Jun 18 2007 10:17AM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (0) |
Blog This! using: Blogger.com | LiveJournal |

NAHB Chief Economist David Seiders presented a report at the association Spring Board meeting earlier this month. Citing a May survey of home builders, he reported that 75% of builders were offering incentives that did not involve price, such as no-cost option items. Builders rated those incentives as “at least somewhat effective” in either increasing sales or reducing cancellations.

Fewer builders were offering an incentive to match price if future home sales of the same models were at a lower price. Seiders reported that only half those builders thought it was effective in overcoming buyer objections.

My question to all of you is, “Why didn’t this work better?” It makes sense. It’s relatively easy to execute. Could it be that future reduced value is not a significant objection to home purchase? If that’s true, why?