CMI logo chosen.

[Nick Gromicko]

By the way... the easiest, most painless way to raise your prices is to market so strongly that the demand for your services grows to exceed your ability to supply the demand.

[jmichalski]

No arguement. If you are at max capacity you can already raise prices. No CMI needed to do so.

The math dictates that for every inspector doing 700 per year, two inspectors (veterans) would have to be doing ZERO. For every inspector doing 600, two inspectors would have to do 50 each.

The 230 number was based on full-time veterans. I find it highly unlikely that several full time verterans are doing 0-50 each and hav remained in business full-time. For every TWO who have done so, that would allow for one who does 600-700.

Clearly, this is not typical. So, to increase business, since most vets are not capped out at 600 annually, they will look to book more to get to their max capacity at which point they can start raising prices without repercussion.

So they will seek to take market share.

The CMI would be used to do so at the detriment of the newbies.

Could the CMI be used as a snob appeal approach exclusivly to raise prices? Sure. Is it likely to be done that way? No.

It is more likely to be used to distinguish the CMI from teh non-CMI by making the non-CMI seem clueless and inferior. Hence, it hruts no-CMI NACHI members for no other reason than to create an artificial designation that is not needed.

This is my only point. Of course, this is only my opinion and it counts for nothing as far as NACHI program implementation is concerned.

[Nick Gromicko]

Remember: We are not a lemonade stand. If we make good lemonade and market our lemonade heavily, demand goes up, and we simply make more lemonade to make more money.

A home inspector cannot do much more than 600-700 inspections/year max.

The only way we in this industry can make more money is by charging more.

[Nick Gromicko]

Do you view websites similarly? Certainly in this day and age a member who has a website has a competitive advantage over one who doesn't. Where do we draw the line?

[jmichalski]

No.

First we must achieve maximum capacity for inspections. Then we can raise prices to a point.

TO achieve maximum capacity one must - as you point out - market extensively. If the CMI is intended to do this, it will be used as an increasingly large part of marketing, compounding the problem by driving the wedge between the CMI's and non-CMI's repeatedly.

And no one will be driving that process but NACHI. No one can prevent use fo the CMI in such a way but us. It is our artifical designation serving no purpose but to be marketed.

The more it is marketed, the greater the damage to non-CMIs

[jmichalski]

Please stick to what NACHI is doing organizationally. NACHI does not give some members websites and deprive others. That would be the correlation to the CMI (some haves, many have-nots).

ANYONE can have a website if they desire it, and not having one does not inherently make one's inspection inferior. The CMI can only be given (by NACHI) to some, and will be marketed to make non-CMIs appear inferior and clueless.

WE draw the line by saying that NACHI will not offer artifical designations to its members. If they choose to differentiate themselves or seek additional certifications and designations, they are welcome to. But it will not be thrust upon them by the organization they joined that prided itself on NOT branding new members.

[Nick Gromicko]

Good, then we are getting somewhere.

So it is not that CMI gives a competitive advantage to some members and not to others that is your problem with it, it is that it is an advantage that not all members can avail themselves of and so it should be outlawed.

You are correct, everyone can have a website if they choose to but not all members can acquire a CMI.

So, by that logic, since not all members can be in business 10 years, should we outlaw the touting of experience? A newbie can get a website tomorrow, but can't necessarily get a CMI or 10 years experience tomorrow.

So are you saying that any qualification that all members can't acquire, should be a qualification we outlaw?

[jmichalski]

No, Nick, we are not getting anywhere.

You can re-write my responses in any form you like it does not change the fact that what I dislike is the creation of a tiered membership.

The branding of new members is coming. Do they get a label like "candidate?" No. But when everyone else in the organization is pushing a CMI label as the mark of a "qualified and expert inspector" and those lacking it as "inexperienced, lesser inspectors" it achieves the same goal.

It's your organization and I cannot convince you that the CMI is a unnecessary and divisive idea (it is) any more than I can convince you that NACHI needs a written Strategic Organizational Plan (it does).

The sole purpose of the CMI is marketing - it is created to be advertised. Doing so agressively will make newer inspectors appear unqualified and incompetent by comparision - that is the most effective way to market it.

Of course, with the threshold so low to obtain it, nearly everyone will have it (after forking over more money and passing a test ..hmmm sounding more like ASHI every day!) Once nearly everyone has it, it will be virtually worthless again - or at least no more useful than ASHI's "full member" label, and it will only serve to identify NACHI veterans from NACHI newbies.

Maybe you should consider adding a branding fee for these new CMI's as well.....!

This cannot help but impede newbies in their attempts to build business.

Rewrite it anyway you like. You seem to have a gift for selective listening.

[jmichalski]

Nick, I know that - deep down - you know the difference between experience and credetntials and marketing tools that an inspector achieves or creates on his own to boost his business, and those handed out by a national trade organiztion that brands some as "good" and others as "not as good".

