The real estate industry is a funny place…
There is an obvious tension between the industry players who win through cooperation and the individual agents who win by differentiation. It kind of reminds me of the Tragedy of the Commons in that the actions that individual agents are taking in their best interest are slowly breaking apart the well oiled machine that is today’s real estate industry.
In particular, I’m thinking of all the agent money that is currently being poured into advertisements for companies that are building tools designed to marginalize the role of real estate agents. Joel Burslem picked up on one example when he mentioned that Topix (jointly owned and run by the newspaper publishers: Gannett, Knight Ridder and Tribune) is getting into the FSBO market. If this is not a clear enough signal of the newspaper’s intent, the fact that the Tribune recently purchased forsalebyowner.com should make it clear that the newspapers are now the competition…
While it may be in best interest of individual real estate agents to put ads in local papers, these ads are funding companies who are clearly attempting to completely disrupt their industry. (Don’t even get me started on the irony that a bunch of real estate professionals in Seattle are giving content to the PI that will likely be plastered in FSBO ads before long!).
But it is not only newspapers where agents are paying for the privilege of creating their own demise. Every time an agent buys an ad on Google, they are helping to fund a tool that is clearly meant to marginalize them.
I’ve been holding my tongue on this issue for quite a while because I’m sure a good argument could be made that I’m too biased in that I’m viewing the topic through my employer’s tinted glasses. Nonetheless, I can’t help but wonder if agents are going to get hip to the fact that they really should be using and/or creating their own media before the commons are destroyed.
[photopress:houses_on_hill.jpg,full,alignright]
Dustin, I don’t think you’re that much biased at all. You are dead on correct. I bet you are having a ball with all the information, ideas and technology at your fingertips.
Margenalization is already taking place. It’s just that you are involved in the industry moreso from a unique perspective than the majority of agents. The conundrum, as I observe it, it that the NAR leadership is rather oblivious to those in the trenches who are doing the everyday sales. And, the Realtors will do as you describe: buy google ads etc…but what do you expect? They have to capture eyeballs, even if it means utilizing an existing competitor or future competitor. On the other hand, you also illustrate the cut-throat competitive nature of retaining control of the property information or listing data. I think that battle, frankly, is like yelling into a head wind.
I don’t see the service of an “transaction facilitator agent” being margenalized as much as I see it happening with a “listing” agent or service to put a home on the market. Had a closing two weeks ago where the selling party said they would never use a listing agent again–but maybe that’s just the market conditions. On the other side of the coin, had a FSBO party share the same sentiment. So , clearly there still is the long standing “value received for commission paid perception” problem. I’ve always argued that the very existence of Housevalues.com affirms that the consumer is not turning to the agent that helped them buy in the first place.
Dustin –
Where does Realtor.com’s selling of leads back to agents fall into this? How is this different than any other lead aggregator, other than the fact that Realtor.com currently enjoys the market lead in traffic?
By paying for ads and contributing to lead aggregators, Realtors are slowly causing their own “death by a thousand cuts” – and now Realtor.com is one of those knives.
Dustin –
Where does Realtor.com’s selling of leads back to agents fall into this? How is this different than any other lead aggregator, other than the fact that Realtor.com currently enjoys the market lead in traffic?
By paying for ads and contributing to lead aggregators, Realtors are slowly causing their own “death by a thousand cuts” – and now Realtor.com is one of those knives.
Jim,
This is obviously an issue that hits home for you… (Jim wrote an article about this on his blog a while back). I’m in no place (and definitely not authorized) to speak for Move or Realtor.com on this issue, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an personal opinion, which I’m happy to share.
From my perspective, Realtor.com and the real estate industry (NAR) are joined at the hip, for better or worse. This doesn’t mean that there’s not tension between the two, but they are both clearly better off if the other is successful. The same thing can clearly not be said for many of the companies looking to enter the real estate space (like Google and/or the local newspapers).
So, when Realtor.com sells leads back to agents, I look at it from the perspective of a publicly held company looking for new ways to monetize the eyeballs associated with Realtor.com, and it seems like a no-brainer. But nothing about that product makes me think that Realtor.com is trying to marginalize the role of agents in the real estate transaction.
Jim,
This is obviously an issue that hits home for you… (Jim wrote an article about this on his blog a while back). I’m in no place (and definitely not authorized) to speak for Move or Realtor.com on this issue, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an personal opinion, which I’m happy to share.
From my perspective, Realtor.com and the real estate industry (NAR) are joined at the hip, for better or worse. This doesn’t mean that there’s not tension between the two, but they are both clearly better off if the other is successful. The same thing can clearly not be said for many of the companies looking to enter the real estate space (like Google and/or the local newspapers).
So, when Realtor.com sells leads back to agents, I look at it from the perspective of a publicly held company looking for new ways to monetize the eyeballs associated with Realtor.com, and it seems like a no-brainer. But nothing about that product makes me think that Realtor.com is trying to marginalize the role of agents in the real estate transaction.
The tragedy of the commons involves a conflict for resources between individual interests and the common good. Listing data controlled by real estate agents could not be classified as the commons because the data is currently being treated as a commodity for profit benefiting a select group of individuals.
If we look at your argument from the perspective of data belonging to the public, then data belongs to the homeowners and potential home buyers, which is exactly what is happening. The commons (the consumer) IS disintermediating the data by choosing to bypass traditional business systems set up to capture data for money.
Data is a commodity in today’s globalized economy. Home sellers and buyers know this too. A FSBO home seller who choses to place his home for sale on craigslist, google base, or seattletimes.com (before trying a Realtor) is simply trying to earn for himself or herself what a real estate agent earns. This is our capitalist system at work.
Some real estate agents are beginning to shift their value proposition to INCLUDE the new media infrastructure.
Their plans may or may not include purchasing leads from your new employer, Dustin. This works for some agents. Others capture the leads all on their own….and thereby keep a bit of the money that Move.com, Housevalues, etc want to take. I like our capitalist system and can’t wait to see what happens next, but why waste time creating fear of the newspaper companies? An individual, independent, agile, real estate agent open to change and open to trying new methods has the potential to strategically win under any circumstance. I am optimistic.
You think the Seattle P.I. is using us?
Oh, I thought WE were using THEM!
Dustin
Before I comment on what I “think” you are saying, I need some clarification. As my mom always told me, you know what happens when you ASSUME something.
Exactly what do you mean by “marginalization” and how are the newspaper sites accomplishing this “marginalization”? That’s a big word with lots of connotation.
Russ
Dustin
Before I comment on what I “think” you are saying, I need some clarification. As my mom always told me, you know what happens when you ASSUME something.
Exactly what do you mean by “marginalization” and how are the newspaper sites accomplishing this “marginalization”? That’s a big word with lots of connotation.
