Online estate agents may have permanently changed the way in which vendors think about how they pay to sell their home, but traditional agents can still hit back by halving their fee and charging it upfront.
That’s the claim from a specialist property analyst, who has been comparing the way in which the model of traditional estate agencies and that of their online counterparts differ.
Andrew Stanton, of Estate Agency Insights and Strategies, has produced a lengthy report that examines how estate agencies both modern and traditional make (or in some cases don’t make) their money.
The millions that online agents have spent on advertising thanks to generous financial backing — EYE revealed yesterday that the top ten online/hybrid agents have raised £250m between them — has resulted in a change in the way consumers think, Stanton claims.
He said: “The onliners and especially Purplebricks are definitely the new housing market disruptors but more in the sense that they have, in less than three years, disrupted the psyche of the vendors and rewritten the sacred principle upon which traditional agency is based: no sale, no fee.
“This is absolute brilliance, [generating] positive cash flow from each instruction and no pressure to sell, as you already have your fee.”
However, Stanton claims he can see a way for traditional agents to hit back by duplicating the model, and that the “real future” of estate agency lies with what he calls the “medium charging agent” (MCA).
He pointed to the fact that Purplebricks’s chairman Michael Bruce indicated last year that Purplebricks’ average selling price was £240,000.
Stanton said: “This is not much use to the tens of thousands of vendors with a property worth considerably more.
“So this means the traditional estate agent, who caters for property across the broad spectrum of property sale prices, still has the majority of the marketplace.”
He said so-called MCAs would profit from having a highly skilled sales team, would be able not just to rely on Zoopla and Rightmove to find a buyer, have a physical presence in a small office and a fee large enough to make a “reasonable profit”.
He added: “Just as the online agents have re-educated vendors almost overnight … could the traditional agents not hit back and duplicate this model? Get vendors to pay upfront?
“So, the traditional estate agent goes to the vendor and says ‘here is our menu of services that we are going to use, all the things the onliners have plus a real office and a dedicated sales team who form a 60% part of our overheads but who we think are essential in getting you sold’.”
Stanton proposes that instead of charging a typical of 1.5% on a £360,000 property plus VAT, which works out at £3,960 plus VAT on completion, the traditional agent should instead charge a fixed upfront fee of £1,980 + VAT — half its usual fee.
He predicted that the vendor would “bite the agent’s arm off”.
He added: “For this equitable solution to work, all it takes is for the non-online agents to disrupt that collective vendor psyche just a little bit more.
“Maybe a sustained television and multimedia advertising campaign, re-educating the vendor public to accept the fairness of a system where paying upfront for all means lower estate agency fees for all.”
But he doesn’t make any suggestions as to how such a campaign would be paid for.
Stanton contends that his idea stands up to the inevitable criticism that traditional agents would lose out by charging less.
He said: “If we use the original model that a new traditional agent’s break-even is £18,000 a month, and in an area where their average sale price is £360,000 and their average fee is 1.1% plus VAT, that is a fee of £3,960 plus VAT.
“So they need to exchange on four and a half properties a month to break even and to do this means they need to list nine, as they only sell half.
“On the ‘old’ no sale, no fee model, they list nine vendors’ properties at a fee of 1.1% + VAT, or £3,960 plus VAT (on a £360,000 sale price), so that is 9 x £3,960 = potentially £35,640 of fees. They fail to sell every second property they list, [as per the] national average, so they exchange and receive fees on four and a half sales, or £17,820.
“On the new MCA charging system, they list nine vendors’ properties at a fixed upfront fee of 0.55% plus VAT against a sale price of £360,000, so £1,980 + VAT per property. So, 9 x £1,980 = £17,820, an identical revenue flow, and it is instant revenue, rather than waiting 16-18 weeks, the average time that it takes for a property to complete.
“It hinges on traditional agents charging half their normal fee, which in some cases will be higher or lower than the £1,980 plus VAT quoted, depending on established fee levels in the area.”
