the transaction (represented by the general director of the client company, for example) is not aware of these or other details of the transaction, this will definitely have a bad effect on work, and on their future relationships and on the situation as a whole.
Thus, kickbacks in one form or another are always evil. Money should be paid only for "real" work (proper advertising and protection of the interests of your own partner are also work). For disinformation pay, obviously, not worth it. It hurts everyone, like any “foul play”, like any lie. This is how I see this problem, although I myself received kickbacks, unfortunately. But we all need to be corrected if we want to work in a “civilized” market, and not at a market tray with crumpled peaches.
UPD2: I apologize to all who have spent time reading this text, all these updates are due to the fact that some gentlemen reacted negatively to this text. And I temporarily removed it. And then, after all, I thought that it would be better to let him be than just “Kickbacks are bad.” And returned the text back.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30129/
All Articles