I’m glad you liked the comment. If a house “sells itself” because the agent’s expertise was in knowing NOT to put it on the market when the seller said “it’s ready” and going the extra mile to make sure it is ready before uploading it into the mls…then the “expertise” of the agent is just in a different area that what the seller originally expected they needed.

Often sellers “interview” based on the wrong criteria.

Also, please understand that I DO sometimes charge 3% and am in fact charging that on my newest listing. It’s $199,999 two bedroom condo with a Jacuzzi in Juanita. If it sells quickly, which I expect, and the buyer is golden…there could be a fine tuning downward of the fee. But not up front in the agreement. We’ll see what happens.

No price is outlawed in my “business model”. Also, other agents in the company are free to have their own business model, each is autonomous in that regard. So “Ardell’s” thinking is not Company Policy and not binding on other agents or the Broker. I’m an Associate Broker, not “the Designated Broker” who is my…hmmm can I say “boyfriend” at our age?

What many do not realize is the extent and frequency in which commissions are reduced via credits to the parties at closing. It is very common. Loan officers included. It’s a lot heavier than many would expect and I think the Realtors need to get credit for this.

The pressing question to ask is whether the owner/brokers are participating or leaving the crediting burden squarely on the shoulder of the listing agent or selling agent?

If the later is true, in my opinion that’s pretty weak/lame of the broker/owners.

Also, I’m completely with you that industry-wide fee requirements that apply across brokerages would be a problem. Brokers (though not agents working under the brokerage sign) should have a variety of options regarding price. People should not assume that you and Century 21, Windermere, John L. Scott, Redfin, etc. have the same model. Different approaches, different fees.

It seems like most of RCG participants are either connected to the industry or pretty hard core DIYers. This response you’ve written is helpful to a different audience–people that are trying to decide between agents. This population isn’t particularly concerned with industry wide policies. They are thinking about their home. Your transparency helps alot.

I don’t think your approach necessarily is superior to the flat, 3% commish which says 3% regardless of contingencies: higher advertising costs, longer than expected time on market, unusually high neurosis by client, less DIY energy by client, etc. But the two approaches are clear alternatives. This clarity of information helps the market select winners and define niches.

I think I differ slightly from jcricket on a flattening of commisions. I think there is definitely a market for higher commissions and certain agents will claim it. Real estate investments are worth big dough. If a client feels an agent gained more than they cost, the fee is worth it. But only for agents that can demonstrate that THEIR expertise was critical to the gain. If they can’t do this…if the “house sells itself,” then why pay more? I’m with you that an agent’s expertise/skills are key. But all aren’t equal and the commish shouldn’t be either.

Great stuff. Thanks for taking the time to write.

Two answers, thought of one for Joe while I was driving up to my new listing 30 minutes ago.

HomeGain sounds like what Joe is looking for. It’s a site like the lending tree commercial where agents compete by price alone and are not allowed to know who you are while doing so. They do however get more info than Joe gave, like square footage, approx price range…not sure what all.

It’s not “transparent” but honestly guys, you may like “transparent” because you are more in control, but it is clearly not your best option. Of 6 options, transparent is the worst. I don’t have time to explain now, but I’ll add it to “decisions/decisions” when I can.

Cricket, what is good for you depends on the product. $1,000 flat fee option might work if you have great curb appeal and a unique product. Won’t work if there are 5 – 10 others as good as yours within a five mile radius of your property. Everything is product specific.

Some products will sell if you hide them back in the corner because people will come and ask for them, others need to be impulse buys up front by the cashier where you just can’t help yourself. Your product, your home, is no different. As always…no simple, one size fits all answers. Some houses will likely sell from an Open House, others not. Some need full boat and costly advertising and other services, others not.

I like the transparency of say 1% IF it is in tip top shape without my help, price is $750,000 or more, it sells through “promotion” as opposed to “advertising”, you agree to add a 3% offering and put it in the mls and we re-evaluate if we don’t have an offer after the first 30 days.

Every situation comes with transparency…generalizing cannot or I allow you to shoot yourself in the foot…which is not an option.

Is the above situation transparent enough to suffice for now

In most businesses the commission isn’t transparent, but if in real restate it’s going to be (whether 3%, 2%, flat-fee, etc.) people are going to want to know exactly how that’s justified, and why the lesser-priced options aren’t worth pursuing.