“Also, it would mean vendors would be more realistic about asking prices as inflated prices mean higher fees, basing fees against initial asking prices.
“Lastly, if the vendor has put his or her hand in her pocket upfront, then they are not going to switch agents – which means that as the vendor is chained to the agent, and they are in it for the long haul together, then it is likely that this business partnership may be stronger and more motivational for both sides.”
Take a leaf out of Purplebricks business model? What’s that then? Take the worst possible photos known to man, stick it on Rightmove and then forget about it and offer zero buyer qualification and after sales service whilst charging half of your customers a £1000 pound for not selling their properties ?
Good idea, why don’t we all do that……?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Take the worst possible photos known to man, stick it on Rightmove and then forget about it and offer zero buyer qualification and after sales service whilst charging half of your customers a £1000 pound for not selling their properties ?
All of which is a sweeping generalisation and all inaccurate.
If as high street agents we cannot discuss the online/hybrid threat without coming out with ridiculous statements like this they will continue to grow their market share at our expense.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Nope Iam to honest to charge anyway. Rather go bust.
There is no way someone at pb doesn’t get boll##ked everyday by an unhappy vendor who got misled.
To be sure to be sure…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
All inaccurate? I think not. I can recall the last three PB properties I had dealings with, each was terribly photographed, AIP’s/financial position not checked with zero follow up during the sale. My last dealing the chain took five months to go through, not once did I receive a call from them.
EVERY time I have called PB for an update on one of their properties if we have the misfortune of being in a chain with them, I’ve been put on hold whilst the progressor (or what ever laughably over the top title they get) puts me on hold to call the solicitor.
Reactive not proactive.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree, I don’t know what the vendors are thinking of and where these people get their figures. We charge £995 inclusive of everything I mean everything but we are struggling to get instructions. I wanted to put in an offer for a property for myself which was being sold by Purple Bricks and didn’t even get to view. They sold it for £3000 less than I was willing to pay and the vendor just took it on the chin. I don’t understand, and don’t know what to do next. We have won awards for our customer service but this means nothing.
Now Rightmove are going to increase their charges by more than 10%
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
EGeorge79
If you want ideas to help for free, contact us at in@agentv.co.uk (no apologies for sharing ideas with fellow agents indicating they want help).
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
EGeorge79
When listings are very low we have have a specific strategy we use, to get them back up. You may know it already, but it may help!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Let me make this clear. The online portion of our market has 6% share, people have in the main only heard of one of these call centre agents – PB. The biggest estate agent group in the country tried to create an online pay and display option and failed miserably, for many reasons. As high street estate agents we offer more than these online estate agents do, much much more. They can compete with us on service or many other qualities.This isnt the 1950s, we already embraced modern technology (the internet, email etc) long before these pay upfront agents came about, they dont offer anything new apart from being slightly cheaper.
My advice, focus on what you do, be proud of what you can offer and stick to your guns.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Stick to your guns? Where do you get these fee figures from? We charge £995 for everything that includes everything, we don’t ask for anything up front, have a no sale no fee policy and bend over backwards for our clients. We constantly get excellent reviews but are struggling to get instructions. We cannot ‘stick to our guns’ when Rightmove are charging more than 10% more for the same service as from April. We are paying over £1038 to Rightmove each month, rent, basic office costs and wages? Don’t take me there. We are working to pay Rightmove and our rent. You tell me how we can possible ‘stick to our guns’ we have won awards for our customer service, have excellent reviews – what else can we do
I have first hand experience of Purple Bricks ‘customer service’ and to say it is lacking is an understatement.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
EGeorge79
We probably understand your position more than most……but we know quite a few things that can help…not least talking to someone that has been through similar issues. Happy to talk and help as much as we can….for free, ( in@agentv.co.uk )
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Time to put your fees up EGeorge79. Don’t keep doing what isn’t working and if your customer feedback is that good, SHOUT about it loud and clear in your market area. Don’t worry about what others do, you can’t control that, control what you can!
