3 ms·

So Hypothetical then: 1) Using QuickBooks I can keep 1 clients books in an hour. I charge the client $100/hr 2) Using a Competitors software I can shave 10 mi

So Hypothetical then: 1) Using QuickBooks I can keep 1 clients books in an hour. I charge the client $100/hr 2) Using a Competitors software I can shave 10 minutes off that. Assuming I work an 8 hour day, I'd be making $120 more a day if I switched off Quickbooks, minus the time it would take me to learn new software. Small business fundamental goals indeed.

walterbell 9y ago
Unless the labor pool of bookkeepers expands by 30% (increased usability) and prices fall by 30% or more due to increased competition.
curun1r 9y ago
Quickbooks isn't slow to use, it's unintuitive. That's a crucial difference to your calculation. An experienced Quickbooks user can still work very quickly by internalizing the wonkiness. The inefficiency is suffered by novice users.
cosmie 9y ago
In isolation that sounds fantastic. When looking at the greater market dynamics, it's not at roses. Professionals tend to form opinions in the interest of their self preservation, whether consciously or otherwise. By shaving off the time it takes to keep the books, a percentage of clients will decide that the time it takes to keep the books isn't worth outsourcing. The shorter you make the time commitment, the more the cost/benefit analysis leans that way. You've also made it easier for other bookkeepers. Now they have more room in their day for more clients, plus the barrier of entry for new bookkeepers is powered by the easier software. All of a sudden you have negative pricing pressure driving your rates down and next thing you know your client base has gone up but your rates have gone down and you're making the same amount of money but with more client management overhead due to additional clients being serviced. Then at some point, the ease of use shrinks to the point where a critical mass of the client base have decided to do it themselves, and you start finding it hard to source enough clients to fill all 8 hours a day, and have yet more negative pricing pressure to make up for it. What started as making your job more efficient evolved into making your job so efficient you weren't needed.

walterbell 9y ago

Unless the labor pool of bookkeepers expands by 30% (increased usability) and prices fall by 30% or more due to increased competition.

curun1r 9y ago

Quickbooks isn't slow to use, it's unintuitive. That's a crucial difference to your calculation. An experienced Quickbooks user can still work very quickly by internalizing the wonkiness. The inefficiency is suffered by novice users.

cosmie 9y ago

In isolation that sounds fantastic. When looking at the greater market dynamics, it's not at roses. Professionals tend to form opinions in the interest of their self preservation, whether consciously or otherwise. By shaving off the time it takes to keep the books, a percentage of clients will decide that the time it takes to keep the books isn't worth outsourcing. The shorter you make the time commitment, the more the cost/benefit analysis leans that way. You've also made it easier for other bookkeepers. Now they have more room in their day for more clients, plus the barrier of entry for new bookkeepers is powered by the easier software. All of a sudden you have negative pricing pressure driving your rates down and next thing you know your client base has gone up but your rates have gone down and you're making the same amount of money but with more client management overhead due to additional clients being serviced. Then at some point, the ease of use shrinks to the point where a critical mass of the client base have decided to do it themselves, and you start finding it hard to source enough clients to fill all 8 hours a day, and have yet more negative pricing pressure to make up for it. What started as making your job more efficient evolved into making your job so efficient you weren't needed.