Russ
Jillayne,
You bring up a great point about “the commons”. In one draft, I took out all references to Tragedy of the Commons because the concept of “The Commons” is normally specific to all of society. However, I thought the analogy definitely helped clarify my point when I define “the commons” as something specific to real estate agents. Anyway, enough on that…
In terms of looking at this from a capitalistic perspective, I think we may be viewing things much closer than you suggest. Just like you, Russ and I have been teaching courses to real estate professionals on how to use social networking tools (and blogging in particular) to market themselves on the internet. My main pitch in the seminars is that the internet has opened up a slew of tools that are extremely cheap and effective at reaching a target audience.
Please stick around Rain City Guide. I definitely enjoy reading your perspective.
Jillayne,
You bring up a great point about “the commons”. In one draft, I took out all references to Tragedy of the Commons because the concept of “The Commons” is normally specific to all of society. However, I thought the analogy definitely helped clarify my point when I define “the commons” as something specific to real estate agents. Anyway, enough on that…
In terms of looking at this from a capitalistic perspective, I think we may be viewing things much closer than you suggest. Just like you, Russ and I have been teaching courses to real estate professionals on how to use social networking tools (and blogging in particular) to market themselves on the internet. My main pitch in the seminars is that the internet has opened up a slew of tools that are extremely cheap and effective at reaching a target audience.
Please stick around Rain City Guide. I definitely enjoy reading your perspective.
Marlow,
I don’t think that anyone is “using” anyone. Everything being done is in the best interest of all the actors involved. I honestly think that you and the other contributors are better off (at least in the short-term) hooking up with a major media outlet to maximize the amount of publicity that you can get. It is quite likely that this is the method that will get you the most leads and/or sales. For that reason, I definitely say “go for it”.
Nonetheless, if the newspaper do place their cards with the FSBOs as oppose to the Realtors, then strengthening the newspaper industry (i.e. giving them good content) is probably not in the best long-term interest of the real estate industry.
Marlow,
I don’t think that anyone is “using” anyone. Everything being done is in the best interest of all the actors involved. I honestly think that you and the other contributors are better off (at least in the short-term) hooking up with a major media outlet to maximize the amount of publicity that you can get. It is quite likely that this is the method that will get you the most leads and/or sales. For that reason, I definitely say “go for it”.
Nonetheless, if the newspaper do place their cards with the FSBOs as oppose to the Realtors, then strengthening the newspaper industry (i.e. giving them good content) is probably not in the best long-term interest of the real estate industry.
Will there ever be a point where it is so clear that online media exposure superceeds that of Sunday print ads, that Windermere, John L. Scott, CB-Bain pull Sunday ads out? Who will be the first? Are we getting close or not?
I read recently that JLS invests a couple million dollars a year in it’s web site. What will tip the scale to have Lennox pull print ads and go all internet. Will the furor of the agents (they do get some eyeballs on these ads) keep them from doing it?
Will there ever be a point where it is so clear that online media exposure superceeds that of Sunday print ads, that Windermere, John L. Scott, CB-Bain pull Sunday ads out? Who will be the first? Are we getting close or not?
I read recently that JLS invests a couple million dollars a year in it’s web site. What will tip the scale to have Lennox pull print ads and go all internet. Will the furor of the agents (they do get some eyeballs on these ads) keep them from doing it?
Russ,
I’d rather my big words stay vague since I don’t always know what they mean when I use them! 🙂
When I say marginalization, I’m thinking of tools and/or processes that make real estate agents less critical to the home buying and selling process. An automated home valuation tool could attempt to marginalize agents by making their local expertise less critical to the home buying and selling process. A newspapers could attempt to marginalize agents by highlighting FSBO listings.
As I know you are well aware, I’m not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct my definition of marginalization.
With that said, I’ve been careful not to imply whether or not these new tools and processes are a good or bad thing, because quite frankly, I think there are some major inefficiencies built into the home buying and selling process, and the engineer in me hates inefficiencies.
Russ,
I’d rather my big words stay vague since I don’t always know what they mean when I use them! 🙂
When I say marginalization, I’m thinking of tools and/or processes that make real estate agents less critical to the home buying and selling process. An automated home valuation tool could attempt to marginalize agents by making their local expertise less critical to the home buying and selling process. A newspapers could attempt to marginalize agents by highlighting FSBO listings.
As I know you are well aware, I’m not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct my definition of marginalization.
With that said, I’ve been careful not to imply whether or not these new tools and processes are a good or bad thing, because quite frankly, I think there are some major inefficiencies built into the home buying and selling process, and the engineer in me hates inefficiencies.
Tim,
Print ads are not necessarily, and certainly not primarily, to provide “exposure” of a property. Print ads are to promote the Company and “appease” sellers. Two big pages say “we are a big company” and sellers care about that more than buyers. Take the pretty glossy print ads that use magazine style. By the time it goes to print the property is already sold. No one cares as the print ad is to attract sellers who want to list their house, not buyers who want to buy THAT house. Also to attract buyers who will buy different houses than those in the publication.
Many print ads have intentionally been “stale”, printed monthly with a two week lead time from deadline date, six weeks from list to print. House is already sold, but it gets lead calls and impresses sellers at listing appointments. Pretty much everyone knows houses don’t sell because of ads.
Test it. Pick up a homes magazine and call on a few median priced homes. See if they are available to be purchased. Until most or all SELLERS use the internet to pick an agent, you won’t see much of a reduction in print ads. That said, I do think Open House ads can be effective if done right, but then I’m the only one who seems to think Open Houses sell houses…another one this weekend for me. Still can’t figure out why all the national articles pooh pooh Open Houses, as a vehicle to sell a house.
Clearly the explosion of agents (50% more in the industry than five years ago) is creating this cannibalizing atmosphere.
I always advise agents that I work with to spend their hard earned dollars marketing through their own websites and direct mail pieces. To advertise through almost any other means will only fund companies that have their sites set on marginalizing agents.
This whole post reminds me of the movie Titanic. Bottom line… when their aren’t enough life rafts for everyone… things turn nasty quick.
Pingback: sellsius° real estate blog » Blog Archive » NAR’s Seller Internet Display Choice Form: Questions?
Speaking of direct mail at home. I’ve never received so much agent mail than over the last two months or so.
I know you are not saying that agents, & their sellers, should not have the freedom to advertise whenever & wherever they please.
If they do have this freedom, they will advertise in their best interests.
And what are the best interests?
1. First & foremost it’s facilitating the transfer of property (See DOJ v NAR) which means:
For Sellers: maximum exposure of the listing to prospective buyers
For Buyers: ability to find listings easily.
2. Second priority: listing agent getting paid.
3. No priority: agent’s self interest at the expense of priority 1. Examples–selling leads (gotten thru a seller’s listing –which BTW the seller gets no part of despite his bait on the hook) to mortgage companies or select partners & affiliates. This is BIG business & that’s fine that brokers make $ this way but not at the expense of the seller. One cannot serve 2 masters.