The Call centre agents timed things perfectly and the real game changer was milking a boom property market with tech and internet, backed by cheap fees. They (PB and others on a smaller scale) did what no one else has done before, a huge TV and Radio spend. Others have played at it..look at the most recent pathetic Savills TV ad. although I’m they will stop spending money on that as their agency has so many other income streams now, sales is only a small part.
Lets see how good the call centre boys and girls are after a prolonged tough market and I accept, you will need deep pockets to bank roll your business in the thinner times. It’s how agency has always been! It is survival of the fittest, not the noisiest!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi EGeorge, whilst i can certainly appreciate where you are coming from, i have never had to charge fees that are as low as your to get business. Your area may be tougher than my own for competition, but without more information i don’t see why you have to charge such low fees, or are struggling for instructions. As with the onliners, perhaps your low fees are the problem, maybe vendors think (wrongly perhaps) that you arent offering something that your competitors are.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“All” they have to do is convince sellers to pay £2,000 upfront with no garuntee of selling. There is a reason pay up front agents only have a comparatively low % of market share and it’s because paying up front stocks in the throat, and is a flawed model. Why do you think 60% of online only agents have already ditched it?? !!
I think it’s worth keeping in mind that the onliners (I actually do think they have s place in the market in a small %) have really only taken big leaps forward over the last 12 months. Certainly in terms of appearing in agents market share reports in any real significance. That means, the bulk of customers who now, and over the coming months who are about to have to pay a bill they did not expect due to their 9 or 10 month deferement option are about to flood the market with either instructions to traditional agents as they now have nothing to loose or with hundreds of negative customer reviews or experiences of paying thus shower for a job not done.
I suggest agents cut costs where needed, improve service at every turn and simply weather the time period until the pay up front model causes its own demise with an avalanche of poor word of mouth.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
, in less than three years, disrupted the psyche of the vendors and rewritten the sacred principle upon which traditional agency is based: no sale, no fee.
Err who remembers the vexatious on-line Autumn on EAT 2013 when we were all told blah blah blah? that was 5 years ago not 3. A lot of the promises and predictions made have failed to materialise
He pointed to the fact that Purplebricks’s chairman Michael Bruce indicated last year that Purplebricks’ average selling price was £240,000.
The average transaction price for the period was £280,000. I guess its ok to interpret this as Michael Bruce indicated Purplebrick’s average selling price was 15% less than the transaction average recorded at HM Land registry last year?
Disruptive agency hasn’t changed anything, about 4% of the selling public have taken advantage of investor subsidised loss leader selling fees. For some it has provided a saving over a traditional agency commission for others it has been an additional cost. Factoring in AVM induced price error many vendors have undersold their home negating any perceived saving.
The very vast majority of home selling public have stuck with the tried, tested and trusted system of selling their property, there really isn’t too much actual disruption. Neil’s report yesterday showed how investors are subsidizing the average disruptor, loss leader, listing fee by about £2400. How long is it going to take before they tire of doing that?
By coincidence I have been plotting individual company growth for a firm that said it would transact 10% of all sales by 2016, their listings have contracted 10% since September.
I think this is spin designed for sheep investors who fear missing out rather than a serious analysis of the industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>Neil’s report yesterday showed how investors are subsidizing the average disruptor, loss leader, listing fee by about £2400. How long is it going to take before they tire of doing that?
Interesting. I don’t remember reading anything from Neil which made that point.
I’d be interested in seeing your calculation in regard to how much PurpleBricks will need from investors to finance their UK operation. I was under the impression they were making a profit on UK operations so in regard to them (is it 80% of the online/hybrid market?) for the UK I think any figure would relate to “has subsidised” rather than “are subsidizing” would it not?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why Purplebricks (AGAAAAAIN)? read what you’ve pasted, it doesn’t mention Purplebricks. It doesn’t mention Purplebricks’ investors. Are you fixated or just trying to make everything about Purplebricks?
