OnTheMarket says ‘one other portal’ rule does not apply to overseas properties

| Rosalind Renshaw

OnTheMarket has clarified that its ‘one other portal’ rule only applies within the UK.

Yesterday on EYE, we carried comments from Savills that it has not seen the number of leads diminish since it left Zoopla, but has seen the quality improve.

However, readers were quick to point out that Savills, along with other OTM agents, still advertises international properties on Zoopla.

We asked OTM for further information, and a spokesperson told us: “Savills is allowed to do this.

“Our international offering isn’t live yet and it will be in the coming weeks.

“But it has never been the case that the one other portal rule would extend to international because the whole point of it is to disrupt the duopolistic UK market, so it’s not the same case for overseas.

“There are lots of small portals which cover the international market.

“Agents have to be able to market their properties in the country where the stock is located.”

x

Email the story to a friend!

More top news stories



44 Comments

  1. GilesH
    January 21, 2016 at 06:49

    Members of the mutual, you should revolt…who are the main overseas properties from…Savills and Knight Frank…me thinks Mr Jarman and Mr Flint have you all on strings…very pleased I never got involved in this old boys club!

    Report
    1. RealAgent
      January 21, 2016 at 08:25

      Why would we be even bothered about websites abroad? How does it possibly give them advantage in their UK markets over other OTM members. Congrats GilesH for the first nonsense comment of the day!

      Report
      1. the message
        January 21, 2016 at 08:56

        sort of sums you up RA – why should you be bothered? because time effort and energy is going into building something that has no mandate from members. Because it has nothing to do with OTM’s stated aims. Because Savills and Knight F have protected themselves from pain by staying on Z and PL because it makes commercial sense for them to do so, whilst at the same time forcing you guys to leave. It is so bad its laughable, but you genuinely dont see anything wrong. That, your honour, just about sums the case up!

        Report
        1. RealAgent
          January 21, 2016 at 11:18

          Message I resisted commeting on your complete twaddle below so perhaps you should mine. Im the member you are not so if say Im not bothered then IM NOT BOTHERED!!

           

          Report
          1. the message
            January 21, 2016 at 11:37

            Hahaha – sorry, forgot I was talking to Vicki pollard!!!, or was it catherine Tait?!

            I genuinely do despair, but it is not hard to see why the AM dream will fail with incisive, decisive, analytical, challenging people like you responsible for its spiritual wellbeing.

            Report
            1. RealAgent
              January 21, 2016 at 12:06

              I’m neither of those things Message I am an OTM paying customer so I suspect what I think about it is slightly more relevant than what you think about it.

              However looking at the post you seem so desperately proud of that you had to re-post it below, is it safe to assume that people don’t generally listen you in your off line life?

              Report
    2. HarryN
      January 21, 2016 at 10:28

      Mugs, the lot of you.

      It would be funny if Zoopla kicked them off.

      Report
  2. the message
    January 21, 2016 at 07:31

    I am genuinely not laughing at this, and would just point people to the 10 points I made a while ago in the arena about what was needed to get me involved in OTM< and to make it a success. The lack of corporate governance, the opulence, the lack of any kind of independent review leads to shady backdoor deals like this. All of you who have joined and refuse to ask proper questions should be ashamed that it is you who are ruining this noble venture, not us sitting on the sidelines trying to make our voices heard. Four legs good, two legs better. All animals are equal……

    Report
  3. BD_IndependentAgent
    January 21, 2016 at 07:42

    I feel for the few 1,000 independent agents who liked the concept and signed up to Agents Mutual. Your businesses are suffering in a tough market – the AM board know that, but they are all out to feather their own nest and don’t give a 2nd thought to how many businesses they ruin to get their own portal. A long standing industry friend of mine in Berkshire tried to explain their business was suffering and they face going out of business so needed to cease their OTM 5 year contract, and were told by OTM they would take them to court for the full value of their contract. Disgusting.

    Incidentally they have stopped paying them and heard nothing further.