Any advertsing venue that satisfies priority 1 & 2 should have no detractors. (See my comment http://www.raincityguide.com/2006/05/15/russ-on-listing-copyrights/#6839
Why freedom of advertising is necessary:
1. It’s the seller’s property dargonitt! Let sellers have a say–who objects to sellers having a say please move to north korea.
2. The prospective buyers are everywhere, even on a beach in the south of France. So to restrict advertising in any manner in any medium is WRONG, ILLOGICAL &, in my opinion, a violation of an afents fiduciary duty to serve the interests of their client.
I am sure you realize that agents exist to SERVE the client—for the seller that means maximum exposure of the listing to prospective buyers (including that couple on the beach in Nice)
As for the FSBO s:
Last I checked a person has the right to sell their own property. So FSBO is not a dirty word–it spells freedom, american values, property rights. And aren’t you a FSBO yourself?
Bottom line: Fiduciary duty to seller means serve the seller’s interests not your own.
What “juice” do they serve at those Move new employee orientations?
PS Please take no offense but unless you’ve engineered a bus to sell real estate, let licensed real estate brokers decide what is or what is not marginizing them. Are you a licensed broker?
PPS RE: Your comment about Marlow & Seattle PI. It serves to promote these professionals & thereby aid the interest of their clients. Newspapers are not the enemy. They have helped sell real estate for years—dont marginalize the old school non-internet buyer.
I know you are not saying that agents, & their sellers, should not have the freedom to advertise whenever & wherever they please.
If they do have this freedom, they will advertise in their best interests.
And what are the best interests?
1. First & foremost it’s facilitating the transfer of property (See DOJ v NAR) which means:
For Sellers: maximum exposure of the listing to prospective buyers
For Buyers: ability to find listings easily.
2. Second priority: listing agent getting paid.
3. No priority: agent’s self interest at the expense of priority 1. Examples–selling leads (gotten thru a seller’s listing –which BTW the seller gets no part of despite his bait on the hook) to mortgage companies or select partners & affiliates. This is BIG business & that’s fine that brokers make $ this way but not at the expense of the seller. One cannot serve 2 masters.
Any advertsing venue that satisfies priority 1 & 2 should have no detractors. (See my comment http://www.raincityguide.com/2006/05/15/russ-on-listing-copyrights/#6839
Why freedom of advertising is necessary:
1. It’s the seller’s property dargonitt! Let sellers have a say–who objects to sellers having a say please move to north korea.
2. The prospective buyers are everywhere, even on a beach in the south of France. So to restrict advertising in any manner in any medium is WRONG, ILLOGICAL &, in my opinion, a violation of an afents fiduciary duty to serve the interests of their client.
I am sure you realize that agents exist to SERVE the client—for the seller that means maximum exposure of the listing to prospective buyers (including that couple on the beach in Nice)
As for the FSBO s:
Last I checked a person has the right to sell their own property. So FSBO is not a dirty word–it spells freedom, american values, property rights. And aren’t you a FSBO yourself?
Bottom line: Fiduciary duty to seller means serve the seller’s interests not your own.
What “juice” do they serve at those Move new employee orientations?
PS Please take no offense but unless you’ve engineered a bus to sell real estate, let licensed real estate brokers decide what is or what is not marginizing them. Are you a licensed broker?
PPS RE: Your comment about Marlow & Seattle PI. It serves to promote these professionals & thereby aid the interest of their clients. Newspapers are not the enemy. They have helped sell real estate for years—dont marginalize the old school non-internet buyer.
3 cents,
I was waiting for you to came on board and I agree with almost everything you’re saying. You do a great job detailing some of the main premises of my argument. For example, I agree that agents have lots of options on where to spend their marketing money and a FSBO is a legitimate way for sellers to sell their property.
You also take as fact that the decisions individuals are making to maximize their business in the short-run (i.e. where to spend marketing money and time) are not necessarily in the long-term best interest of their industry, but you just don’t seem to care about that… which is fine. No one is asking you to make that argument (I decided to take on that role!).
You suggest that I’m telling agents/brokers that they should not spend money on newspaper ads, but far from it, I’m saying that these ads are likely in their best interest!!! I’m 100% in favor of brokers and agents having the freedom to market their properties as they please… At the same time, agents/brokers should be aware that there are long-term consequences for their industry associated with where individuals are spending their marketing money.
Hence, I began with “The real estate industry is a funny place…”
PS: Are you really suggesting that I shouldn’t be writing about real estate because I’m not a licensed broker?
PPS: Many newspaper publishers are making clear (by where they are spending their money!) that they see their future in the FSBO market. Do you disagree with that?
3 cents,
I was waiting for you to came on board and I agree with almost everything you’re saying. You do a great job detailing some of the main premises of my argument. For example, I agree that agents have lots of options on where to spend their marketing money and a FSBO is a legitimate way for sellers to sell their property.
You also take as fact that the decisions individuals are making to maximize their business in the short-run (i.e. where to spend marketing money and time) are not necessarily in the long-term best interest of their industry, but you just don’t seem to care about that… which is fine. No one is asking you to make that argument (I decided to take on that role!).
You suggest that I’m telling agents/brokers that they should not spend money on newspaper ads, but far from it, I’m saying that these ads are likely in their best interest!!! I’m 100% in favor of brokers and agents having the freedom to market their properties as they please… At the same time, agents/brokers should be aware that there are long-term consequences for their industry associated with where individuals are spending their marketing money.
Hence, I began with “The real estate industry is a funny place…”
PS: Are you really suggesting that I shouldn’t be writing about real estate because I’m not a licensed broker?
PPS: Many newspaper publishers are making clear (by where they are spending their money!) that they see their future in the FSBO market. Do you disagree with that?
There is one other point I think is worth making…
3 cents says:
There are some obvious caveats to the idea of “maximum exposure”. It might get a lot of exposure, but no reasonable agent is going to pay 50 truckers to paint their trucks with an ad for their listing and then drive around town all day until the house is sold. It would be a bad use of marketing money. So obviously, there are some limits to “maximum exposure”.
And if you believe Ardell’s argument (which I do) that most of the money spent on newspaper ads are meant to sell the agent/broker as oppose to the listing, then newspapers ads (which are quite expensive), may not be the best place to market a listing anyway.
There is one other point I think is worth making…
3 cents says:
There are some obvious caveats to the idea of “maximum exposure”. It might get a lot of exposure, but no reasonable agent is going to pay 50 truckers to paint their trucks with an ad for their listing and then drive around town all day until the house is sold. It would be a bad use of marketing money. So obviously, there are some limits to “maximum exposure”.
And if you believe Ardell’s argument (which I do) that most of the money spent on newspaper ads are meant to sell the agent/broker as oppose to the listing, then newspapers ads (which are quite expensive), may not be the best place to market a listing anyway.
Dustin:
Everything I said is to promote the industry.
I’m glad you support a broker’s right to freely advertise in the venues of their choice.
