why do they want both homeowners there when coming to give an estimiate?

[Anonymous]

A representative from Andersen windows did this. It was a long presentation and they wouldn’t take a hint to speed it up. I was never so relieved to have someone leave my house.

We said no and after that day any company that started with this model was an automatic no.

We found a different company that brought in three different style of windows at different price points and went over the difference in about 15–20 minutes. Then they gave us a quote.

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I love LOLs from anon accounts.

Didn't claim to speak for the entire industry. Just providing some insight from my time when I did work in "in home" sales. There is a legal reason that they want both homeowners there. Not worth explaining it to you.

But sure...feel free to see discrimination wherever you can...because...you know...we are all victims.

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

[Anonymous]

High pressure sales techniques. Avoid!

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

Funny that you didn't even read the article or understand the difference between Separate and Community property.

Stay a victim. Should serve you well in life. Let's make it official.

[Anonymous]

I can give a proposal to the man of the house and nearly 100% of the time, this same guy who told me he makes all the decisions about such things, in the end will say he needs to discuss it with his wife. And that's understandable. Couples don't spend that kind of money without discussing it. If she was there at the table, she would have questions for me that are different than his questions and allow me a chance to make sure she is comfortable with the solutions offered, the company, price and all the other details. I'm the expert that can answer all those questions but once I leave, I'm depending on him to do my job for me in explaining it all to her. It makes no difference which spouse we are talking about. Indeed I'd prefer they are both there to talk about this important buying decision. It's not sexist, discriminatory or anything else but common sense and good business practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is definitely a red flag. We once sat through an Empire pitch that required this - it lasted hours and the guy would not leave.

I had this happen as well when I was a dumb new homeowner. Then the guy needed to poop in an emergency. Good times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

[Anonymous]

DH and I prefer to both be there, but the problem is the contractors that insist on this are also the ones that use hard sell tactics and take up a ton of our time. Not to provide useful information, but to talk about how great they are, upsell us their special maintenance plans, and argue with us about why we can't commit on the spot. All during dinner and kids' bedtimes.

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I prefer to both be there, but the problem is the contractors that insist on this are also the ones that use hard sell tactics and take up a ton of our time. Not to provide useful information, but to talk about how great they are, upsell us their special maintenance plans, and argue with us about why we can't commit on the spot. All during dinner and kids' bedtimes.

Exactly. If it is used as a tactic to only close the deal in the house, it is schwarmy and weird. That isn't, for many contractors, the reason that they won't both there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.