You’re actually starting to remind me of the bloke wearing loin cloth shouting Jehovah in the Life of Brian
Did you imagine at the end of your career you’d be reduced to debating passive intermediary internet listers on a forum with people you are angry at and envious of?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Did you imagine at the end of your career you’d be reduced to debating passive intermediary internet listers on a forum with people you are angry at and envious of?
I think envy and obsession is something which describes you Mr May, the ‘self proclaimed Academic’ and high brow debater, yet spends endless time on a worthless forum whinging and griping about a so called ‘Passive Intermediary Lister’.
We all know these articles are churned out daily for clicks and pointless agents forum bickering, but surely being a ‘self proclaimed highly intelligent academic‘ this would be beyond you?
Or is it your jealousy of the owners vast found wealth, whilst you still haven’t launched your wonder portal?
Or even your affiliate utility marketing is not quite going as well as hoped?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Funny! I’m not self proclaimed, that was the ludicrous excuse ASA used to prevent me from making a formal complaint against Purplebricks’ claims that all their staff were qualified, that they operate 24hrs a day, that a lister can be local to all the activity centres between Bude and Taunton and the having never sold a property in North Devon at the time she was not ‘expert’ in any of them.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
> it doesn’t mention Purplebricks
Do PurpleBricks not make up about 80% of the disruptor market?
Of course your comment relates to PurpleBricks. If it’s wrong in relation to them then it’s wrong in relation to the online/hybrid disruptors as a whole.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It does not mention Purplebricks so you will have to forgive me If I didn’t single them out for mention.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
On the subject of subsidy. Some figures for PurpleBricks using data from the September 2016 Hardman Report where 2017 figures are estimates (but actual results were very close so suitable for an approximation).
Year to end of April 2015 – 4330 instructions and a loss of £5.4M so a subsidy of approx £1250 per instruction.
Year to end of April 2016 – 19200 instructions and a loss of £10.4M so a subsidy of approx. £540 per instruction.
Year to end of April 2017 – 41000 instructions and a loss of £5.5M so a subsidy of approx. £135 per instruction.
2017 includes Australia losses of about £5M so not even £135 per instruction.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It’s like talking to drunk
THIS
ISN’T
ABOUT
PURPLEBRICKS
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It’s mostly about PurpleBricks given that the they are about 80% of the whole online/hybrid sector.
Your calculations are flawed.
>oh look it really does cost 1.2% to sell the average home.
You have included £50M raised for PurpleBricks’ launch in the USA in your total of £249M and assumed that the money raised by the online/hybrid agents has been spent when a significant amount remains on the balance sheets. In PurpleBricks’ case this was £64.4M at the end of October 2017.
You also project forwards as though money raised in the past needs to be raised again in the future which is clearly not the case if you look at PurpleBricks who are now in profit with the UK business.
>A real terms loss of about £2400 a time.
No, that’s completely wrong and misleading. You do your industry a diservice by misleading them with such pseudo-analysis.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Is there anyone on this earth who can explain to you how a report about a set of disruptor agents using numbers reasonably estimated for all of them IS NOT AN ANALYSIS OF PURPLEBRICKS?
I am not doing my industry a disservice, I’m giving them ammunition to fire back at some of the fictitious claims put out by disruptors.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>IS NOT AN ANALYSIS OF PURPLEBRICKS
I didn’t say it was an analysis of them. Surely it’s clear that I’m talking about the sector as a whole when I say “the money raised by the online/hybrid agents”.
You need to accept that PurpleBricks are a major part of the online/hybrid sector. £97M of the £259 has been raised by them and they represent the vast majority of all instructions over the last 4 years
>I’m giving them ammunition to fire back at some of the fictitious claims put out by disruptors.
So you’re suggesting making your own fictitious claims?