I hope you also support the notion that sellers should have a say in the matter too–they are, after all, the principals we serve.
Re: Maximum exposure & truck advertising
It’s a brilliant idea! Now, if some company decided to offer that for free or at a reasonable cost & the seller was OK with it—YIPEE–more exposure–at maximum drive.
Every reasonable agent I know would line up for a spot. It’s almost as good as shopping carts.
So, you see, the caveat is not the method or venue –it’s the cost. You discovered the “crux of the biscuit” The only obstacle to maximum exposure is COST to advertise.
Low costs = more venues to advertise= more exposure = more sales = promoting the industry. So if you see my logic you see I am concerned for the industry.
The industry as I see it is the efficient sale of property.
Re: Ardell–if she said that ads are to sell the agent & not the listing–I don’t completely agree. If you sell the agent you are helping to sell the listing too. Maybe it’s that newspaper listing & maybe not–the point is a buyer came to you thru the ad & you found them a home. You found a buyer a home ,you helped a seller sell. And you thereby helped the industry.
A newspaper ad has these benefits:
1. get the listing in front of old school buyers who dont use the internet or dont know how to use it to search for property
2. Promote the broker brand–the logos are bigger than the actual ad copy. brings cleints in , helps make sales, helps the industry.
3. convey the perception that if a broker has a lot of listings they must be good, (group psych 101). gets clients, makes sales, helps the industry
4. Something tangible for a seller to see. If you said you werent going to advertise in the local paper you WONT get the listing. gets..
5. gets agents leads….
Re: Newspapers & FSBOS–Yes I disagree that they see FSBOS as their future. What exactly does that mean anyway?
FSBOS are just another component of the overall marketplace. They are a rising minority. Newspapers have always carried FSBOS. How are they getting special treatment at the expense of agents/brokers?
I don’t see this.
PS I would never suggest that you cant write about real estate. that wasn’t the point. The point was, that brokers who are in the trenches everyday are wise enough to know if they are being marginalized. Your post, albeit unintentionally, said to me that not only was I being marginalized by newspapers, I wasn’t wise enought to see it.
PPS Dont buy the MOVE manual just becasue they write your check. That’s what some execs did and all they got were striped shirts.
Dustin:
Everything I said is to promote the industry.
I’m glad you support a broker’s right to freely advertise in the venues of their choice.
I hope you also support the notion that sellers should have a say in the matter too–they are, after all, the principals we serve.
Re: Maximum exposure & truck advertising
It’s a brilliant idea! Now, if some company decided to offer that for free or at a reasonable cost & the seller was OK with it—YIPEE–more exposure–at maximum drive.
Every reasonable agent I know would line up for a spot. It’s almost as good as shopping carts.
So, you see, the caveat is not the method or venue –it’s the cost. You discovered the “crux of the biscuit” The only obstacle to maximum exposure is COST to advertise.
Low costs = more venues to advertise= more exposure = more sales = promoting the industry. So if you see my logic you see I am concerned for the industry.
The industry as I see it is the efficient sale of property.
Re: Ardell–if she said that ads are to sell the agent & not the listing–I don’t completely agree. If you sell the agent you are helping to sell the listing too. Maybe it’s that newspaper listing & maybe not–the point is a buyer came to you thru the ad & you found them a home. You found a buyer a home ,you helped a seller sell. And you thereby helped the industry.
A newspaper ad has these benefits:
1. get the listing in front of old school buyers who dont use the internet or dont know how to use it to search for property
2. Promote the broker brand–the logos are bigger than the actual ad copy. brings cleints in , helps make sales, helps the industry.
3. convey the perception that if a broker has a lot of listings they must be good, (group psych 101). gets clients, makes sales, helps the industry
4. Something tangible for a seller to see. If you said you werent going to advertise in the local paper you WONT get the listing. gets..
5. gets agents leads….
Re: Newspapers & FSBOS–Yes I disagree that they see FSBOS as their future. What exactly does that mean anyway?
FSBOS are just another component of the overall marketplace. They are a rising minority. Newspapers have always carried FSBOS. How are they getting special treatment at the expense of agents/brokers?
I don’t see this.
PS I would never suggest that you cant write about real estate. that wasn’t the point. The point was, that brokers who are in the trenches everyday are wise enough to know if they are being marginalized. Your post, albeit unintentionally, said to me that not only was I being marginalized by newspapers, I wasn’t wise enought to see it.
PPS Dont buy the MOVE manual just becasue they write your check. That’s what some execs did and all they got were striped shirts.
3 cents,
What are you smokin’ boy? Did you actually say that I “EXIST” to “SERVE” someone? Did slavery come back when I was too busy “representing” my clients??
Not a nice thing to say to someone with 35 years experience as a fiduciary representative on her 52nd birthday! 😉
3 cents,
What are you smokin’ boy? Did you actually say that I “EXIST” to “SERVE” someone? Did slavery come back when I was too busy “representing” my clients??
Not a nice thing to say to someone with 35 years experience as a fiduciary representative on her 52nd birthday! 😉
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR ARDELL…
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU! 🙂
By the way, I think it totally sucks that I can’t put “OPEN HOUSE Sunday 1-4”, in the public remarks section of the mls. If I could do that, if it weren’t “against the rules”, I wouldn’t use print ads for Open Houses either. That’s a rule that clearly nees to be changed or broken.
LOL…Thanks Dustin!
Ardell, 3 cents and Dustin all appear to agree that Sunday newspaper ads are meant to sell the agent/brokerage as opposed to the listing–since you are all in real estate sales, do most sellers understand this, particularly at listing presentation time? It’s also a long standing fact that the majority of listed property is not sold by the agent who listed the home. If traditional print ads are pretty much moot, then the ad focus seems to be marketing the agent/brokerage, moreso than the property, correct? Would you say this is the same for the ads that go in Homes N Land, Harmon Homes, Real Estate Book etc…the sellers home being subordinated (sorry that word is stuck in my brain) to marketing the agent?
Dustin, with consumers armed with this information, what do you think a seller is going to do to maximize their marketing exposure?
If consumers were budgeting $30,000 in commissions to sell their home, I imagine they certainly wouldn’t want to waste it on things that don’t work well, or, in contrast, on things that really market the agent. It’s my opinion, that consumers armed with this information, may elect to call Ardell for rebates and entry into the MLS if selling and forego something that is heavily weighted towards marketing the agent rather than their home.
I think Ardell’s phone should be ringing off the hook. Maybe it already does. She even sells homes off of Sunday open houses for crying out loud, something that I understand is rare. That’s my kind of agent!
Have a great weekend everyone. Enjoy the Sun, it’s coming back I hear.
