Online agents could not exist without the platform provided to them by the current property portals.
Ian Springett, chief executive of Agents’ Mutual, said: “Online-only agents could not function without the portals allowing them to co-exist alongside their main customers – full service, office-based agents.
“In that sense the online only agents are parasitic.”
He was clarifying comments that were carried in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph.
Agents’ Mutual has already said it will not allow online-only agents on to its site.
The link to the online Telegraph article is below. The online story is much longer and with more detail than the original printed version.
There are some interesting comments posted by readers. To save you time, we selected some that drew our eye:
“Great to see the creation of a cartel for estate agents – they obviously think they will replace Rightmove. I watch with interest.”
“To be honest Foxtons did a brilliant job selling my flat in London although I appreciate it’s like selling candy to babies right now. I accepted an offer of £325k and they pushed the buyer up to £330k even though I’d already agreed £325k and no other agents were involved. However that didn’t cover their fees which were £10k inc VAT.”
“The internet can be a disruptive technology. What Amazon did to traditional book shops will happen.”
“Whilst no great fan of estate agents, it’s only fair to point out that for most people selling their home is a daunting and stressful business. Having the help of a good estate agent with sales promotion and negotiations can be very reassuring. And although we may baulk at commissions of 1-2%, this pales in comparison to those charged in some other countries such as the USA.”
Comments (36)
HANG ON…
Have I just woken up to the irony of this one or what?
Mr Springett is essentially saying that, without the internet, Online Estate Agents have no business. Yes?
Okay – question to Mr Springett. Without the internet, where and how would YOUR business exist, Sir?
You're not being just a teensy weensy tad parasitic by any chance, are you?
I'd hate to think that this was a prime facie case of pot calling kettle black @r$e…
Classic, Peebee at his best! Anyway never mind all that. If bothe sites were live and having judged the AM 90 minute live, face to face presentation against my 2 side A4. pitch where I can't see your subtle body language or nods (objections and buy-ins) which one would you sign up to?
That was the point of that long post after all. Pitching to Peebee!
Robert – I have almost nailed my colours to the wall on another thread in that respect – allow me to copy&paste:
"…As a NON-Agent, I frequently posted questions of why NAEA Members didn't support their own, free, portal. But then, as a Member, I wondered why most Members didn't support the Association they were PAYING FOR. Some things never change…
But am I alone in thinking I see a new 'Association' forming here?
No qualifications required; just a Gold Membership of a business (its disciples can call it what they want, a business is what it is…) which by its own admission aims to disrupt the entire process that the public have become accustomed to.
You 'pitched' me earlier in the week, Robert. So far I haven't commented and for that I apologise.
Prior to that, I heard the AM offering; watched the PowerPoint Presentation in glorious, four-foot technicolour that accompanied it.
I read the deluge of what I strongly suspect is orchestrated pro-AM spin that is drowning EYE (and for me, THAT is the most disappointing part of this entire malarkey).
I, personally, feel that YOUR 'pitch' sits far more comfortable with me, Robert.
We still have a lot of ground to cover on your offering – this is in my opinion neither the time nor place to raise that – but then I am under no 'threat' from you to act NOW; no deadlines; no pressure.
You are simply offering me a service.
You don't know whether I'm an influencer within my company structure or a decision-maker – if it helps, last week I made the decision to go Dowe Egberts rather than Nescafe – s0d the expense… 😉
But – if I HAD to make a choice – based on the evidence in front of me…
I'd NOT be going down the AM route.
…and I will be exerting my influence in that respect."
That is good enough for now Peebee, thank you.
The 'reply' system obviously has its limitations! It is not a criticism but Ros and Nick ought to consider a software change, this one is going to limit the growth of PIE.
Right then Paul, you are not losing this sparring partner but I have now got work to do, not that the 4680 unpaid hours spent on EAT, LAT and PIE wasn't work everything I have posted has had a purpose; getting the industry to recognise the value of not only its data but more importantly itself.
