I have plans to charge for reports as I think I can sell the service as an add on.
I’d be interested in discussing this with anyone who is new or consideribg IR in conjunction with residential inspections.
I think an IR scan with written report would fetch $150 to $500 easy depending on the cost of the home.
Looking for any conversation on this.
Page is new today and I plan to finish up over the weekend, as well as a blog article on thermography.
With the next generation Flir One for 2015
it appears they have taken away the argument that this is simply a toy. Perceived 640x480 resolution is 4x more powerful than the original. We shall see. A couple of pictures with the MSX feature might be a good picture to add to the sight as that is what people respond to.
Nice narrative there Paul. Can I steal this from you without any copyright infringement?
Of course, I would gladly pay you for the licensing rights if you prefer…
Thanks Frank, I saw a few lines that explained things better than I did.
On the pictures? I plan to take my own over the next few weeks as I have a few inspections coming up on REO properties and these homes usually have serious issues which may allow for some good pictures.
I’m happy to have finally got a page built, now I can clean it up some over the weekend.
IMO: It’s OK to be a little bit technical, but keep it oriented to the consumer e.g., what you’re going to do; how it’s going to benefit them, etc. I wouldn’t get into a lot on the more esoteric aspects of thermography such as emissivity, qualitative vs quantitative analysis, etc. unless it is going to help clarify value of your service to the consumer. Keep it all in the context of the service. Don’t forget to incorporate phrases that stand a good chance of being used as consumer search phrases.
Good job incorporating consumer oriented search terms in the page URL.
The opening image looks fine and conveys the fundamental concept really well. I would keep it unless I started seeing it too many other places. If I did, I would replace it then. The last thing I would want is to look like a bunch of other sites. I would want to work some of my own imagery into the body of the article.
I think it does a good job of establishing his creds. I might tweak it a bit, but would certainly keep it. Spend some verbiage talking about the service itself too. He establishes why he’s better than just any home inspector with a cheap imager and a rainbow logo, now he needs to build on it to convey to the consumer why his superior capability is worth paying for.
By “enhancing the perceived 640×480 resolution of the thermal image” is another way of saying the photo saved in the camera is enhanced to LOOK LIKE the resolution mentioned. TESTO does this too with their cameras and they call it SUPER RESOLUTION of the image, but it is not what is seen on the viewer screen. FLIR is using MARKET SPEAK to fool the novice.
The FLIR ONE actual resolution on the viewer screen will be closer to 160x120 resolution (4 times the original model) But it does not specify the mk sensitivity level, much must be low enough (100 mk) to be considered functional for a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL camera and meet the RESNET standard.
Original model 80x60 = 480
Estimate of new model 160x120 = 19,200 (4 times greater)
I noted in the ad content it does not say it is a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL camera, which is the text FLIR uses for true higher resolution cameras that can be used by PROS. It is not even promoted for building inspection purposes.
From the one image displayed on the promo page, I can see why FLIR does not promote this new camera as a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL camera. Blobs of heat lack the needed details to produce reliable results for a infrared building inspection. We need more details to know what this camera is really producing.