thendricksen
New Member
Posts:1
 |
| 24 Jan 2011 01:25 PM |
|
Hey guys, my name is Taylor, and I work in marketing in the renewable energy and green building industry, with a focus on Internet Marketing.
I'm looking at creating a free resource to help installers and builders with their marketing and advertising efforts, but wanted to know what you guys want and need first. I'd love to get some discussion going about what you guys are having problems with, want to learn, etc.
1. What do you have the most trouble with (marketing stuff)?
2. What topics or ideas would you like to learn more about? (ie Websites, Social Media, More customers, Cost Savings, etc.)
3. Would you rather:
Learn more cost and time saving techniques that you can do yourself?
or
Pay someone to take care of your marketing efforts for you?
I really appreciate the feedback in advance, and am excited to hear what you guys think. Any other thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cork-Guy
New Member
Posts:22
|
| 27 Jan 2011 10:03 PM |
|
Great idea, if you have the time shoot me an e-mail at [email protected] as I would be interested in this type of project.  |
|
Learn about eco-friendly <a href="http://www.corkflooringpros.com">cork flooring</a> and keep warm with an environmentally friendly <br> <a href="http://www.ventless-fireplace.org">ventless fireplace</a>.
|
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 29 Jan 2011 11:15 AM |
|
Taylor:
I know this is not the kind of answer you want but here is the deal:
Lots of green building product mfgs, suppliers and subcontractors put a lot of effort into marketing to builders and leave it up to the builders to market the green/high performance homes. This whole green building movement is never going to be fully mainstream until a large number HOME BUYERS demand these types of homes. We builders can only build what home buyers will buy and are willing to pay for. For now building spec green homes anywhere except in very specialized niche markets is corporate suicide. Average home buyers are simply not willing to give up their granite counter tops so they can have a more efficient more healthy home. Sure there are presale green homes built but, many (most?) are in the $4-500k and up range (local prices but could be $mil in calf or NY NY) but really - how green is that? From marketing research I read generation X (or whatever they call them) want green homes, but from what I'm seeing they think they are going to get this for a few hundred bucks extra.... amd they still want granite and SS appliances on starter homes.
So, in summary - the general public needs to be educated. Builders can only follow consumer demand. That is not to say that it isn't a builder's job to up sell. We just need to get where green is the de facto standard. |
|
|
|
|
slenzen
Basic Member
Posts:434
|
| 29 Jan 2011 11:54 AM |
|
It takes a lot of public education to learn the difference between building methods/products and their advantages.
In order for it to go mainstream you must get the appraisal/value higher for an energy efficient home. It has to show savings to justify a higher price. Or govt mandates will artificially move more building to higher standards(but ave cost will increase)
You are also battling the investment return value over time. the average person lives in a particular home what, 5-7 years? So if the value of the home doesnt increase because of green building, people won't justify the upfront cost. Now w/ the economic slow down I assume average stays in a home will increase quite a bit so people will be able to justify higher upfront costs as they'll have more time to recoup them. But that depends on loan appraisals valuing them higher or it requires more cash down from the buyer.
The offset is as more and more builders/manufacturers embrace new systems, competition will bring prices down for more efficient homes.
In a nut shell, for the masses its all about the payback period.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob I
Veteran Member
Posts:1435
|
| 29 Jan 2011 12:03 PM |
|
Matt
Some of this is the builder's problem - not the consumer. An analogy from the automobile perspective - lets say the the average mpg was 20 mpg; so we builders market the "Energy Star Car" that is more expensive, has organic leather seats and 15 percent better mileage (all the way up to 23 MPG!!!). Someone else markets a car that has standard seats, is small, more expensive but gets 80mpg. Lets call it the "Prius". What happens? the Prius sells. Rather than waiting for consumer demand, Toyota offered something no one else could match and despite it's cost, it has sold well.