You picked up a point from my Linkedin profile that I said Property is a people business not a portal business. Instead of me trying to explain what I mean by that, in a thread that is already confusing enough and about to drop into the abyss why not ask see if Ros will allow Peebee Paxman to interview Robert May and run it as a story? It is fairly obvious people are tying to suss me out by surreptitious viewings of my Linked in profile, I have nothing to hide and a lot to offer why not just ask?
Hi Robert
Before you disappear, I would relish the opportunity of giving you a 'PeeBeeing' (Ooh-err, Matron…). Maybe even invite questions from other posters – many have expressed their own thoughts so far but I'm sure would like to attempt to satisfy curiosities.
Maybe we should meet. Having heard the AM spiel, I'd like to hear yours.
(You'll know me instantly – I'll be the one in the mask, of course… 😉 )
Local Property Index like 'real' Estate Agents will only get paid by results akin to no sale no fee.
We have not asked Estate Agents to pay for the development of the site although the opportunity to invest is open to anyone who chooses so to do. When smart city analysts look to offer investment advice they seem to forget that each investor is interested in the return on their investment rather than what the company as a whole is worth. To that end an investment in a start-up although more risky than an established company is normally expected to give a 10 fold return to investors after 3 years. Normally if a venture capital firm has invested then there is a good chance they are happy with the team and the offering; a good indication of form to smaller investors. Investment in an established company will normal settle down to 10-15% but investors will consider whether the established company has factors which will disrupt yield patterns. Investors don't normally invest to cover fixed running costs in a company with no apparent end game or exit strategy.
It is an established fact that interest rates are likely to rise, according to Radio 4 playing in the background sooner rather than later is ever more likely.
The London market according to those closest to it has reached its peak and reports are suggesting a quarter of properties are now facing price reductions in the London area.
Traditionally for the past 30 years I can remember the market does well in the Autumn and then virtually stops for Christmas recovering once the Daffodils appear in March, next year is Election year and as experience tells me the market stagnates till after the election. Both these factors suggest a portal launched in January could face a quiet time of things before any marketing has any meaningful effect. The upshot of those factors might mean the market is cruelly against AM by next January.
Local property Index value what agents have paid to create I posted an estimated £544,000,000 in 16 years to establish an advertising media that is widely known to the public. With the complex acquisition path of Zoopla via Think, Findaproperty and Primelocation et all, it is difficult to assess the cost to agents of buying Zoopla presence but again it is not a small amount of money. Although the disturbance sell is that the costs are running away, the freedom of portal choice provides a safety valve on runaway fees. Breaking the Duopoly is, in my opinion, unnecessary and unwise. Agent Mutual have already established the mechanism to control price rises. The whole industry benefits from that so long as there are two portals to play off against each other.
Local Property Index will not have an online valuation tool which allows the public to assess the value of a property; anyone who has studied property valuation will know that the comparables method of valuation is fine for ball park estimation but no algorithm is capable of correctly, with any degree of claimed confidence, producing anything reliable for valuation purposes. Local Property Index is aimed at driving valuation enquiries to valuation professionals. Not only does this prevent Vendor expectation, It prevents some worse practices at play in the industry; that of unqualified intermediaries looking on the internet for an assessment of value which is invariably the same source used by the VIY vendor, with the advice on value/ valuation process reduced to schmoozing the vendor and whacking on a wad to secure the instruction.
Our management team is led by Gary Smith, an industry leading executive with 30 years experience in the online media & technology sector including listing his previous business (Netstore plc) on the London Stock Exchange. Within three years Gary’s strategic marketing ability and high level negotiation skills took the business from start-up to become the one of the leading Cloud Computing businesses in Europe.
(Chief Technologist) Dr. Russell Collingham, has a degree of expertise in Artificial Intelligence, and heads up software development at LocalPropertyIndex. Russell gained his PhD in speech recognition from Durham University.
Director and founder of VoxDev Ltd (2004), a software consultancy and development company that works with major retail stores on the development and maintenance of their ecommerce software. Previous roles Chief Scientist for DQ Lab Ltd and before that Managing Director for Tisento Technologies Ltd (a spin-off from 3F Ltd) a developer of speech recognition software for Telecom applications; Founding Director of 3F Ltd. in 1997, a developer of speech and natural language understanding software.