Your calculations are flawed. The online/hybrid industry may well have raised £259M but they haven’t spent it and £50M of that has been raised for USA expansion by PurpleBricks. How does that relate to the subsidy of UK instructions?
I think I’ve made my point even if you choose to ignore it. I won’t be commenting further on this thread.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What point is it you’re trying to make? It isn’t clear.
What do you mean they haven’t spent it? Of course they’ve spent it, If you look at how much money the individual firms have had in from investment and trading income and how much they have got left the numbers in brackets on their bottom lines says they’ve spent more than has come in.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This report suggests slicing “the total fee income cake” in a different way as the cake gets even smaller.
Irrespective of any merit there may or not be in this report, it does nothing to address core issues in the sector.
For example: The low to zero repeat rate on customers and the price of attracting new ones is prohibitive on the back of reducing fee incomes.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Can we stop referring to these bucket shop offerings as ‘online agents’? Surely we’re all ‘online’ these days?
How about another title?
Call center agents?
Listing agents?
Suggestions…..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘Call Centre Listers’
Does what it says on the can…..an agent does far more than create an advert listing the property…..so let’s keep ‘Agent’ out of the title.
In my opinion an Agent acts fully to the best of their ability, on behalf of the vendor, to sell the property for the highest price achieveable.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘Low [lower] service model agents……
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Over the last three years I have lost three or four instructions where vendors have clearly used my expertise to gauge ‘marketing price’ and have then gone on to instruct what they perceived as being the cheaper fee option (even though in my opinion they then sold for a lower final sale price…..if they sold at all).
I think one of the easiest ways to assess if people are considering this route, when talking about your fee, is simply to ask ‘Do you want to use our Full Service No Sale No Fee Model’, or are you also considering the ‘Pay Up Front Whether You Sell Or Not Reduced Service Model’.
First of all you may well be telling them something they were not aware of, that with the other route they will be charged whether their property sells or not! Secondly it opens up the whole conversation, if the vendors were seriously thinking about going this way but not going to reveal it. You can then discuss the differences between the two models.
If they have been brainwashed about the pay anyway model, you can then weigh up if you want to offer a comparable reduced service offering (maybe where the vendor sorts out their own viewings, negotiates their own sale price, and follows through after sale contact with the buyer).
But at least you will know what is going on and have a choice!
BSOS23PC
CMOCNRLTRL
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does this guy get paid for this stuff? If so, by who?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The current Purplebricks model looks like it will only work for its founders and early investors. It certainly looks like it’s the only company which will maintain the upfront fee model for much longer.
Clearly the tide is turning as smaller ‘onliners’ realise there isn’t the appetite in volume for the upfront model and begin to offer no sale, no fee.
The public are becoming more savvy to the downside of the 50/50 punt on the upfront model so there will be fewer and fewer takers for it, and far fewer again will come back or recommend to others. Add to this an increase in supply and a tightening market and the numbers will drop again. Not sustainable probably for PB, let alone any agency smaller in scale and reach.
Yet Andrew Stanton has come to the conclusion that, even with all this in mind, high street agents should not only adopt what seems to be a short-termist model doomed to failure, but adopt it at a higher cost to the customer.
Who is Andrew Stanton, what is his company called (I can’t find it) and what are his credentials…as this report strikes me as at best ‘behind the curve’ and at worst faintly ridiculous?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
all very interesting but…………
A: On line agents only selling 50% of what they take on means 1/2 of their business will not be a repeat, fingers burnt and all that.
B: of the 50% they do sell I suspect, based on comments we have all come across that 50% didn’t get the service they had expected after the sale was agreed, so 1/2 of their business will not be a repeat.
This leaves a potential maximum of 25% repeat business for the on line.
With a tally like that the diminishing curve of a smaller market share year on year for them will be inside the next 5 years.