We need to offer homes that make sense; trying to "upsell" for a 15-20 percent better performance is foolish when we can do so much better. I'm working on ideas for marketing houses that are not flashy, but are energy efficient; one has 2200 Sf of living space and should cost under $500/ year for heat and AC in New England, for under $110 Sf. Will they sell? I don't know yet but I know the market for these will be larger than for more expensive houses which don't perform as well. |
|
| Bob Irving<br>RH Irving Homebuilders<br>Certified Passive House Consultant |
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 29 Jan 2011 12:56 PM |
|
We just need to get where green is the de facto standard. I think your post is spot on, Matt. It seems to me that one of the ways we could bring these concepts closer to home is if there was more attention paid to home buyer's utility expenses. In a time when so many people buy as much house as they can afford, it seems like there might be some traction to be had with utility expenses and the lender. I'm sure it CAN happen, but you don't hear too often about lenders who allow a larger mortgage because the expected utility costs will be lower. For example; "YES, this house is more expensive because of the energy-efficient features, BUT, the monthly utility savings make it possible for you to afford the slightly higher mortgage payments AND they allow you to get a little extra in the way of these granite countertops or a bonus room up front." |
|
|
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 30 Jan 2011 10:28 AM |
|
Posted By Bob I on 29 Jan 2011 12:03 PM
Matt
Some of this is the builder's problem - not the consumer. An analogy from the automobile perspective - lets say the the average mpg was 20 mpg; so we builders market the "Energy Star Car" that is more expensive, has organic leather seats and 15 percent better mileage (all the way up to 23 MPG!!!). Someone else markets a car that has standard seats, is small, more expensive but gets 80mpg. Lets call it the "Prius". What happens? the Prius sells. Rather than waiting for consumer demand, Toyota offered something no one else could match and despite it's cost, it has sold well.
I think the demand for economical automobiles has always been there - or at least in my adult lifetime... How popular was the VW Beetle? I can remember reading a story 30 years ago in the media that a 60MPG car was attainable but Detroit was in bed with the oil companies to prevent it. Weather that was true or not I don't know but my point is that even 30 years ago people wanted cars that got better mileage. How many times while fueling up my gas guzzler truck have I wished for a 60 MPG truck that can easily carry the few thousands pounds I normally haul in my F150? BTW - does a Prius really get 80? I didn't know that - seriously.
We need to offer homes that make sense; trying to "upsell" for a 15-20 percent better performance is foolish when we can do so much better. I'm working on ideas for marketing houses that are not flashy, but are energy efficient; one has 2200 Sf of living space and should cost under $500/ year for heat and AC in New England, for under $110 Sf. Will they sell? I don't know yet but I know the market for these will be larger than for more expensive houses which don't perform as well.
Not sure if that $110 a sq ft includes the land or not but even still it would be quite a challenge to tsy the least to produce a house that is much past "light green" for that. It is the age old quandary for builders - how to build better quality homes for less money? My hat is off to you if you can do it. If you have done so already please post the pictures and $numbers. With today's current technology I'm not seeing how to build a house that uses 50% less fuel without spending $25 to 50k more in build costs - sq footage being equal. Maybe it will happen when the economy gets so bad that people are willing to work for $3 an hour... I'm not.
Maybe you have something in that the 15% - 20% Energy Star home just isn't enough. The minimal 15% Energy Star homes are comming in around $1500 extra and don't seem to sell any better. The problem is that for now we just can't figure out how to build that 50% house for that $1500 extra. Then the payback numbers would be 2nd grade math. For now the payback numbers are in terms of decades and if equipment is involved then the question comes up about the life expectancy of that equipment.
The easy answer is if I want a house that uses 50% less energy is build one that is 1/3 the size. Problem is I'm not seeing the mad consumer dash to buy 1000 sq ft homes. People still want it all. We are just not there with the "less is more mentality". True enough the McMansion market is drying up or dead so we are moving in that direction but we are a long way away from the day when the majority of first time home buyers want and are very proud of a 550 sq ft studio apartment and the time when a family of 5 is perfectly happy in a 1100 sq ft house. For now, it just isn't the American dream.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 30 Jan 2011 10:48 AM |
|
All: For now I think the Energy Star home is a great first step but I think the US EPA should spend the marketing $$$ to convince the American public that that is the minimum house they want since it is the EPA's program. They need to keep it real though. We already have the people wanting it for free and it just isn't.