I have joined LocalPropertyIndex as Head ofBusiness Development. I am a former FNAEA and in November have totted up 20 years supplying Technology solutions to Estate Agents and Property Managers. A series of national business awards including a Deloitte Fast 50 for company growth stand testament to my sharp and determined strategic thinking and thorough understanding this industry. As the Sales Director of CFP software Ltd, I achieved national new business sales of over £2 million per annum with clients such as Martin and Co and Belvoir as well as many of the country’s most respected RICS and ARLA firms. Subsequently, I have held strategic and operational roles at Jupix and A&N Media.
There you go Peebee, you have had chance to look back at my posts and have confirmed a consistency and dare I suggest a long and very strategic posting history that result in this single massive post of what I am up to. Hopefully you can see why I think my experience is a good fit with Gary and Russell and why I feel confident in joining what other have described as a battle. I really do want Agents Mutual and the existing members to see Local Property Index as an ally and that together we really can give Alex and Miles plus all their City sycophants something to think about.
Pee for some strange reason my post this morning in reply to you is out of sync. I posted a reply but it has hopped to the start of the reply chain not the end. I am sure your super slueth skill will sniff it out.
Arr… (you started it – but @ least you're not using the '@' symbol so I'm grateful at least for that… 😉 )
My 'super sleuth skill' actually needed you to point me in the right direction. I was a bit huffed that you'd apparently not responded, actually… now you're back on my Crimbo card list! 😉
Here's the thing – which you of course will know from my previous rantlets but most others will struggle to comprehend – I, like you, am NOT anti-AM. I have said this time and time again. What I AM, is concerned that it is not going to do what it says on the tin (not that the tin's label has been printed yet…), and will therefore defeat its entire object – and potentially allow the WRONG parties to capitalise.
In your post above, I am happy to confirm that 'your' posts have been totally consistent in relation to the whole portal challenge issue. The only trouble is, you haven't always been 'you' – which has somewhat blurred the edges in finding that consistency. But now th@ the penny has dropped firmly and finally – and I now need to come to terms with the reality th@ yet another online 'bestie' has 'ceased to be'…
…but with his 'shuffling off 'is mortal coil' comes a new challenge. If you DO have skeletons lurking in the darkness of the closet, then they will be brought out into the light – if not by me, by someone else.
The difference is, I will NOT be looking for my own gain, or to protect my own product.
…but I DO want to put yours under the 'scope. A 'PeeBeeing' – isn't that what my recently departed mate called it?
As you said on another thread – en guarde, monsieur! 😉
@ Elbee – drop me a line – all these psneudo names 🙂
Im a supporter of good online agents as I equally support traditional (good) agents. The big factor is that good agency is not budget. Its the budget agents I object to who give a limp pitch of 'save £thousands on fees' when most budget agents would strucggle to negotiate their way out of a paper bag.
Im right behind good agency. As an INEA member your know that agents don't need to be on all main portals. If local agents collaborate then the 29 redundant zoopla leads can be passed on to the agent who advertises on RM who may have dropped Z and now saves £1,000's pa.
Good agents collaborating can achieve more. Alike AM I see could be a good thing if it helps 'good agents' collectively put pressure on the big portals year in/year on increasing fees.
I object strongly to being described as parasitic. The ONLY difference between my company (N.B. Trevor we are on INEA) is that others have an office and we are home based. The service is identical if not better, since we are able to respond to emails out of normal hours.
The fact is, and correct me if I am wrong, but is your house open to potential househunters 7 days a week?
I would think not….therefore, be honest with me……on vals does your pitch go something like this ; " All agents do the same nowdays….Rightmove and Zoopla sell property so why pay a higher fee to those with overheads?"
If this is along the lines of your pitch then you are a parasite that feeds of the major portals……you couldn't survive without them. Being a parasite does not make you a bad person and you shouldn't treat "parasite" as adirty word but it is the most accurate description of your business model.