     

     

    Report
    1. the message
      January 21, 2016 at 07:47

      For what it is worth, reprinted what I said 2 months ago…….maybe one of you will read? Point 10 interesting in light of todays announcement!
      OK, here goes:
      1 Chairman – appoint an independent chairman, experienced player in space, no current affiliations, who can be therespected and independent elder statesman
      2 Board of Diretors. OTM to have c.4 directors appointed by shareholders. Their reappointement to be agreed annuallly by a vote. ANyone free to stand, initial decision made by a vote of all goldmembers.
      The reason for these first two is to put a more sensible corporate governance framework around things – members have the confidence that there is a robust infrastructure for accountability, they can rotate directors on an annual basis, and we lose the stench of rotting flesh that currently exists with a board packed with high end agents, and no independence. The high end can be guaranteed one board seat, given they kicked this off, but thats it
      3 set a sensible 3 year plan, stop making promises you cant possibly deliver. 3 years is a realistic timeframe to move into number 2 spot (and number 2 spot means by traffic/leads, nothing else- ultimately nowt else matters in relation to marketing spend)
      4 charge sensibly. The true value of OTM at the moment is about £50 (I am guessing here, dont have access to enough stats, but enough anecdotal evidence to kno its around this). So charge £100 a month, prices to rise in line wit growth of business. £50 a month is an “investment” in OTM’s success and the future benefit this brings, £50 or more is the value brought
      5 This might mean a reduction in revenues if you cant win more business in the short term. Fine, cut cloth accordingly. Some of this is easy as you stop chasing a short term dream, and part of this is sensible stuff around running a start up more efficiently than now. Again anecdotally, OTM is currently run like a mature business. Its not, its a start up tech business.
      6 DROP the exclusivity clause. a £100 a month fee will be low enough to drive lots of new members, and you have 3 years to catch Z up now, so take your time and do it right. Having a natural blocker on inventory growth is really stupid . Every member can push OTM to consumers and over time the brand will grow, traffic will grow etc, and people can then leave R or Z when it makes commercial sense to do so, not when they are committing commercial suicide
      7 Sort out more sensible packages for the senior execs. Yes, IS should earn a fortune if this is successful, and yes its impossible for him to do that if its a mutual and he cant own shares. But you cant have him (and a few others) taking out the vast amounts they are now. So bite the bullet, ditch the mutual, set up a standard ltd company, give him and mgt 20% between them. Rest is shared out amongst early stage investors, and new shares given fr each £50 invested going forward. Or put a couple of mission aside as a bonus for him/them in 3 years when the targets are hit.
      8 Move the HQ out of london – no reason to be there whatsoever
      9 drop the countrylife deal – there were no initial plans to be a whitelabel partner, this isnt an area we should be going down – focus on the core business, work on a better product offering, longer term brand building and back end services to members, ALL members
      10 ditto with overseas, a total white elephant and a sop to the high end guys – it stinks.

      Report
    2. Property Pundit
      January 21, 2016 at 08:07

      ‘..business was suffering and they face going out of business..’

      All because they supported OTM? What complete and utter tosh.

      Report
      1. BD_IndependentAgent
        January 21, 2016 at 09:30

        Tell me PP, how can you comment on someone else’s business? How do you know if that statement is true or not? I can tell you it is. I never said “because the supported OTM”. But their phone stopped ringing and their market share dropped. Off you go – haven’t you got a valuation to be at…?

        Report
        1. RealAgent
          January 21, 2016 at 11:29

          So if a business is struggling, you think that OTM should treat them differently to their car lease company, their telecom provider, the company they lease their copiers from do you? Get in the real world BD a contract is a contract and however harsh it is for your friend, whilst we may have every sympathy with his plight to suggest OTM were any different to any other creditors has no justification.

           

          Report
  4. the message
    January 21, 2016 at 07:50

    And one final point before I withdraw with tail between legs – if  ““But it has never been the case that the one other portal rule would extend to international because the whole point of it is to disrupt the duopolistic UK market,………

     

    WHY THE HELL ARE YOU DOING OVERSEAS??!!!!! It totally contradicts the stated objectves of OTM, which you have just reiterated. This is not far short of larceny, taking cash from independents to spend on an overseas business for which you have no mandate, no business plan, no authority, and in your stated mission you rule out its importance. Yet its one of the very first things you do!!!

    Off with their heads, come the revolution etc!!

    Report
    1. harry hood
      January 21, 2016 at 10:27

      Good point. If the aim is UK duopoly then why international at all.

