Roofing Performance Partnerships

Understanding the approved outcome-linked partnership model

A performance partnership, in this network, means payment tied to a defined outcome from a network-sourced lead — rather than, or alongside, a flat monthly rental or a per-call charge. It exists as one option among several commercial structures, not as a replacement for site rental or pay-per-call pricing, and the three are never automatically stacked; the written agreement specifies exactly which pricing applies to which leads.

Before any outcome-linked terms are discussed, both sides should be able to answer three plain questions. What counts as a qualifying result? What record proves it happened? And what happens when a job is cancelled, refunded or changed after the sale? If those answers are vague, the partnership will produce arguments instead of revenue. Writing them down first keeps the arrangement fair for the roofer and for the network.

What makes this model different from a standard lead program

On a standard program, payment is tied to delivery of the lead itself — a monthly rental covers access to a territory's asset, or a per-call charge applies to a qualified call via prepaid credits. On an outcome-linked arrangement, some or all of the payment instead depends on what happens after delivery: whether the lead became a job, and in some structures, whether that job was actually collected on. That shift changes what records both sides need to keep, because the payment calculation now depends on facts that happen after the lead leaves the network's hands.

• There is no standard or published revenue-share percentage; every rate is set in the specific written agreement.
• Eligibility for this model is not automatic or universal — it's approved selectively, not offered by default on every territory.
• List prices for site rental, pay-per-call, and new-territory setup remain separate options and are never automatically combined with an outcome-linked rate.
• The written agreement is the only source of truth for terms; nothing on this page should be read as a standing offer.

Defining which network leads and resulting jobs are attributable

Before any outcome-linked payment can be calculated fairly, both sides need a shared, written definition of which lead produced which job. Without that, a dispute over a single large job can undo the trust the whole arrangement depends on. This is one of the first things a written agreement under this model has to specify in concrete terms, not vague language.

Elements a written attribution definition typically covers

• What counts as a source lead: a tracked call, a form submission, or a chat enquiry from a network-owned site or number, matched to the roofer's territory by ZIP and service.
• The attribution window: how long after a lead is delivered a resulting job still counts as attributable to it.
• How a lead that later turns out to be a duplicate, or already an existing customer of the roofer, is excluded from attribution.
• What happens when a homeowner or property contact who first reached out through the network also independently contacts the roofer through another channel later.

None of these definitions are invented on this page — they're the kind of terms that get negotiated and written into the specific agreement before the arrangement starts. The point of raising them here is so a roofer evaluating this model knows what to ask for in writing, rather than assuming a definition that the contract doesn't actually contain.

A practical habit worth adopting regardless of contract specifics: keep your own internal log of every lead you receive from the network, tagged with a source lead ID, from day one. That log becomes the backbone of your side of any later reconciliation conversation.

Recording sales, collections, cancellations and adjustments

An outcome-linked payment depends on facts that happen inside the roofer's own business — a signed contract, a completed job, a collected payment, a cancellation. The network has no independent way to observe any of these events; it relies on the roofer's reporting, checked against whatever evidence the agreement requires.

What typically needs to be reported, and when

1. A reportable sale event: contract signed, with the source lead ID and basic job details.
2. A reportable completion or collection event: job completed and payment collected, or the specific milestone the agreement defines as payable.
3. A cancellation or adjustment event: job canceled, scope reduced, or payment partially collected, reported with the same documentation discipline as a sale.
4. Any dispute the roofer has with the reported figures, raised within the reporting window the agreement sets, with supporting evidence attached.

What counts as acceptable evidence — a signed contract copy, an invoice, a bank deposit record — is defined in the written agreement, not assumed. Reporting late, or reporting without the required evidence, is itself something the agreement addresses, because a performance model that pays on unverifiable self-reporting from either side isn't workable for long.

Cancellations and partial collections are a normal part of the roofing business, not an edge case to be ignored. A fair reconciliation process accounts for a job that was sold but later canceled, or collected at less than the contracted price, by adjusting the payable amount rather than treating every signed sale as final the moment it's reported.

Working through the economics using clearly labeled example inputs

Because no standard revenue-share rate exists, the only responsible way to show how this model's economics work is with an explicitly labeled, user-editable example. Every figure below is a placeholder you can change to model your own hypothetical numbers — none of it reflects a rate offered to any specific company, a guaranteed job count, or a promised outcome.

Picture a fictional scenario: a roofer receives several network leads from a territory in a month, converts a portion of them to signed jobs, and some of those jobs are later fully collected while one is only partially collected due to a change order dispute. A contract-defined share of collected revenue — not a universal number, just an assumption for this example — is then calculated against that collected amount, not the original contract value, to reflect the "collections, cancellations and adjustments" step described above.

The calculator below lets you substitute your own assumed numbers for leads delivered, your own close rate, your own average collected job value, and a hypothetical share percentage, to see how the arithmetic behaves. Changing any of these does not reflect an actual quoted rate — it is here to help you understand the mechanics before a real negotiation, not to predict one.

Reconciling disagreements with documented evidence and contract rules

Disagreements over an outcome-linked payment are more likely than on a flat-rate program, simply because more facts are in play: whether a job is attributable, whether it closed, how much was actually collected, and whether an adjustment was reported in time. A workable agreement anticipates this and sets a specific process rather than leaving it to be figured out after the first dispute.

What a documented reconciliation process typically includes

• A defined reporting deadline for each outcome type, after which late reporting is handled according to agreed rules rather than case by case.
• A named review owner on each side responsible for resolving a specific disputed item.
• A requirement that any disputed figure be supported with documented evidence — not a verbal claim from either party.
• An escalation path for disagreements that aren't resolved at the first review, specified in the written agreement.

Neither side benefits from an undocumented dispute process. For the roofer, clear rules protect against a payment being miscalculated on figures they can't see. For the network, clear rules protect against a payable amount being disputed without evidence after the fact. The agreement, not goodwill alone, is what makes the arrangement durable over time.

This page does not offer legal advice, and nothing here substitutes for reading the actual written agreement or having it reviewed by your own advisor before signing. The reconciliation worksheet below is a practical tracking tool, not a legal document.

Deciding whether an outcome-linked agreement fits the roofing business

An outcome-linked model isn't automatically the better choice over a flat monthly rental or a per-call arrangement — it shifts risk and reward differently, and which structure fits better depends heavily on a company's own sales process, job values, and appetite for a payment that depends on reporting discipline rather than a predictable monthly number.

Questions worth answering before pursuing this model

1. Does your company already track jobs back to their lead source reliably, or would that tracking discipline need to be built first?
2. Is your close rate and average job value predictable enough that a variable-cost model is easier to plan around than a flat monthly cost?
3. Can your team commit to prompt, evidence-backed reporting of sales, collections and cancellations on the schedule the agreement would require?
4. Is this model even offered for your territory and services right now, or is a standard rental or per-call arrangement the only option currently available there?

That last question matters because this model is approved selectively, under a contract gate, rather than available as a default option on every territory. A Roofing Market Review is where eligibility, scope, and the actual terms on offer for your specific market get confirmed — this page explains the mechanics so that conversation starts from an informed position, not a blank one.