Time for your medication wilko! My house is not for sale or let. Pathetic comments such as yours show how you need to take stock of yourself. You have NO idea what I say when talking to potential clients so go away. take your tablets and lie down in a dark room before the men in white coats knock on your door,
Hello again, sorry but by your response I think you seem to have mis understood or mis interpreted my comments.
I meant (by asking if your house was open 7 days aweek) wether you displayed properties in your window or welcomed customers off the the street with property enquiries…..like a high street office would.
I also asked if your business would survive without advertising on the major portals as you would have nowhere to advertise your properties without them (except the local papers which wouldn't give you much of a response). I asked you to be honest about how you approach a valuation against the high street alternatives and felt that surely you would mention that because you didn't have the same overheads as a high street agent you could pass those savings onto your customers. It seems like you took offense to being called a parasite, and, as I said no offence was meant. But surely you must admit that without the existence of Rightmove and Zoopla you wouldn't be able to operate?
"It seems like you took offense to being called a parasite, and, as I said no offence was meant. But surely you must admit that without the existence of Rightmove and Zoopla you wouldn't be able to operate?"
Erm… with the portals claiming that something like 95% of ALL property purchases start online, I would suggest that you are thereby tarring us ALL with the same brush, wilko…
Pee bee….no I was not tarring everyone with the same brush….if there were no such thing as portals then applicants and vendors would come to our high street offices to enquire about property matters. If the portals disappeared tommorow then the agent that works from their 3rd bedroom,garage or study hasn't got a viable agency business any more. I don't remember home based agents existing before the portals…do you?
Oh., wilko… let's talk 'back in the day'…
I don't remember Sales Particulars ever being more than two-side A4.
I remember sitting peeling double sided sticking tape and affixing ONE photo – smaller than the screen of my mobile – on the front of every set of said Sales Particulars. And if we'd ran out of photos – go to the Masters File and run it through the (mono) photocopier for a nice set.
We POSTED said Sales Particulars to waiting buyers. Every now and then, someone asked us to FAX them a copy. They were special.
We've moved on, matey. Every morning when you put the key in your door you must recognise and accept that, surely?
If the portals all went BANG! tomorrow I'd be as happy as a pig in you-know-what. But they aren't going to.
But IF they did, SOME of the 'onlines' would curl up and die. Others would adapt, as they already have, to the 'new' ways.
Equally, SOME of those with shiny offices wouldn't have a chuffing clue where their next buyer was going to come from…
Would an on-line agent operating nationally from one office and offering a full service with the only exception being not having a high street shop front be excluded from joining AM?
But as to parasites – YES fully agree. All the time RM and Z let them in, then they are biting the majority of the hands that feed them.
I can see more proper agents (who offer more than budget services as their USP) leaving the big two. With the chairman of RM selling £7m shares a couple of weeks back. Now major directors in Z putting shares up for their float, maybe the directors are thinking its a good time to bail as theyve allowed budget agents in which will annoy proper agents.
To set up just a budget agency is cheap, and often more than not the public are conned by the phrase 'We save sellers £housands' when in fact most budget agents take upfront fees with no promise of a sale.
The big concern is if budget agents can't achieve a decent fee – I wouldnt want them getting me a sale that could have been negotiated higher. Many budget agents buy a cheap website and off they go at little cost with little to lose.
Proper agents have to sell to pay bigger overheads that provide a service beyond just going on 1-2 main portals.
Little House missesthe fourth way to sell which is the oldest and biggest way being sub agency. Through to 2000 B2B between agents rallied many sales. Subbing was hijacked by RM and also now zoopla. Instead of sub comms – agents have been paying sub-scriptions to RM and Z for many, many years. Cut out the big 2 and B2B could be a very, very viable future way forward over just A N Other RM/Z clone.
Hi Trevor good point re fourth way to sell 🙂
Interesting that Mr Springett is quoted as saying that Agents Mutual is a 'bet' on the future of high street agents.
That would suggest to me that he has some doubts as to what the future holds!