The media could help too. Have you ever noticed that every family shown in the average TV show or movie lives in a beautiful large home? It's the same as the fact that we have been sold on the idea that all women would weigh 115#s and average men should look like Olympic athletes. What if the average home was portrayed as one that doesn't require a wide angle lens, and solar roofs were standard apparel? |
|
|
|
|
Bob I
Veteran Member
Posts:1435
|
| 30 Jan 2011 11:03 AM |
|
Matt G
The Prius is neither an inexpensive car (like the VW) or an SUV. You're right that we can't do this for $1500; it will cost more than that for the better windows, additional air sealing and insulation, although we'll save some money in furnaces and, longer term, fuel. My point is that we don't really know if affordable high performance houses will sell because almost no one is building them or offering them. I set up a display at an energy conference a few months ago and spoke to one person who has current plans to build - they were very excited about a small zero energy modular. Maybe I'm wrong, (it has happened before) but I think there is an unserved market out there. Like all other market advances it represents a small segmet of the overall market (as does the Prius market) but it is there. |
|
| Bob Irving<br>RH Irving Homebuilders<br>Certified Passive House Consultant |
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 30 Jan 2011 11:27 AM |
|
Bob - I know one builder who is rather successful at building high performance homes in a very specialized niche market. His are all presales and I think are above $500k, and more up around 800 or 900. It's a wealthy and eccentric area. I have another friend who built his first spec in that same market - a solar home in a solar neighborhood of like homes. I think it was around $600 or 700k. It was not a net zero but more like a 50%er. He lost his a$$. There used to be a saying "build them and they will come" and another "people need a place to live". That was then.... I'm not saying there isn't a market - we just need to get to where the average person is willing to put their money where their mouth is. BTW - why not set up your "display" at the mall? Selling beer at a bar is easy - now try selling it at the Baptist convention.  |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 30 Jan 2011 11:38 AM |
|
they were very excited about a small zero energy modular Zero energy? Isn't there a huge gap between what is built now and "zero energy"? It still seems like the most cost effective plan is to do a few minimal things to move towards 30% or 50% energy savings on mainstream homes and (for now) leave the zero-energy concepts to the enthusiasts. Examples of upgrades and costs 1) orientation for solar gain $0 2) window adjustments for gain and cooling $0 3) radiant barrier $500 4) air sealing $500 5) insulation improvements - $1,000 6) appropriate heating plant - $500 7) appropriate DHW system - $300 8) Fluorescent or LED upgrades $250 9) Appliances - Energy Star $500 It seems like it would be easier to sell $3,500 worth of energy-saving improvements to the average buyer than the much higher costs of a zero-energy home. |
|
|
|
|
Bob I
Veteran Member
Posts:1435
|
| 30 Jan 2011 12:01 PM |
|
Malls are too time consuming. I did set up at a home show and the results were underwhelming, but considering that I'm aiming for a small niche market, not surprising. RE your friend with the .50 house - I had a similar experience with a high-R spec home a few years ago - no one including the Realtors knew what to make of it; not a good investment for me. I just don't see and haven't seen the minimalist approach working, which is why I'm gravitating towards a "game changing" concept like the ZEH, although I think it needs to be a high performance home to be practical. (Any house can be ZE with enough PV). Plus, I reject the idea that it has to be "much" more expensive. Double 2x4 walls and raised heel trusses are not exhorbitant upgrades. Of course, as ICFH says, I'm an "enthusiast." |
|
| Bob Irving<br>RH Irving Homebuilders<br>Certified Passive House Consultant |
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 30 Jan 2011 01:50 PM |
|
Posted By ICFHybrid on 30 Jan 2011 11:38 AM
they were very excited about a small zero energy modular Zero energy? Isn't there a huge gap between what is built now and "zero energy"?
It still seems like the most cost effective plan is to do a few minimal things to move towards 30% or 50% energy savings on mainstream homes and (for now) leave the zero-energy concepts to the enthusiasts.
Examples of upgrades and costs
1) orientation for solar gain $0
2) window adjustments for gain and cooling $0
3) radiant barrier $500
4) air sealing $500
5) insulation improvements - $1,000
6) appropriate heating plant - $500
7) appropriate DHW system - $300
8) Fluorescent or LED upgrades $250
9) Appliances - Energy Star $500
It seems like it would be easier to sell $3,500 worth of energy-saving improvements to the average buyer than the much higher costs of a zero-energy home.
Above I said that I thought a (~15%) Energy Star should be the minimum acceptable. BTW - for those of you who aren't familiar with Energy Star Homes, it is not only the ~15% increase in efficiency, but the fact that an 'energy inspector' inspects it (verifies the installation) with a skill level very likely above your average municipal building inspector who may be very proficient or may be the mayor's cousin who was recently a stock boy at WalMart. I'm with you though ICF - reasonable energy upgrades can be added to a new home project with reasonable expense - say under $5k - and get maybe somewhere in the 25 - 30% savings range. Every home buyer should be doing this. Give up the granite counter tops and SS appliances and a hundred square feet if you have to and end up with a sensible home. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 30 Jan 2011 02:08 PM |
|
Give up the granite counter tops and SS appliances and a hundred square feet if you have to and end up with a sensible home. Yeah, see, that's what I think you won't be able to get most homebuyers to do. And, of course, that will affect builders' decisions about the marketability of their homes. That's why we are stuck where we are. The lenders need to be able to allow a little higher mortgage burden on homes with combinations of energy saving items as well as attractive amenities in exchange for lower utility expense. I'm sure that no one has been able to reliably tell them what those tradeoffs are, however. Either the lenders or the appraisers need to be a part of it, anyway. If I was a builder, I'd do a little rudimentary monitoring on the homes I'd already built to code and compare the energy usage to a few more that I had built with, say, $3,500 in energy upgrades. Assuming there were positive results, that might help both in marketing and with some local lenders as a start. |
|
|
|
|