Throwing out this concept for discussion

With all the hoopla regarding alarm lead sales, data sharing, data collection, incentives, kickbacks, undisclosed compensation, and secret relationships, I began thinking of a marketing concept for those inspectors who choose not to participate in these sort of programs.

Everyone is aware that data, the internet, and privacy seems to slip away by the hour. There is talk iin our own industry regarding the reall possibity that client data is being brokered to contractors of all shapes and sizes.

I find it all a bit perturbing.

So, I got to thinking. What if there was a program whereby inspectors could pledge not to do this sort of thing. You know. The Client is king and their information beloings to them, and no others.

Now, all of this is premature, and the program hasn’t rolled out yet. Hell, we don’t really even have a real logo or tagline. But, I think it would be an interesting prospect, when every other inspector has all these widgets and marketing thingy’s attached to “distinguish” them from the rest. I wonder how many clients or prospective clients would appreciate knowing that their information is being brokered to someone for a fee. Or worse yet, what would they think of they found out that you (the inspector) was receiving an incentive or kickback?

I may even roll this into a discount program for those who may subscribe to the arbitration service.

Anyway, it’s just a thought. And it is VERY different from what we’ve been seeing of late.

http://www.nachi.org/forum/attachments/f5/66551d1372794950t-working-concept-we-pledge.jpg

This is timely in light of the ADT offer thread, as well as the brochures NACHI has with regard to why someone should hire a NACHI Certified Inspector.

Something to think about.

There is a thread in members only on this subject. I wanted to move it into the public section of the message board, as it will be available to most anyone who chooses to not participate in these programs.

Now your talking and I will be the first to sign up.:mrgreen:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

So do you believe it is unethical to get a client’s permission and have them trade their email address for a free Recallchek, even if they can opt out of all future contact once they receive that email?

Could we keep the thread pollution to a minimum please?

Cam,

Do you believe it is unethical for you, as an inspector, to advertise your degree in architecture when, in fact you are not an Architect?

Not saying it is, but any statement can be twisted into something unintended.

We discussed this on the other thread.

Nate,

There is an ADT thread in this forum with some sort of exclusive deal to NACHI members.

Inspectors who do not sell the home buyers’ personal information to an undefined number of unnamed third party service providers and conceal their compensation … and who do not put language in their contracts that allow telemarketers to ignore any “no call list” that their client may have placed his name on … can certainly benefit from having a way to set themselves apart from those who do.

Great idea, Joe.

Joe you need to eliminate the third line word “accept” for bad grammer.
The line will fit better as well.

Otherwise good.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Not only do I believe it is unethical… I believe that in licensed states legislation should be introduced which makes it a misdemeanor for home inspectors to share client information outside of the direct participants in the real estate transaction and directly prohibits home inspectors from trading client information for value.

We should protect the trust the buying public has placed within our professions care by respecting the privacy of those who make it possible for us to live the good lives we do.

To me this is the true essence of our Code of Ethics, where we have pledged to do nothing which would damage our profession, association or the public trust.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Yes, sir. Right on target.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This designation … the “Privacy Protected” logo and advertisement … will transcend the various associations and various and randomly enforced ethical standards.

Home inspectors of every association … and no association … who qualify, will be able to display to the public proof of their pledge to protect (and not exploit) their personal information.

No guesswork will be necessary on the part of the public. An inspector either does or does not have proof of his pledge to protect the home buyer’s privacy. Those who think that it is worth forfeiting their privacy to use a certain inspector who does not choose or qualify to receive the designation will be certainly free to do so … but real estate agents who have been asked have already expressed their obvious choice.

It’s the right thing to do … and a method of being recognized for doing the right thing. Protect the privacy of home buyers.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

A big waste of time.
All the clients want is a home inspection.
All this will do is have them wary of all inspectors.
Leave it like it is . It’s been that way for a long time and proven to work.

And wary they should be those who sell their clients personal info and offer gimmicks.

From the other thread, this was a response to cam A.

Just back from a Mold inspection, good to see some more action here.

Cam, you have it wrong again. Nothing is aimed at any vendor in specific, the point is aimed actually more another positive marketing tool for those Professional inspectors to use and let their clients and other parties know that they do not participate in the Selling of clients private/personal; information to others for profit. Now if you think it is ok to sell your clients private information then keep doing it, that choice is certainaly yours to make.

Jim

Mike
Before any law is enacted there is usually a problem beforehand.
I would like to see statistical facts where clients were harmed.
If there is no problem why get everyone in a uproar.
What this is about is to defame Nathan plain and simple.
A bunch of o’ busy body’s with nothing else to do but act like a bunch of old women and cause trouble .

Does anyone know of a client that has complained ?
I’ll bet not.
Then no problem and no action to be taken.