Ardell, 3 cents and Dustin all appear to agree that Sunday newspaper ads are meant to sell the agent/brokerage as opposed to the listing–since you are all in real estate sales, do most sellers understand this, particularly at listing presentation time? It’s also a long standing fact that the majority of listed property is not sold by the agent who listed the home. If traditional print ads are pretty much moot, then the ad focus seems to be marketing the agent/brokerage, moreso than the property, correct? Would you say this is the same for the ads that go in Homes N Land, Harmon Homes, Real Estate Book etc…the sellers home being subordinated (sorry that word is stuck in my brain) to marketing the agent?
Dustin, with consumers armed with this information, what do you think a seller is going to do to maximize their marketing exposure?
If consumers were budgeting $30,000 in commissions to sell their home, I imagine they certainly wouldn’t want to waste it on things that don’t work well, or, in contrast, on things that really market the agent. It’s my opinion, that consumers armed with this information, may elect to call Ardell for rebates and entry into the MLS if selling and forego something that is heavily weighted towards marketing the agent rather than their home.
I think Ardell’s phone should be ringing off the hook. Maybe it already does. She even sells homes off of Sunday open houses for crying out loud, something that I understand is rare. That’s my kind of agent!
Have a great weekend everyone. Enjoy the Sun, it’s coming back I hear.
Dustin
This is a great string. Here’s my take….
Let’s say that the industry at large read your post (you would love to see the Alexa results on that one, wouldn’t you?) and each broker and agent hit that AHA! moment and decided then and there never to advertise in newspapers again. In that very unlikely event, do you really think that the Tribune Company would say “Truce”, immediately divest itself of the Forsalebuyerowner.com site and discontinue its current internet strategy?
I don’t think so and in fact, I think that this would only speed up their strategy. I believe that newspapers understand that substantial long term revenue from broker print advertising is a fiction.
Also, you mention Google. Again, do you think that if that same group of agents and brokers refused to buy google ads and refused to input listing data into Google Base that the Googleite braintrust would cave and reassign all those folks currently working on the real estate project.
Again, I don’t think so.
The continued payment of ad $$ and other fees to these new entrants into online real estate is not the issue and is not what is “causing” the marginalization. Instead, I believe the marginalization is being caused by the profound shift of consumer behavior on the Web combined with the industry’s lack of innovation to address this shift. Plain and simple, the marginalization is a direct result of quasi-monopolistic practices of the brokerage world that made innovation and “doing things different” bad for the whole.
To this point, look back to traditional brokers’ treatment of the ReMax concept when it was launched. I think most folks would agree that the ReMax concept is mainstream today but in 1987, it heresy and ReMax had to sue folks to be allowed to play in the “traditional” brokers’ sandbox. Do you see any analogy here with the likes of Redfin?
Brokers and agents should, I think, understand that preventing this “marginalization” will be a direct result of (1) providing a service level that sustains their value proposition in the minds of consumers and (2) constant innovation in their technology applications and business models that meets the consumer demands. Anything less will just delay the inevitable.
The good news? All of this is completely within their control!
Russ
Dustin
This is a great string. Here’s my take….
Let’s say that the industry at large read your post (you would love to see the Alexa results on that one, wouldn’t you?) and each broker and agent hit that AHA! moment and decided then and there never to advertise in newspapers again. In that very unlikely event, do you really think that the Tribune Company would say “Truce”, immediately divest itself of the Forsalebuyerowner.com site and discontinue its current internet strategy?
I don’t think so and in fact, I think that this would only speed up their strategy. I believe that newspapers understand that substantial long term revenue from broker print advertising is a fiction.
Also, you mention Google. Again, do you think that if that same group of agents and brokers refused to buy google ads and refused to input listing data into Google Base that the Googleite braintrust would cave and reassign all those folks currently working on the real estate project.
Again, I don’t think so.
The continued payment of ad $$ and other fees to these new entrants into online real estate is not the issue and is not what is “causing” the marginalization. Instead, I believe the marginalization is being caused by the profound shift of consumer behavior on the Web combined with the industry’s lack of innovation to address this shift. Plain and simple, the marginalization is a direct result of quasi-monopolistic practices of the brokerage world that made innovation and “doing things different” bad for the whole.
To this point, look back to traditional brokers’ treatment of the ReMax concept when it was launched. I think most folks would agree that the ReMax concept is mainstream today but in 1987, it heresy and ReMax had to sue folks to be allowed to play in the “traditional” brokers’ sandbox. Do you see any analogy here with the likes of Redfin?
Brokers and agents should, I think, understand that preventing this “marginalization” will be a direct result of (1) providing a service level that sustains their value proposition in the minds of consumers and (2) constant innovation in their technology applications and business models that meets the consumer demands. Anything less will just delay the inevitable.
The good news? All of this is completely within their control!
Russ
Happy Birthday Ardell 🙂
You know I always agree with you, most of the time 🙂
yes, I did say sellers are “the principals we serve” –i.e put them first, ahead of myself–at least that’s how I understand fiduciary.
at least wikipedia sees it that way: fiduciary
A fiduciary must not put themselves in a position where their interest and duty conflict.[3] In other words, they must always “serve” the principal’s interests, subjugating their own preference for those of the principal.
PS I smoke Macanudos. I’ll let you know when it’s my birthday 😉
Happy Birthday Ardell 🙂
You know I always agree with you, most of the time 🙂
yes, I did say sellers are “the principals we serve” –i.e put them first, ahead of myself–at least that’s how I understand fiduciary.
at least wikipedia sees it that way: fiduciary
A fiduciary must not put themselves in a position where their interest and duty conflict.[3] In other words, they must always “serve” the principal’s interests, subjugating their own preference for those of the principal.
PS I smoke Macanudos. I’ll let you know when it’s my birthday 😉
Russ, as usual, you just articulated a view I wish I was smart enough to think up first! 🙂
3 cents said “I am sure you realize that agents exist to SERVE the client…”
I’m sure you agree that there are a few other reasons for my existence on this earth.
My point is that often clients WANT one thing when I first meet them, but often change their minds after we discuss things.
I absolutely “subjugate my preference for those of the principal”. But only after explaining why “my preference” is in their best interests, and moreso than their original preference before they met with me and before we discussed it. And after we are in agreement with doing it “my way” 🙂
That said, will I let someone “Shoot themselves in the Foot?” Less and less. It never works out for anyone. I’d rather not represent someone who insists on shooting themselves in the foot. There are plenty of other agents to work with people who want to do that.
I once hired an attorney. The first thing I said to him is “It is your job to not let me be my own worst enemy”. The more people know, the more they are likely to do that.
I give what I would want, what I DO want when I hire someone to represent me. Someone who isn’t afraid to tell me when I am wrong.
Ardell, what other rules limit what you can say in the public remarks section? Are you allowed to link to a website or a video?
Tim,
Here are some ideas I had for bringing exposure to my home when I list.
(Note I kept it to a list of online stuff but I don’t plan to do much offline besides making some fliers and talking to all my neighbors!).
Tim,
Here are some ideas I had for bringing exposure to my home when I list.