I'm also left wondering from his comments about Rightmove becoming a 'monster' where he might have been today if Primelocation had been the site that caught the public imagination and not the 'Monster' Is there perhaps a hint of jealousy in that comment?
And 'the power of the portals has gone too far' – Perhaps we need to analyse that a little deeper. It is public usage of the internet that has created that power, not the portals themselves. The 'monster' rightmove has been the best at recognising and exploiting that public demand.
Perhaps Mr Springett does recognise the power of the internet, and that's why Agents Mutual is just a 'bet' on the future of High Street agents!
"Interesting that Mr Springett is quoted as saying that Agents Mutual is a 'bet' on the future of high street agents."……….
It appears that people are now starting to agree with Mr Springett, some 50 branches have just signed up to gold in 24 hours judging by the home page of the agents mutual website.
Online agents are in a risky business, when Rightmove and Zoopla sneeze they all will catch a cold. Evolving are three distinctive ways to buy and sell a home in the UK. The media has not caught onto this and simply band all online services as "online agents" In fact online agents are mere shop windows for the portals. They do not want to attract buyers and all need to conform to thier portal bosses rules and regulations.
We now have
1. For Sale By Owner (private house sales)
2. Online estate agents
3. Traditional estate agents.
All have thier merits all our in business which one is the most vulnerable?
We would argue that DIY style home selling services like those at http://www.TheLittleHouseCompany.com (online since 2000) are in it for the long. run. Attrcating buyers seeking alternative listings to the portals
Not anti agent or anti portal but pro consumer choice, is that the same for Agents mutual, Rightmove or Zoopla. Surely there is enough room for all three…
Traditional agents can charge what they want.
For sale by tender wont be banned (0 %)-although they should be on this site.
So really its against small upfront fees? Otherwise an online agent could just rent a shop for £500 a month a get listed.
Couldn't agree more. Without the portals online agents would simply not exist however, and playing Devils advocate, is there not the possibility to see the proliferation of online agents increase as a result of AM as the duopoly go after more business? In addition, could there not be a possibility that rightzoop could even enter the market themselves as online agents as a result…?
It will happen at some point anyway, at least when the time comes we will have a portal that's fighting the corner for traditional agency.
Paul H
Robert May seems to have a different take on this. He is suggesting (unless I have picked hi up wrong) that many Agents who to all intents and purposes fit the "traditional" mould are classed as "threats" and thereby AM will not allow their entry.
Care to comment?
I don't really seem to have any inside knowledge on this Peebee. I only know what is in the public domain which is that online agents are not allowed nor are fixed fee agents.
I agree that both should not be allowed on although I don't see them as a threat per se, I just feel that a portal should not allow on people who have to piggy back the core advertisers to exist and win business.
Thank you for the correction Pee, I don't want strife for something I haven't said. I am tryng to engage the audience without causing upset. That said I do feel there are things in the AM offering that should be explained. I am not anti AM; I have the interests of the same target customer base very much at heart and now you have outed me can demonstrate that I have been consistent in all my posts going back to September/ October 2012 on the other site. No doubt if I have skeletons you are the one to find them.
With the experience I have of the Industry I have concerns that Agents Mutual isn't as mutual as it needs to be for all Agents. The economies of scale pricing structure benefits, once again, the large and corporate agents. A 25% subscription differential is a big discrepancy especially to the partners and principals who effectively pay those subs from their own pocket as opposed to the corporate pot.
You asked "Who or what will be the 'winners' then?"
Please forgive the (necessary for the reply) advert but I think there is every chance it will be Local Property Index. i.e. me!
No one is working harder, smarter or longer than me to GIVE agents an alternative to the Duopoly. If we don't get it right Gary Smith will get nothing back for the time and Money put into the project so far. Like Agents we will get paid only if we do what we say we are going to do. If I can deliver and I do have a track record of delivery (CFP & JUPIX) then the winners will be Agents, vendors and applicants and anyone smart enough to buy shares in Local Property Index. There are only two blokes in this industry sector who have won a Deloitte Fast 50 for company growth, Justin Morris of Dezrez and I.
