Yesterday, while waiting for my late flight home, I returned a call from a U.S. contractor concerned about someone who had written a book advocating the use of his services as an owner’s representative for residential construction projects. The author suggests that the construction industry has practices and procedures which are unfair to the owner and that owners need independent representation of their interests. He suggests that with his services and despite his fees, he could save homeowners substantial amounts of money by encouraging them to be their own general contractor and hire sub trades and suppliers directly.
Not surprisingly, the person who called me — a general contractor himself — is none too pleased with the book writer’s message and his seemingly effective marketing. The author has received press publicity and his book is listed on Amazon.com.
(When I contacted the author by email, he invited me to buy his book. I have declined, and I won’t give the writer any free publicity or hyperlinks here. If he wants to promote himself on this site, he can buy an ad and if he wants me to review his book, he can provide me a free review copy.)
The contractor, meanwhile, suggested he would like to write his own review and take the author to task. He asked my advice on whether or how to do this, and whether he could get into any legal trouble for attacking the person advocating the owners’ representative arrangement.
I told the contractor that he certainly could raise the issue but the problem is the publicity would help the person he is trying to attack by giving him even more publicity. The attention and controversy would effectively lend credibility to the person he doesn’t like. I also said the publicity could help his own business but he needs to be aware of why and what he is doing. In other words, both he and his antagonist would gain from the attention in a kind of “win win” situation even though both sides distaste each other immensely.
Controversy can be a powerful marketing tool. The best form of controversy is where you “attack” the cause supported by people who would never be your clients, and where your potential clients will likely agree with your perspective. In some cases, you can make a trade-off. You know you might alienate some potential (or even current) clients but many more will want to support you — and all the attention will attract publicity and recognition to your business.
Nevertheless, this strategy while effective on some levels from a marketing perspective also can be risky. If you are seen as being too far over the edge, you will draw attention but not profitable business and you may alienate your clients. If you aren’t schooled in controversy and media relations before you set your voice in the public domain, you could encounter unintended and dangerous consequences. (I think for example of someone speaking about tax issues and then finding the IRS or Canadian Revenue Agency auditors showing up at your door.)
Our business, to some extent, thrives on controversy. However, I’m always aware of the risks of going over the deep end. Sensitive stories need to be handled with respect, balance and a commitment to be truthful and fair.
Personally, I think owners’ representatives can provide a valuable service but unfortunately my experience is that, to justify their fees, they are sometimes tempted squeeze money out of design professionals, general contractors and sub trades. In essense, they play bid-shopping type games to bring costs down while lining their own pockets. Independent advice is always helpful, of course, and on larger projects a full-time owners’ representative could ensure e veryone conducts themselves appropriately and even help to resolve disputes while providing a clear channel for communication and authority. My question is; Who is policing the owner’s representative?
Theerefore, the publicity-seeking book writer for an owners rep service will get absolutely no publicity here, even though it might provide some valuable “lift” to this blog’s readership relevance.