(Note I kept it to a list of online stuff but I don’t plan to do much offline besides making some fliers and talking to all my neighbors!).
I agree with most of the rules which prohibit the listing company from referencing themselves in any way in the public section. When you pull up a JLS listing on W’s website via IDX, W’s client should not be able to call the listing agent or contact the agent or even know who the listing agent is, via any info provided via the feed. That includes info and photos, so no photos of the FOR SALE sign and riders, except marginally in the photo of the front of the house. If one of the photos was the actual sign, it would be a violation.
So no websites links, of course, not back to the listing agent and company. No videos with a big logo of the listing company all over it or linking back to the virtual tour of the listing company. No way to get to the listing company period.
But heck, I don’t want them to get to me..I just want them to get to THE HOUSE IN TIME FOR THE OPEN HOUSE! I am more than happy to honor their agent relationship once they get to the house by themselves. But why can’t I talk about when the open house is, in the remarks section. I think that is eradicating a valuable tool to sellers.
Ardell
we are talking about 2 different things–you are talking about being a professional and of course, you advise clients & strongly at times & they decide hopefully following your advice. That’s not the service I’m referring to.
What I am talking about in the context of my comment was serving the seller’s interest to “market & sell the property” ahead of my interests or the MLS interests.
Also the word “exist” should not be taken literally–exist, in the context of the entire comment means being an agent–your “professional existence” or purpose as a real estate agent.
it’s not my birthday but give me a break 🙂
Ardell,
A good example of agents creating their own media would be if they created a shared open house calendar…
But wait… I’ve already created something like that for the Seattle area! 😉
Feel free to submit your open houses to the Seattle Real Estate Calendar I have on my sidebar (built by Trumba). Anyone can submit events and anyone can host the calendar on their website with some basic javascript code (which I’d be happy to provide!).
And just as I’ve given you editorial privileges here on RCG, I’d be happy to give you (and anyone else interested) rights to submit and accept their own events.
Ardell,
A good example of agents creating their own media would be if they created a shared open house calendar…
But wait… I’ve already created something like that for the Seattle area! 😉
Feel free to submit your open houses to the Seattle Real Estate Calendar I have on my sidebar (built by Trumba). Anyone can submit events and anyone can host the calendar on their website with some basic javascript code (which I’d be happy to provide!).
And just as I’ve given you editorial privileges here on RCG, I’d be happy to give you (and anyone else interested) rights to submit and accept their own events.
3 cents
Fiduciary isn’t about “their preferences vs. my preferences”. My preferences may be more informed based on my experience, and so my preference may in some cases need to take precedence over theirs.
Fiduciary is about not putting my interests above their interests. That clearly is sometimes very difficult and not easily done. The higher the commission, the harder it is. It’s like you are having a fight with yourself and it really does kick you in the stomach sometimes to win that internal battle in favor of the client.
I mention this because Russ asked about Dustin’s definition of “Marginalization”. I personally think that agents are marginalized with regard to their role in the transaction because most do not put the clients’ interest above their own, especially buyer clients. As long as most agents view themselves as trying to sell something to a buyer, instead of representing the buyer client’s best interest, even when that means not selling anything, they marginalize themselves. They don’t need anyone else doing the marginalizing for them. Too many are already selling TO buyers instead of representing the buyer client’s best interests, causing the public to view their role in the transaction as marginal.
Buyers need someone who will help them make better, informed, intelligent choices. Not someone looking to make a sale and get a commission. It is the hardest, if not about impossible, thing for me to do when training new agents. Not enough role models for new agents in that regard either.
I always say make a friend and then help your friend buy a house. If you can’t be friends with your client. If you can’t be friends with your agent. Don’t do this thing together. If all agents and consumers used this rule, the “industry” would be raised to the higher level everone wants and deserves.
3 cents, responding your your 31.
The mls structure IS sometimes in conflict with the seller’s interests. The trade off is that they get lots of agents to show and sell their home. The sellers’ choice is to not participate in the mls. But once a seller chooses to derive the benefits of the mls, they must understand that they do so by utilizing agents, not by circumventing agents.
MLS is the agents’ system of cooperating with each other, not a public venue. It is a great tool for both buyers and sellers to be able to see homes on the internet. But using your own word…the MLS does not EXIST for the benefit of the consumer. The mls exists so that agents can show and sell people’s homes It was never created, not does it exist, to be an advertisement to the public.
Now that everyone can “see” it, they want to take it away. It’s like if I show you my birthday present and let you use it and you like it and then you leave with it 🙂
3 cents, responding your your 31.
The mls structure IS sometimes in conflict with the seller’s interests. The trade off is that they get lots of agents to show and sell their home. The sellers’ choice is to not participate in the mls. But once a seller chooses to derive the benefits of the mls, they must understand that they do so by utilizing agents, not by circumventing agents.
MLS is the agents’ system of cooperating with each other, not a public venue. It is a great tool for both buyers and sellers to be able to see homes on the internet. But using your own word…the MLS does not EXIST for the benefit of the consumer. The mls exists so that agents can show and sell people’s homes It was never created, not does it exist, to be an advertisement to the public.
Now that everyone can “see” it, they want to take it away. It’s like if I show you my birthday present and let you use it and you like it and then you leave with it 🙂
Ardell
You say:
“But using your own word…the MLS does not EXIST for the benefit of the consumer. The mls exists so that agents can show and sell people’s homes It was never created, not does it exist, to be an advertisement to the public.”
Aha! So if there was an efficient medium for exposing listings to potential buyers that was created with consumers’ interests (sellers and buyers) in mind, might these same consumers flock in droves to that medium?
-Russ
Ardell
You say:
“But using your own word…the MLS does not EXIST for the benefit of the consumer. The mls exists so that agents can show and sell people’s homes It was never created, not does it exist, to be an advertisement to the public.”
Aha! So if there was an efficient medium for exposing listings to potential buyers that was created with consumers’ interests (sellers and buyers) in mind, might these same consumers flock in droves to that medium?
-Russ
Well Russ, then you’d run into the same problem as Homes and Land and Harmon Homes. Once the advertising medium invited the boycott of the real estate community by undermining them…
Maybe it’s time that that can happen. Can the medium survive without the backing and input of the mls and agents? So far the magazines say not. So far the magazines say No to FSBO ads for fear of alienating the Realtor community.
Google is NOT Homes and Land….
Well maybe it’s Harmon: 🙂 Point is the agents don’t have to play in the same playground if they don’t wanna. They can take their ball and go home. It depends on how badly they are undermined. Clearly as soon as it has a major impact on the industry, drastic times will call for drastic measures.
Pingback: 360Digest » Ironic Real Estate
Oh Boy!
Did someone open up a big ol’ can of worms or what!
-rdb
sellsius°
p.s. russ, you hit the nail on the head.
I wonder who will soon create such a venue (medium)?
