Editorial standards
How Fencepost publishes its field notes
Published · Publisher: Fencepost
Who these guides are for
Fencepost publishes practical recommendations for independent residential fence installers managing existing estimates. The library focuses on follow-up, message wording, quote records, owner handoffs, and tool decisions. Fencepost is the organization responsible for this content; we do not invent an installer, researcher, or credentialed expert as its author.
Recommendations are not research findings
A suggested 2-, 7-, and 14-day cadence is a starting point to test, not a statistically established optimum. Examples are illustrative, not customer stories. We do not invent customer counts, conversion lifts, reviews, booked jobs, or revenue. Owner-confirmed outcomes associated with follow-up do not establish incremental sales.
Sources and messaging boundaries
Where we discuss commercial email or SMS requirements, the relevant guides link to FTC or FCC material. Those references support the messaging discussion, not a claim that our cadence or template produces better results. Requirements vary by channel, message, sending method, and jurisdiction. This library is not legal advice and does not replace provider requirements or qualified counsel.
Product claims stay bounded
Fencepost is positioned as owner-approved SMS and email follow-up for estimates an installer already has. It is not a CRM replacement, a lead-generation service, or an autonomous salesperson. The public preview does not send live messages or accept payments. Production capabilities, message allowances, and any SMS costs need confirmation before signup.
How we structure and update the library
Each published guide has a distinct primary question and a home in one topic hub. Related links connect genuinely useful next steps. We do not publish city-swapped pages, unsupported local claims, or near-identical pages for keyword variations. Publication dates reflect this content release; a new deployment alone does not refresh a guide’s date.
Material corrections should change the affected guidance and its modification date. Automated checks validate intent ownership, route coverage, content structure, and internal links; they do not establish legal correctness or replace editorial judgment. Verify consequential details against the linked official source and your own operating requirements.