I don't propose outlawing anything. NACHI should not restrict the way any member builds his business or markets it. If they want additional credentials or code certification, go for it.

NACHI should not hand out any credentials to members of a certain experience level, who have paid a fee, and passed a test. That is ASHI, and I chose not to join ASHI. But, if we are becoming ASHI-like (labeling a new tier of 'truly qualified' inspectors at 250+ inspections , plus $100 and out test!) then we will lose the stranglehold we have on attracting newer inspectors because we have blurred the distinction between the orgs.

Of course, I debated these ideas with you before concerning capping membership (which you are in favor of) or slowing growth. I just didn't think you would do it this way.

[John Nosworthy]

Joe,
I have to agree with your thoughts here.
I joined Nachi over a year ago because it was
"all inclusionary". But between reading this thread
and another about the CMI posted today, I'm thinking
the final shakeout of the CMI trend is following in the
footsteps of A$HI. What a disappointment that we are
about to become "exclusionary". Nick was blazing a
trail for others to follow, looks like those days may
be about over.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Im not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. This association has grown by leaps and bounds and there is bound to be some bumps along the way. I think it is way too early to begin heralding the demise of NACHI. It is tough to eat an elephant all in one meal. Anything worth having is worth doing right. As I tell people buying houses all the time. "Just about anything can be fixed, you just have to know going in what the possible costs are and be prepared to make adjustments to that."

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by dedwards

Im not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. This association has grown by leaps and bounds and there is bound to be some bumps along the way. I think it is way too early to begin heralding the demise of NACHI. It is tough to eat an elephant all in one meal. Anything worth having is worth doing right. As I tell people buying houses all the time. "Just about anything can be fixed, you just have to know going in what the possible costs are and be prepared to make adjustments to that."

Doug, Great thoughts.

Unfortunately, everything in your post indicates that we are looking at the future of the organization, identifying goals and planning to meet or exceed them.

You speak of manageable growth and preparation, and assessing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

All of these are the elements of a vital document, which any organization (non-profit, business, club, whatever) needs to have to address threats and take advantage of opportunities as they arise. It allows you to adapt to overcome, and position yourself to strike.

Here at NACHI we have no Strategic Organizational Plan. That's right. For an oganization with thousands of members, growing rapidly, we have no clearly identified short and long term goals, and no plan to achieve them.

Every instance is viewed as its own episode, unrelated to everything else around it.

No coherent strategy exists to allow projects and initiatives to springboard off of each other towards an ultimate goal.

I have tried, futilely, to make those in leadership aware that flying by the seat of your pants at 100 miles an hour is asking for a disaster. I have volunteered to organize it, coach it, whatever I can do - it's that important. All to no avail.

It is frustrating, but the decision to add the CMI with no thought to the repercussions (or even what the requirements are) is typical. Note how we announced we had a logo long before we had any agreementthat there should even be a CMI.

[John Bowman]

Joe M.

NACHI has exceeded every goal that was ever set. Your statements and observations are way off base.

If you go to the convention make sure you attend my "Past", "Present", and "Future" symposium.

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by gromicko

By the way... the easiest, most painless way to raise your prices is to market so strongly that the demand for your services grows to exceed your ability to supply the demand.

Perfect explaination....no CMI required....none what so ever.....

[jmichalski]

John,

It isn't about surpassing goals it is about continuing management of an organization - and occasionnaly, that even means taking a half step back.

BUt it has to be written and identified. You cannot argue with teh fact that I have asked about 200 diffent ways if there exists a written Business Plan or Strategic Plan with no answer.

All I ever get is the kind of statement that you offered - we have passed all goals already.

Great. So I guess nothing bad can happen now!

It is about planning and a coherent strategy so we don't wind up fighting out CMI or GCMI or whatever the hell it is (or capping membership, or cxhanging entrance requirements) on a whim and look like a bunch of jackassess that don't know where we want the organization to head.

We can't even agree on ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS!

I know people love Nick's enthusiasm, but no one ever considers the need for a plan, and all I am saying is that it is desperately needed.

Can you answer the following basic questions:
What are the top three spefici goals for NACHI for 2006 (specifc goals not pablum like "be the leader in the industry")?
What is the goal for membership interms of numbers for the coming year, three years, five years?
What three projects or initatives can be of the greatest benefit to members and move NACHI closer to obtaining the goals identified in question 1?
What are the most important principles of the organization?

The answers should roll off your tounge and be known to every person throughout the organization. They should be re-introduced at every meeting and listed on all minutes and documents. They should be used to determine the merit of actions, and I should get the same answer from every single person in NACHI leadership.

That is what a REAL plan is, not "we have surpassed every goal we set."