Absolutely ridicules. Contractors just like vendors can add services to improve the clients quality of life and which has nothing to do with the home inspection report as you mistakenly claim. Sky lights ? ceiling fans? additions? or any other upgrade the client may wish to have. Contractors are not all about repairs that stemmed from the inspection report like you stated, that is purely wrong and misleading.
Your COE and the Inspectors that release client information to either a vendor who sells products or a contractor that sells services to a client. Same result. Stop attempting to make a difference. Everyone can see through that nonsense… It is over, time to make iut right and try to save some face here, there still may be some hope left.
Can’t you see Jim? A vendor selling alarm leads and/or appliance recall checks is only in business with the idea of protecting the home owner, a good Samaritan by heart. They’re not trying to make any money. :roll:
Now a qualified roofing contractor is only in business to scam as many clueless homeowners as they can before their true motive is discovered.
Ahhh thanks Chris, I think I got it now. It is OK to be a scammer if Nick says it is ok and thinks you are cute. But if he doesn’t know you or just is not in the mood, then you cannot scam. Nick decides who can scam NACHI Inspectors clients and who cannot.
Thanks for that clarification, I was just so confused by all the spinning and deflection that goes on around here.
Of course they are both out to make money. That’s irrelevant. Everyone is.
What is relevant is that only the roofer directly benefits from the outcome of the inspection. And they stand to benefit by $5-10,000. How does an alarm lead vendor benefit? They don’t because they already have the lead, regardless of how the inspection turns out.
At $5-10,000 a roofer can afford to bribe an inspector. I don’t what Jim K. was trying to say in his post #140 but there is an enormous difference between a vendor and a contractor because the contractor can influence the report.
I have nothing against contractors and I’m not anti-contractor. I’m a licensed, insured general contractor myself and I run www.contractorsassociation.org . I would love to purchase repair leads from home inspectors and I certainly wouldn’t use those leads to scam any consumer. I’d use them to legitimately get more clients. I’m an honest contractor and my past clients love me. At Christmas, my garage fills up from gifts from my clients.
Nevertheless, my purchases of leads and my offering to pay for repair data might influence the report writing of the inspectors selling that information to me. That’s why, as founder of InterNACHI, I put repair contractors in a much different category than home security companies. Does that make any sense?
It is particularly weird that … professing these concerns … you would encourage home inspectors who report on the lack of smoke alarms or CO alarms in a home inspection to refer and secretly contract with alarm systems contractors to pay them a kickback when they can upsell a complete alarm system to the home buyer they gave the report to.
I don’t see the difference, at all. If there actually is a difference, it must be too subtle to detect.
Getting back to the big announcement of this thread, Joe … I am wondering why home inspectors who are engaged in selling information to third parties are cutting themselves so short.
These leads are obviously worth thousands of dollars in potential sales to various vendors and lead brokers are raking in big dollars for names and phone numbers … while some inspectors are binding themselves to contracts with lead brokers and are getting nothing more than trinkets and gimmicks in exchange for them.
While inspectors who do not sell client information are setting themselves apart from those who do with the Client Fidelity Pledge … inspectors who ARE selling their clients data should be getting a bigger slice of the pie than what they are, IMO. If they are in the business of selling client data … why not make it pay something bigger than a free 90-day warranty?
When lead brokers like Leach, Thornberry and others are willing to pay $200 whenever their mark buys an alarm system … that means that, for the lead alone, they are making significantly more than that.
Inspectors selling this information should be the ones setting the terms … setting the price … and giving their client data to the highest bidding lead broker who pays up front for the information, per lead.
I think that an inspector who sells his clients to lead brokers … if done correctly … could be making more money from his lead base than from his home inspections.
How many would be swapping them for free recall thingies if they could get enough cash in exchange for them to pay for five recall thingies?
But the dishonest lead broker further reveals to what depths he will continue to go to mislead the public. Par for the course.
At least his competitor … the vendor that this thread was intended to promote … is honest and forthcoming about what he does, without any attempts to deceive the public.
It further demonstrates why inspectors who are NOT involved with Thornberry’s scams and schemes … or who sell information to other lead brokers … would want to distance themselves from those who do by promoting the Client Fidelity Pledge that they took.
Inspectors who think the CFP is beneficial to their business will sign on, and those who are not interested will not.
No one is the bad guy.
But, you have to admit… for something that some others believe is so useless and wont fly… they are spending lots of time trashing something they think is a piece of crap.
Now we even have one party copping a similar site name and pointing it to his offering.
