Three ways to license it. One of them is an advantage.
11,006 recorded conversations with painting contractors, 10,586 hours across 4 years, and nobody else has them. The tiers below differ in how much of that you can reach and how much of it your competitors can reach at the same time. Bands are indicative and move with scope — the shape is firm, the figure is a conversation.
Console access
One team wants to read the corpus themselves.
- The console as it stands, for up to 10 named seats
- 500 questions a year, pooled across the team — about two a working day
- Follow-ups inside a thread are free and uncounted
- Verbatim evidence under every answer, anonymised
- Quarterly refresh as new conversations are added
- One onboarding session for the team
Working partnership
You want answers to questions the console cannot phrase.
- Everything in Console access, unlimited seats
- 2,500 questions a year, pooled
- A scoped data extract — excerpts, labels and embeddings — for your own analysts
- Scoped to an agreed slice, worked on your own infrastructure
- Four commissioned analyses a year, scoped by you
- A named analyst on our side, not a queue
- Quarterly readout to your team, in the room
- Input on the corpus roadmap
Category exclusive
You want this to be an advantage, and your own analysts in it.
- Everything in Working partnership
- Sole access within coatings and paint manufacturing, for the full term
- We decline every other manufacturer, in writing
- Your analysts work the whole corpus directly, in a secure environment
- Run your own models, clustering and classifiers — your code, our environment
- Full label set and all embeddings, not a scoped slice
- Unlimited questions — a cap is meaningless once you hold the corpus
- Unlimited commissioned analysis, priority scheduling
- Your questions shape what future coaching explores
- First look at every new conversation as it lands
- Co-development of rep training and role-play built on the corpus
Exclusivity is where this becomes an advantage
An understanding only you hold is worth acting on
This is the whole argument and the rest follows from it. Advantage is relative: what makes this corpus valuable is not only what it tells you, but that it is telling it to you alone. Sole access means your positioning, your objection handling and the language in your ads come from a place your competitors cannot reach — so the work your team does on top of it stays yours rather than becoming the category standard everybody arrived at.
It compounds, and only for one of you
The corpus is not a finished dataset. The last full year added more than four thousand conversations, and coaching continues whether anyone licenses this or not. On an exclusive term the gap between what you understand about this trade and what your competitors understand widens every quarter. Shared, it stays exactly where it is.
You are buying the category position, not just the data
For the length of the term, no other manufacturer can license this at any price. That is worth stating plainly because it is unusual — most research you can buy, your competitor can buy the day after. Here, the agreement itself is part of what you own, and it is why the top band is priced against the agreements we turn down rather than as a step up from the tier below.
It stops being research and starts being an input
At the exclusive tier your questions influence what coaches explore next — inside coaching integrity, never as a script — and your own analysts work the whole corpus rather than an extract of it. That is a different asset from a dataset you query. It is a listening post pointed where you want it, with your people at the other end.
For the compounding claim above: 2025, the last complete year, added 4,304 conversations. That figure is read live from the corpus on this page, not typed into it.
Priced against what we decline
Exclusivity is priced against what we turn down, not as a premium on the tier below. There are four manufacturers who would plausibly license this corpus non-exclusively. Granting one of them sole access means declining the other three for three years, so the exclusive band has to clear roughly what those agreements would have been worth together. That is where the number comes from — it is not a multiple of the partnership tier, and it does not move because the partnership tier moves.
Metered to protect the asset, not the margin
The question cap is not about cost — a query runs to pennies. Every answer returns about a dozen verbatim excerpts, so a few hundred well-spread questions would amount to a working copy of the corpus, taken one screen at a time. 500 a year is roughly two a working day, which is more than anyone reads carefully, and far below the volume where that becomes a real possibility. Follow-ups inside a thread are uncounted: they re-read evidence already on your screen rather than pulling new excerpts, so they carry none of that risk. Overage is available in blocks, and we would rather sell you more questions than have you ration them.
The limits are the same at every price
None of these are negotiable, and the first two are the reason the corpus is worth licensing at all.
Raw transcripts do not leave, at any tier
The exclusive tier puts your analysts inside the whole corpus, but the corpus does not come to you: you run your code in our environment and results come out de-identified. Two reasons, and the second is yours. A short excerpt can be scrubbed clean, which is why anonymisation happens at excerpt export — a sixty-minute coaching call names an owner, their spouse, their crew, their customers and their city, and no automated pass on conversational speech is reliable enough to bet a contractor’s privacy on. And your field organisation knows these markets: “we do $2.3M and my brother-in-law runs production” is identifiable to a rep, and the people in these recordings are your customers.
Coaching integrity is not for sale, at any tier
Coaches will not run a sponsor’s questions, steer an owner toward a brand, or treat a client as a respondent. This is not a courtesy — the candour in these conversations exists precisely because nobody in them was selling anything. A corpus collected to serve a manufacturer would stop being worth licensing within a year, so the exclusive tier buys influence over topics, never over what a coach says to a client.
No identities, at any tier
Excerpts are anonymised at export — no names, companies or cities — and no tier changes that. Contractor-level identification is not a paid upgrade; it does not exist.
No transactional data, at any tier
Purchase volumes, share of wallet and spend by brand are not in the corpus and no licence conjures them. What you get is the reasoning, not the receipts.
Not a projectable sample, at any tier
This is a coaching population, not a probability sample of the national pro market. It supports conviction about how contractors think. It does not support a market-sizing figure, and we will say so in front of your team rather than let one get built on it.
Use the console first. Decide about exclusivity after.
Take real questions to it — the ones you would put to a research vendor — and see what comes back with evidence under it. The tier conversation is much easier once you know what the asset actually answers.