Russ,
You’ve planted an image in my head of a bunch of real estate executives chanting:
Russ,
You’ve planted an image in my head of a bunch of real estate executives chanting:
Jeez. Who would have thought that my posts would have spawned such a lively discussion.
I think newspaper advertising’s primary benefit is as a brand building exercise, not as a true vehicle for information. Certainly most people in our shop recognize that most of the decent listings either a) never make it to the paper or b) are gone long before the print date.
We’ve even toyed with running a centerbox in our fullpage ad that says something like “If you’re looking for the best homes, you won’t find them here…” – but have so far held off.
more fuel to the fire….Homegain bought out by Classified Ventures:
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/07/05/classified_ventures_buys_homegain/index.php
Funny you mention that rdb, I was just in the process of writing a comment and linking to a similar story. HomeGain is clearly not a FSBO operation, so that tells me one of three things:
1) Pragmatic: The newspapers don’t really care where they get into real estate, but they want in bad…
2) Conspiracy: The newspapers see HomeGain as providing an excellent backend to some real estate master plan…
3) Conservative: The newspapers are just hedging their bets…
I favor the first one, but could probably make an argument for the other two.
Funny you mention that rdb, I was just in the process of writing a comment and linking to a similar story. HomeGain is clearly not a FSBO operation, so that tells me one of three things:
1) Pragmatic: The newspapers don’t really care where they get into real estate, but they want in bad…
2) Conspiracy: The newspapers see HomeGain as providing an excellent backend to some real estate master plan…
3) Conservative: The newspapers are just hedging their bets…
I favor the first one, but could probably make an argument for the other two.
Love this thread Dustin.
Unfortunately, Russ struck the coup d’etat with his Aha! comment (35). His answer cuts to the heart of the matter. Smartie pants lawyer 🙂
I would only add to his insightful comment this: & the listing broker gets paid.
The ideal scenario is a neutral venue where selllers, brokers & buyers can freely search all listings & the listing broker gets paid. The listing broker getting paid is key because it is the presence of middlemen (bottomfeeders?) who put themselves between the listing & the buyer using the brokers packaeged listing that has brokers in a tizzy & rightfully so.
A broker who takes the time to secure a contract for the right to sell a property, spends time & money to package & market a listing does not want an interloper taking that listing, attracting a buyer & asking for a piece of the listing broker’s pie.
I have to find a quote by a Cendant CEO that supported this notion.
Way to go Russ.
Love this thread Dustin.
Unfortunately, Russ struck the coup d’etat with his Aha! comment (35). His answer cuts to the heart of the matter. Smartie pants lawyer 🙂
I would only add to his insightful comment this: & the listing broker gets paid.
The ideal scenario is a neutral venue where selllers, brokers & buyers can freely search all listings & the listing broker gets paid. The listing broker getting paid is key because it is the presence of middlemen (bottomfeeders?) who put themselves between the listing & the buyer using the brokers packaeged listing that has brokers in a tizzy & rightfully so.
A broker who takes the time to secure a contract for the right to sell a property, spends time & money to package & market a listing does not want an interloper taking that listing, attracting a buyer & asking for a piece of the listing broker’s pie.
I have to find a quote by a Cendant CEO that supported this notion.
Way to go Russ.
MLS Pie Economics 101
The real estate commission is a pie.
A closed MLS insures that only brokers share the pie. Buyer broker & listing broker share the pie–yummy
An open to the public MLS makes it possible for listing broker to get the full pie on a direct sale. Full pie favors Listing brokers. more yummy–makes me fat. Buyers brokers “can’ be cut out.
Which one favors the industry? I say both but an open one is more efficient becasue more eyes see the listings.
Since a closed MLS favors brokers on the buy side, the theory i think is lets keep the mls between us brokers only– that way we always get a piece of pie. Now lisitng brokers say OK becasue I’m not always a listing broker & love pie too. A piece of the pie is better than none at all.
newspapers, online venues like craigslist work like an open mls but they dont have the volume of listings. Brokers list in newspapers & other online or other print venues becasue they prefer a whole pie.
MLS also know broker prefer a whole pie so they invented the 72n hour rule.
That’s all I can write for now I.m hungry –I think Ill get a peice of pie 🙂
MLS Pie Economics 101
The real estate commission is a pie.
A closed MLS insures that only brokers share the pie. Buyer broker & listing broker share the pie–yummy
An open to the public MLS makes it possible for listing broker to get the full pie on a direct sale. Full pie favors Listing brokers. more yummy–makes me fat. Buyers brokers “can’ be cut out.
Which one favors the industry? I say both but an open one is more efficient becasue more eyes see the listings.
Since a closed MLS favors brokers on the buy side, the theory i think is lets keep the mls between us brokers only– that way we always get a piece of pie. Now lisitng brokers say OK becasue I’m not always a listing broker & love pie too. A piece of the pie is better than none at all.
newspapers, online venues like craigslist work like an open mls but they dont have the volume of listings. Brokers list in newspapers & other online or other print venues becasue they prefer a whole pie.
MLS also know broker prefer a whole pie so they invented the 72n hour rule.
That’s all I can write for now I.m hungry –I think Ill get a peice of pie 🙂
3 cents, we have a 24 hour rule, not a 72 hour rule, here in the Seattle area. For those wondering…that means a listing must appear in the mls within 24 hours after the listing is signed…unless there is a directive from the seller otherwise. Like if they are not finished cleaning, staging, etc…within the 24 hour required input to mls timeframe.
Is it too late to join this party?
3 cents, I’m not sure an “open MLS” favors the broker industry. Right now, each regional MLS acts as THE marketplace for residential real estate. While there may be other options (craigslist, one of the dozens of FSBO pages, etc.), none of those options can provide anything close to the exposure of the MLS. So, if a seller wants to truly participate in the marketplace, the seller must list on the MLS. If the MLS were “open” — i.e. anyone could list — then agents will have an even harder time justifying the 3%/3% commission. The listing agent will no longer be able to offer a valuable service — i.e. access to the MLS — while the seller will certainly NOT be willing to pay the selling agent a full commission. 1%, perhaps — but 3%? No way. So, an “open MLS” would have a negative impact on agent/broker income.
That said, I’m all in favor of anything that fosters FSBO and/or creates a viable alternative to the MLS. In fact, I’ve heard that the Tribune Co. is also buying BuyOwner.com and ByOwner.com — HOORAY! Let’s get those old media dollars working towards a new media world. Let’s get those consumers “flocking in droves” to the new and less-agent-reliant (and hopefully more attorney reliant) medium!
Hi Dustin, I don’t know you personally but I have been reading Rain City for sometime. I have to tell you that, imho, your tone has changed substantially with respect to consumer data access and availability, since your move to Move. Over the years I have had the privilege of hearing Allan Dalton speak about a half dozen times. I must tell you that it is almost as if I can hear him speaking through the words in this post.
