I was teasing about the table, but inspectors should aspire higher (they can extrapolate).
The article is spot-on. Pricing above the the average gets the inspector better clientele (i.e., those who seek value, quality and return on investment over cheapest cost. They are less likely to cheat you and more likely to appreciate and refer you); better agents (i.e., those who cater to better clientele, market better houses, are more concerned with the best interest of their clients than nailing a specific sale); better houses (fewer dumps, foreclosures, cheap flips. Larger and more profitable too). It also enables you to be a better inspector. Because, you don’t have to cram your day full of back to back inspections, you can afford to devote more time where it is warranted, you can reduce your liability and increase the number of clients who will rave about you. I’m hard pressed to find any downside to performing fewer inspections for higher revenue.
When I started back in 2004, my minimum fee was $265. It was much too low so I didn’t let it stay there but for a few months. When I retired this spring, my average fee ytd (according to ISN) was about $750 and that included reinspections. I couldn’t have hoped to work with a better client base or better agents because that’s what we attracted. Just like there are people who seek out quality vehicles and homes, there are plenty of people who seek out the best in home inspections. Somebody gets to be their home inspector. Why not you? Let the lowballers serve the community that seeks that type of service and the agents and houses that go with that.
Thanks for the article Ian!