Continuing on the pricing question:
Maybe you could offer two tiers of service.
The lower tier (less thorough & less expensive) could be based on straight encap cleaning - using just non-absorbent pads such as the FiberPlus pads, or the pads sold for encapping with the HOS Orbot. This could be done with per-room pricing, or a package of several rooms & areas for a fixed price. With this option you could market, and respond to price questions over the phone, with a specific price.
Your higher-priced option ("Our Premium Service") would involved pad-cleaning or pad-capping; full vacuuming; serious attention to stains; moving of moveable furniture; etc., and would be based on a per-sq. ft. actually cleaned basis. You give the customer the choice. The customer with the Ford Focus or Walmart mentality would likely choose the lower price option, and the Mercedes or Lexus driver, who shops at Nordstrom's ("I'm worth it!") would probably go for the more intensive, and higher-priced service.
I too am a small carpet cleaning business. I have found that SF pricing ONLY causes a LOT of problems in the residential arena.
When people call I give them a price range, and that is it. If they are price shopping, you probably don't want them anyway, but I have convinced several folks to understand what I offer and what I am worth.
Issues with SF pricing for people's rooms is furniture. "So if you charge for the whole rooms SF, you must be moving ALL the furniture right?" or "If you are only cleaning the traffic lanes, why measure the whole room?"
If you only charge for traffic lane SF you will be SCREWED! It is the dirtiest part, and takes up the least space. This is why big companies like SS charge $99 for three rooms. Believe it or not, you can do three rooms for that price most of the time and still make out.
Also, promising a price on the phone almost always ends in disaster. The customer will always underestimate the size or soiling of their rugs. Price shoppers are the types that think that carpet cleaning is just sprayin some shampoo and sucking it up with some water. Anyone can do it in their mind, so why pay you top dollar?
What Mark said works a lot for me as well. I tell them I will schedule the job show up and give them a final price before any work is done. If the price is agreeable (and with in their budget) we will proceed.
Two tiers of service. I might try it! In this supposed rush of carpet cleaning before the holidays, I am not getting much business. I think my price is driving people away. This is definitely worth consideration!
I am trying an experiment, at least until mid January. I'll let you know how it works.
I am finding that price is the only factor for cleaning these days. Non-toxic, high quality, low moisture, green... only one customer in 100 has any interest in this. I am getting ONLY that one customer in 100 or 1000. Most inquirers want me to have prices as low as Sears and Chem-dry, and they think all carpet cleaners and methods are the same. If I am able to educate them otherwise in the short time I have on the phone with them.
I get a lot of inquiries that I cannot convert because of my price. That leaves me with about only two $90 jobs per week executed when I am all done.
I went into a a multi-million dollar home in a mulit-million dollar neighborhood in Hopkinton the other day and owner told me that price was her only consideration. I believe that she did not hire me because I was a bit higher than Stanely Steamer. I told her about low moisture, encapsulation, etc.
My only job for next week called and cancelled because she found a better price.
My customer this week loved the job and the non-toxic aspect, but she only had one hallway and one staircase done, even though her house was loaded with filthy wall-to-wall carpet. She only could afford the hall and stairs.
My customer last week told me not to move any furniture because she couldn't affort the extra square footage.
I am slashing my prices to 28 cents per square foot, and offering across the board discounts. I will let you know if it has an effect.