In any case, you state as fact that “Every time an agent buys an ad on Google, they are helping to fund a tool that is clearly meant to marginalize them.” You use the link “clearly meant to marginalize them ” to real estate listings in Google Base to support your statement. I have to disclose that at time of writing five of those listings shown belong to Realtors that use the system our company makes (Point2). We allow our members (Realtors) to optionally syndicate listings to many places including most vertical search sites. I wish to know exactly how Google Base, Trulia, Oodle, Edgio, Livedeal and other vertical search engines that promote clearly the Realtors brand and drive traffic directly to the Realtor’s site can be “clearly meant to marginalize them” ?
These sites are not too different from Move.com, except for the fact that they provide branding to the Realtors and direct traffic to the Realtors site for FREE. Move,com charges for branding and doesn’t directly link to a Realtors site. Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches. Please explain to me how Realtors are going to “marginalize themselves” by advertising, their listings and brand where people are looking.
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Hi Dustin, I don’t know you personally but I have been reading Rain City for sometime. I have to tell you that, imho, your tone has changed substantially with respect to consumer data access and availability, since your move to Move. Over the years I have had the privilege of hearing Allan Dalton speak about a half dozen times. I must tell you that it is almost as if I can hear him speaking through the words in this post.
In any case, you state as fact that “Every time an agent buys an ad on Google, they are helping to fund a tool that is clearly meant to marginalize them.” You use the link “clearly meant to marginalize them ” to real estate listings in Google Base to support your statement. I have to disclose that at time of writing five of those listings shown belong to Realtors that use the system our company makes (Point2). We allow our members (Realtors) to optionally syndicate listings to many places including most vertical search sites. I wish to know exactly how Google Base, Trulia, Oodle, Edgio, Livedeal and other vertical search engines that promote clearly the Realtors brand and drive traffic directly to the Realtor’s site can be “clearly meant to marginalize them” ?
These sites are not too different from Move.com, except for the fact that they provide branding to the Realtors and direct traffic to the Realtors site for FREE. Move,com charges for branding and doesn’t directly link to a Realtors site. Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches. Please explain to me how Realtors are going to “marginalize themselves” by advertising, their listings and brand where people are looking.
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Brendan, I’m guessing you just glossed over the post and comments and decided to make a point you already had in mind.
However, for your sake, I’ll summarize what’s already been said. Actions taken by individual actors (agents/brokers) are not always in the best interest of the group (real estate industry).
It is in the best interest of individual agents/brokers to get their brand AND their listings as widely distributed as possible (money and imagination being the main limitation).
It is in the best interest of the industry to not build up competitors to an extremely valuable common asset.
If acting in the best interests of their industry, agents/brokers would not be spending marketing money on companies that are attempting to build up a comprehensive database of homes separate from theirs. This can only serve to devalue one of their key assets and marginalize them in the long run. However, acting in their own best interests makes complete and logical sense and I fully expect agents to continue to do so… Hence: the tragedy of the commons.
Brendan, I’m guessing you just glossed over the post and comments and decided to make a point you already had in mind.
However, for your sake, I’ll summarize what’s already been said. Actions taken by individual actors (agents/brokers) are not always in the best interest of the group (real estate industry).
It is in the best interest of individual agents/brokers to get their brand AND their listings as widely distributed as possible (money and imagination being the main limitation).
It is in the best interest of the industry to not build up competitors to an extremely valuable common asset.
If acting in the best interests of their industry, agents/brokers would not be spending marketing money on companies that are attempting to build up a comprehensive database of homes separate from theirs. This can only serve to devalue one of their key assets and marginalize them in the long run. However, acting in their own best interests makes complete and logical sense and I fully expect agents to continue to do so… Hence: the tragedy of the commons.
Brendan,
Where do you get the info to make this statement: “Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches.” Sounds a bit self serving rather than fact based.
When a seller has four offers on the first or second day he lists, he generally doesn’t care where or how the buyers found his house.
What about a seller who “demands” that their property be in every paper every week and every magazine, when all it really needs to sell is to be priced right and show well and be in the mls so the agents can bring the buyers? Is it really about what the seller “demands” or what will sell his house?
So where do you get your “data” for what sellers “demand”?
Brendan,
Where do you get the info to make this statement: “Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches.” Sounds a bit self serving rather than fact based.
When a seller has four offers on the first or second day he lists, he generally doesn’t care where or how the buyers found his house.
What about a seller who “demands” that their property be in every paper every week and every magazine, when all it really needs to sell is to be priced right and show well and be in the mls so the agents can bring the buyers? Is it really about what the seller “demands” or what will sell his house?
So where do you get your “data” for what sellers “demand”?
Brokers & agents will only be marginalized if they surrender to one monopolizing entity–whether it be move.com or realtor.com–claiming to act in their best interests (when their duty is to their company shareholders—their fiduciary duty is not to brokers).
It is the very existence of competitive sites & advertising alternatives that other venues provide that keeps brokers from being controlled.
Brokers are smart enought to know who is taking advantage of them & who is not. Monopolies are never good.
I agree w/ brendan that all venues that post broker/agent listings ought to RIGHTLY link back to the lisitng broker and not usurp their brand. If move.com does not do this, they are doing a diservice to the very people who put money in their shareholders’ pockets.
Brokers & agents will only be marginalized if they surrender to one monopolizing entity–whether it be move.com or realtor.com–claiming to act in their best interests (when their duty is to their company shareholders—their fiduciary duty is not to brokers).
It is the very existence of competitive sites & advertising alternatives that other venues provide that keeps brokers from being controlled.
Brokers are smart enought to know who is taking advantage of them & who is not. Monopolies are never good.
I agree w/ brendan that all venues that post broker/agent listings ought to RIGHTLY link back to the lisitng broker and not usurp their brand. If move.com does not do this, they are doing a diservice to the very people who put money in their shareholders’ pockets.
Pingback: Seattle’s Rain City Real Estate Guide » Agents and Consumers - A Perplexing Business Model
I say “who cares” what the many businesses do to capture our market. Newspapers, Google, Yahoo, Craiglist, Redfin, realtor.com and on and on and on. Will I buy leads? No. Do I advertise in newsprint. Yes. Will any of these hurt my business by wanting to get into my business? Probably not. Can some consumers do it by themselves? Yes. And, more power to them. Do most people need help? I think so. Who are they going to turn to? Their network. Friends, family and their REALTOR® friends (if you don’t know a REALTOR® you don’t have many friends). This is still a relationship business. Relationships builds networks. Valuable service builds referrals. Referrals bring new clients. I don’t feel marginalized at all. What I will object to is realtor.com (who I pay dearly to “enhance” my listings) selling leads on my marketing efforts. Now that’s marginalization!
Pingback: Seattle’s Rain City Real Estate Guide » Craigslist expands
Pingback: The Future of Real Estate Marketing » To Lead or Not to Lead
Pingback: Seattle’s Rain City Real Estate Guide » Inspiring People to Comment