I can return the favour now Peebee or should I say Peter Butler? If that is you on the Linkedin mock Braintree agent thread it is an obvious schoolboy error; hiding in full view
I spotted the scam which others had missed and then you go and spot the same scam two hours later! Advantage me?
Forgive me Pee ( Peebee and are first name terms on the thread you lot have forgotten and where he and I are still handbagging like a couple of girls) but what I picked up was that along with DIY vendors and agents, Multi-listers like Team, INEA and Property Experts, the Franchises and the software houses have been listed as 'threats'.
I simply don't understand that thinking and think someone ought to explain what is meant by grouping a large sector of respectable traditional Agents in with FSBO, Rightmove and Zoopla as a considered threat. I will even go as far as to say I don't consider Rightmove or Zoopla a threat but merely as big competitors who don't care or work nearly as hard for their Agent clients as I do.
Hi Robert
It was your highlighting of the MLS & franchise agents' potential exclusion from AM I was referring to above.
Like you, I simply don't 'get' it.
More's to the point – I don't 'get' where this whole thing is going in relation to THE CONSUMER.
The whole point of portals is that they aggregate listings, saving the buyer the chuff on of looking here, there and everywhere, is it not?
In that respect, AM is in my opinion (and I'm not alone in that respect…) driving a wedge in the market and forcing consumers (aka our customers…) to potentially 'choose' their route of marketing based on WHERE the property is hosted – and I'm not sure that is necessarily a wise move.
I'm a great believer in the validity of the old sayings we grew up with our parents/grandparents reeling off to us ad nauseum – and "keep your friends close – but keep your enemies closer" springs to mind as particularly pertinent in this instance.
You draw attention to our 'other' discussion, Robert, which has gravitated to the subject of all things AM etc – now on Page 3 or thereabouts of the EYE Archive. There I list only the first five things that sprang to mind that in my opinion make the AM wheel shaky. The common thread in them is that in MY opinion, the customer is potentially going to be the loser… and may as a result vote with their feet.
Who or what will be the 'winners' then?
Off side Ref! I am hoping I didn't highlight their possible exclusion, I thought I said they were listed as threats. I will apologise if that is what I said but after another long day I have got to remember which thread it was and look through a whole list of ProAM posts to see what I said. Cheers Paul! I am too tired for this, I have been tweeting and posting on another forum to a Surveyor who can't workout why he keeps getting Section 21 notices.
What I said was
"I don't think you are quite right on that score Peebee, by my reckoning I can see about 1200 good solid firms that seem to come under the category of "threats" those being MLS and Franchises. I can understand AM not being too keen on the PIA, looky likey agents, but both the affinity groups and franchises have a lot of professional body members who are no more of a threat than any other competitor. I have to say that for both NAEA and ARLA to be supporting a project that is seeing some of its own members as a threat is somewhat perplexing"
I think we are even now mate. I once got you in sweat and you just returned the favour.
Erm… oops?
Rogue software issue I would argue – the software being the grey walnut between my ears, apparently…
In fairness to me, you have posted at least twice on various threads AMs apparent reference to MLS and Franchise Agents (among others) as "threats" – and my reading of your post set me wandering off on the 'exclusion' road – which I now realise may be the wrong trail.
I DID ask the question of Paul H, which I qualified with "unless I have picked hi up wrong" (complete with typo – Jeez am I having a bad day…) – which I now accept be the case.
For putting the wrong words in your mouth, so as to speak, I apologise.
But this still begs the question – what the chuff can a "threat", in the context AM are apparently referring, possibly be?
And, more important, what might a group such as AM do to effectively deal with such 'threats'?
Paul H clearly doesn't know – and he's their undisputed, unofficial, unpaid PR chappy here on EYE…
You see, Robert – sometimes, when my 'penny' drops, it lands straight in doo-doo.
And it's not often I nearly break out in a sweat. That's twice – and both times to the same man.
THIS time, though, his name is Robert May… 😉