      They’re caught up in a web of bull

      Report
  5. AgencyInsider
    January 21, 2016 at 07:53

    OTM really don’t get the importance of PR, do they? This sort of thing is hugely damaging to their effort to bring new members on board, It gives the knockers a field day.

    ‘Our international offering isn’t live yet and it will be in the coming weeks’ should have been followed by the words… at which time the one other portal rule will kick in and Savills and others will move their overseas property listings to OTM.

    Report
  6. Gump
    January 21, 2016 at 08:13

    I’m not say a word

    Report
  7. danny
    January 21, 2016 at 08:51

    “Springer old chap , how do we handle this , it’s really embarrassing , someone might ask questions about the amount of money we’ve piled into the overseas thing and ask questions , will they not ask why we’ve sunk a load a load of money into developing something entirely unrelated to the Uk market that we are trying to disrupt and demand a vote ”

    “hahahaha…. A vote !! Jesus old chap calm down , we haven’t voted on anything yet”

    Report
    1. Gump
      January 21, 2016 at 08:57

      They have had one vote, premium listings. But other than that, quite a funny post!

      Report
      1. harry hood
        January 21, 2016 at 10:30

        They will give votes on minor issues to appease, but anything important will be run by the real puppet masters – and we know who these gentlemen are.

        Take back control of UK agency and don’t hand these two complete control over UK agency.

         

        Report
  8. the message
    January 21, 2016 at 09:08

    yes, they had one vote – they lost, THEY won’t be making that mistake again!! 🙂

    Report
  9. PeeBee
    January 21, 2016 at 10:04

    WELL… sorry – but I’m sort of ‘breaking rank’ on this one.

    My PERSONAL view – not my company’s – is that this is fundamentally wrong.

    If you’re off RM or Z – then you’re OFF.  That was the commitment we all agreed to make.

    I can’t see any grey areas in that.  To my recollection, there were never any highlighted nor discussed during the joining process.

    I can’t see why there should be any loopholes either.

    Next you’ll be told that this allows them to still display the Z logo on their website…

    Report
    1. harry hood
      January 21, 2016 at 10:31

      I hope you recognise your comment as anti-competitive and luddite.

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        January 21, 2016 at 10:42

        I don’t give a flying f@rt what you or anyone else for that matter want to recognise my comment as.

        I don’t lie; I don’t make things up as I go along – and I don’t say what people want me to say.

        My company abides 100% by the Rules of Association of AM.

        Call us Luddites – but we believe an Agreement is exactly that; and that professionalism rules.

        Unfortunately – and we see this almost every day – we seem to be in the minority with our views.

        Report
        1. harry hood
          January 21, 2016 at 11:28

          What if, just what if the agrement and rules were deemed illegal.

          Presumably then you would not still

          “believe an Agreement is exactly that”
          and
          “bides 100% by the Rules of Association of AM.”

          Report
          1. PeeBee
            January 21, 2016 at 11:48

            This is a non-question, as IF “the agrement and rules were deemed illegal” then there would legally be no agreement to abide by or believe in.

            Report
    2. the message
      January 21, 2016 at 11:34

      I know you and I disagree lots PeeBee, but i do recognise you as someone who genuinely cares and believes in what they say, I just feel you ahve been naive.

      Have a look at my 10 points above, how logically can you disagree or dislike them. Sadly we need more than blind faith here

      Report
      1. PeeBee
        January 21, 2016 at 11:45

        WHY do you feel I have been naïve?

        Report
        1. the message
          January 21, 2016 at 12:00

          By assuming everyone would bring in the same level of transparency and honesty that you do. By assuming that having no level of independence at all around the board table would work. By assuming that everyone was acting for the common good and not for themselves. By accepting 12 months of spin on performance without data to support. By allowing all the smaller agent directors to leave. By accepting that the sponsorship of countrylife was part of an overall strategy which would benefit everyone.

          Report
          1. PeeBee
            January 21, 2016 at 12:04

            Then you are feeling the wrong feeling.

            I’d get that checked if I were you.

            Report
            1. the message
              January 21, 2016 at 12:58

              My company abides 100% by the Rules of Association of AM.
              Call us Luddites – but we believe an Agreement is exactly that; and that professionalism rules.
              Unfortunately – and we see this almost every day – we seem to be in the minority with our views.

              I also feel you know you have been naive!!

