> Hugh Janus wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Pops Peds wrote:
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Jay Rivett wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > > I wouldn't want anything less than the $100 per day per bike. Not
>
> > worth
>
> >
>
> > > tending to the bikes for les than that to make sure each are running
>
> >
>
> > > perfect for the film work.
>
> >
>
> > He didn’t either but instead of having 14k he ended up with a 0 … the
>
> > filming went on without his bikes so they ditched the bike idea or
>
> > negotiated a better price .. sometimes less means more …
>
> Dillon has a lot more experience working with film production than you
> do, pops.
>
> A small budget production that couldn't afford 100 per day for a bike
> wouldn't be worth the hassle, and a big production has more money than
> god, so they can cough it up if they want the bikes.
This is exactly the issue. If they don't have the budget to rent the bikes for what is a standard rate, they probably don't have a COI that will cover personal in injury or damage to bike or property. In addition, getting paid for delivery/pickup, any repair days etc. would be a hassle.
And also, I could have had 14k, but certainly didn't gain nothing. Because I wasn't locked into a service/on-call for the bikes, I worked normally at a day rate equal to or higher than what the bikes would have gotten me.per day, so that's cool.
I'll heartily agree with Graham that knowing your value in terms of skills and assets are something working for yourself requires, and something I wish I had had a grasp on earlier than I did.
But, working for the man will squash your sense of self worth pretty effectively.