Originally Posted By: jquinn This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
mboyett wrote:
This also gives me the right to place my marketing material in all of their agents mailboxes.
This is the grey area. If others are not allowed to do this unless they purchase the "advertising", then part of the cost is in fact buying access to agents, not just "advertising" 
Originally Posted By: rzimmerman This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jquinn wrote:
mboyett wrote:
This also gives me the right to place my marketing material in all of their agents mailboxes.
This is the grey area. If others are not allowed to do this unless they purchase the "advertising", then part of the cost is in fact buying access to agents, not just "advertising" 
Nuff said.
James Quinn RHI
Additionally, if no other advertising is allowed in those offices then the $ is to have access in their office.
I would prefer that buyers be referred to the internet, local yellow pages and news paper adds. Realtors always have money interest in selling the home. They should be removed from the investigative side of the process.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jquinn wrote:
mboyett wrote:
This also gives me the right to place my marketing material in all of their agents mailboxes.
This is the grey area. If others are not allowed to do this unless they purchase the "advertising", then part of the cost is in fact buying access to agents, not just "advertising" 
Nuff said.
James Quinn RHI
I disagree. Putting lit in a mailbox is still advertising. What about the guy who puts literature in a mailbox that does not pay? Is that wrong?
People pay money to real estate associations to have access to agents, too. It's called "dues" but it does the same thing.
Paying to place literature is a mailbox is paying to advertise, IMO. Paying to have a client steered in your direction is not.
Originally Posted By: mboyett This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Oh, I definitely agree that’s it’s a grey area. Just out of curiosity I counted the vendors in the last issue of the magazine. There are 329 with 31 of those being other HI’s. Doesn’t mean much but it’s interesting to know.
Originally Posted By: jquinn This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
jquinn wrote:
mboyett wrote:
This also gives me the right to place my marketing material in all of their agents mailboxes.
This is the grey area. If others are not allowed to do this unless they purchase the "advertising", then part of the cost is in fact buying access to agents, not just "advertising" 
Nuff said.
James Quinn RHI
I disagree. Putting lit in a mailbox is still advertising. What about the guy who puts literature in a mailbox that does not pay? Is that wrong?
People pay money to real estate associations to have access to agents, too. It's called "dues" but it does the same thing.
Paying to place literature is a mailbox is paying to advertise, IMO. Paying to have a client steered in your direction is not.
James, I have no qualms about putting literature into mailboxes without payment required....but, if you by paying are allowed while the guy who does not pay is not, you are indeed buying access.
Put whatever slant on it that you want, you're buying access plain and simple.
Of course, it is snowing here...and I'm about to go climb another roof...so what do I know.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I guess we will just disagree on that point.
I see the purchase of access, be it in a literature box or radio commercial, as ethical. Especially when that access is an added on benefit to the purchase of a published advertisement.
I see purchasing someone's judgment whereby, for the sum of $xxx, they will tell people that I am a good inspector and that they should choose me over someone else - as being unethical. To me, there is a difference and the area is not grey.
We all pay for access. A postage stamp gives me access to your mailbox. A web designer gives me access to your computer. A yellow page ad gives me access to your phone.
Originally Posted By: rwand This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi James
Just out of interest, up here in Ontario we have inspectors conducting regional meetings in the Realtors board offices. Even though they pay for the use, there is an appearance of conflict in my opinion. Best to stay away from any questionable activities that could undermine that independence. Some associations just can't but help market to Realtors, its a shame because now they maybe asked to critique HI with the National Initative up here in Canada.
Here is an ASHI ruling dealing with payments to Realtors from 2001.
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The yellow pages won’t put my ads in there unless I pay them. Thats gotta be unethical. My local Realtors Directory won’t put my company name and phone number in there unless I join and pay them. NACHI, ASHI, and NAHI are just as bad - they want you to join and pay to get your name on a list. If other inspectors aren’t on that list we’re restricting their access to the public, realtors, lenders or whoever gets the list or roster, etc.
Guys get real on some of this stuff!!!!
There' real unethical and theres advertising, dues, or whatever!
Originally Posted By: rwand This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Yellow pages aren’t in a position to influence a realestate deal. It is an indpendent third party providing a service. They do not restrict the number of paid ads from inspectors. Anyone can list their service.
The Realtors directory is most likely only open to a handful of inspectors willing to pay the price. That is considered a concern because the publication is controlled by Realtors, they control referrals, they take the money, they are in a position to send business your way. Quid pro quo?
Paying dues to an Association to be listed is not even comparable. Every member gets listed, it is not restrictive like a preferred vendor list. The Realtors have been left out of the equation. The money to be a listed member in the Association stays in the Association, no third party involvement.
If an inspector is paying $2500 to a preferred vendor list controlled by a Real Estate company me and many others consider it a violation of most associations COE's.
It is very few who do not see a problem with this. I guess you are in the minority. Hopefully we can persuade you otherwise.
Cheers,
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
-- The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
We all pay at some time or other to be on a “LIST”.
If NACHI, ASHI and NAHI won't put out a list of ALL Home Inspectors they're restricting access to somebody.
I send a $45 gift card for dinner at Applebee's to every person (lender, realtor, attorney, appraiser, other inspector, etc) that refers me over
5 clients in any given month. I guess I must be buying their business.
Some of our own peoples comments just get real naive on the manly (or womanly) art of doing business.