              Report
              1. PeeBee
                January 21, 2016 at 13:00

                NO – we have principles.

                BIG difference.

                Report
                1. the message
                  January 21, 2016 at 14:11

                  then get into bed with other cut from the same cloth, or if they don’t put in place the controls necessary to make sure they act in a manner to which you can be satisfied. Naive

                  Report
                  1. PeeBee
                    January 21, 2016 at 14:21

                    You seem to like the word ‘naive’.

                    It’s clearly your word of the day.

                    Let’s leave it that you want to call me ‘naive’ – the semantics of this are irrelevant to the situation.

                    On reflection – maybe I was naïve – for being honest and open with my original statement.

                    You just can’t win…

                    Report
                    1. the message
                      January 21, 2016 at 15:17

                      you were naive in that – the OTM police will be on you shortly and you will be in terrible trouble for daring to question one of “our Glorious Leaders” ideas!!!

                      Report
                    2. PeeBee
                      January 21, 2016 at 16:57

                      Like I give one fuppeny tuck!

                      Report
  10. Zeus
    January 21, 2016 at 10:51

    There is no shortage of buyers in the current market so why pay a grand a month to Rightmove, if its valuations you are after a superb marketing campaign can be launched for less money and OTM can be supported after all is this not what independents said they wanted.

    Report
  11. Woodentop
    January 21, 2016 at 11:42

    So how many agents are in competition with overseas market that is disadvantaged by the rule? None they are all equal. Does it matter to a UK only agent? No, as the duopoly exists for everyone. Can’t see what the hype is about, actually I can and so can most others.

    Report
    1. the message
      January 21, 2016 at 12:01

      arm in arm, hand in hand, we all stand together. It is like Field Marshall Haig sending the troops into battle, whilst making sure he had his full supply of sherry

      Report
      1. harry hood
        January 21, 2016 at 15:41

        Yah – exactly. The poor gullible serfs will fund our overseas crusade

        Report
    2. DavidB
      January 21, 2016 at 13:22

      My take on this – they’re happy to use the portals where it leverages their own business. Surely as part of a mutual, paying subscription fees to Zoopla the very portal you are trying to destroy is madness. It is allowing S & KF to increase their profit position whilst agents only dealing in UK stock are being disadvantaged. I appreciate that the portals have regional variance – rightmove works best in X, zoopla in Y and OTM in Z. There are plenty of testimonials saying that they have left (insert portal name) and it has made no difference. BUT to allow the leaders of OTM to profiteer ( = earn revenue from international arms and increase UK market share) and line the pockets of the rival portal they are trying to destabilise makes it a very bitter pill to swallow. Anyone thinking it doesn’t matter it’s overseas and it doesn’t affect us needs to reexamine the situation.

      Report
      1. Woodentop
        January 21, 2016 at 14:51

        Try explaining that again if you wouldn’t mind so that everyone can understand.

        Report
      2. RealAgent
        January 21, 2016 at 16:21

        So DavdB,  you are suggesting as members of OTM we should rise up and stop Knight Frank and Savills selling property overseas? Err ok that’s a reasonable ask….I don’t think!

        They are entitled to sell property abroad, as are all estate agents. The only discussion here is whether, in the absence of OTM being available overseas, they should be advertising through Zoopla (or any other portal) effectively meaning they are on three not two as specified by the membership rules.

        Naturally, those posters that spew venom at anything OTM will be making a big deal of it, as they are here. But the bottom line is much to their disappointment, if I am anything to go by, the members are not going to be engaging in a heated debate over it, but perhaps, as PeeBee has, feel they are entitled to volunteer an opinion on it.

        By the way, no one ever set out to destroy Zoopla, you’ve been reading these pages for too long, the idea was to have a portal, supported, owned and run by estate agents. No other agenda was ever there to my knowledge.

        Report
  12. zoltan
    January 21, 2016 at 20:12

    It is time for a new UK portal. A portal where:

    – everything is market driven

    – agents have a direct interest in promoting the portal

    – agents pay only the fees they are happy with

    – a portal where agents are working together and they are not direct competitors

    – without any limitation on where else an agent can promote their properties

    – a portal, that will work for the agents

    – a “sharing” portal, a word that is used more and more in 2016!

    This portal is coming soon!

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Log In Register

Back to Homepage

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.