I’m not sure the disrupted vendors psych is that big a disruption, after all as any agent will tell you generating business is largely down to word of mouth and trustpilot isn’t actual word of mouth, just another website.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
According to Zoopla research (20 Sept 2017) the average UK home owner moves once every 23 years, and incidentally every 33 years in Wales.
The real issue here is not one of repeat business, from a sales cycle of 23 years, but recommendations from recent home sellers’ however they may have chosen to pay for the service; up front or post completion.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
‘the average UK home owner moves once every 23 years’ – this stat is almost beside the point. It would be relevant if every homeowner moved every 23 years, but they don’t…it’s an average.
There are no doubt many that move less frequently than that, and conversely there are many that move more frequently than that.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yeah but, no but, as Rivero and I said people do move (ignoring the average) and word of mouth is the point, bad service begets bad reputation begets a diminishing return.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Apart from having pretty much cloned his business name from that run by a certain Mr Rawlings, and managed to have a couple of sound bites printed here and down the other pub, Mr Stanton appears to bask in a vacuum of anonymity.
Makes you wonder where and how any of the businesses he professes to assist actually managed to find him!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I didn’t have any problems finding a Mr. Stanton!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ahhhhh…
…but is it the Mr Stanton?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hmmm…
…certainly seems to be – based upon the evidence posted elsewhere that the subject ‘Mr Stanton’ has worked for Sequence!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
But… but…
…but – surely, the man who is standing front and centre (albeit 99.99999% behind an absurd cloak of total anonymity considering he’s running a consultancy “which assists agencies grow their business“) wouldn’t be the man whose apparently sole mention on the t’interweb would be Trustpilot review giving a pretty damning account of his skills as an Manager or as an Estate Agent?
Would it?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Stanton proposes that instead of charging a typical of 1.5% on a £360,000 property plus VAT, which works out at £3,960 plus VAT on completion”
Erm… NO IT DOESN’T
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This whole report must be fake news, surely?
Or no news.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There will always be demand for a good agent who creates the deal and adds value but half these comments that criticise the fixed-fee model are pointless and often missing the point, attempting to focus on one particular negative aspect whilst ignoring the issues within the standard commission based model. The fixed-fee model is part of a long overdue modernisation of the industry and charging practices, and despite the negative comments the model is here to stay.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’m not sure many criticise fixed fees…rather the upfront fee model and the fact that vendors have to pay the agents whether or not they are successful – a pretty fundamental issue in my opinion.
…’often missing the point’ – what is the point being missed exactly? The fact that roughly 50% of people will potentially save some money…or something else? I ask in case I am one of those missing the point.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Comments here are latching on to this figure that only 50% of vendors save, when this figure is highly debatable as is in fact just a counter to PB claim that the figure is closer to 80%. The main point that i think commenter are missing is the success of upfront and fixed fee pricing as it shows that for most online agent customers their view is that the marketing and selling of a property is a service that should have a fixed price, and are clearly prepared to pay an upfront fixed-fee. As proved by the strong growth in client acquisition and market share the model is here to stay. Whether its due to my experience in property or not, I will be using an online agent to sell my home in future.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“I will be using an online agent to sell my home in future”
Fair enough, your prerogative of course. Except more accurately you will be ‘paying’ an online agent to ‘try’ to sell your home in future.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yawn, I see the Russian bots have escaped their Facebook enclosure and found their way here
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
@rivero fair enough but i definitely view it more as selling my home myself and using the online agent aspect for the marketing the rest i can do myself.
@htsnom79 you’re an idiot.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Too many people are giving “on-liners only” the limelight they do not deserve. Their presence is still pitiful with less than 10% of the market combined between them. It is nothing more than media propaganda! PB propaganda is based on lumping national figures together. Review them locally, they are way behind you …. way, way behind and that is your market place. Just keep doing what you do best and the public will remain loyal … they are not fooled. It is only those that think that a cheap fee is right for them and they are a very small minority. If you loose business to “cheap and little service” take a hard look in the mirror of what you did to loose that instruction. The on-liners have given you a dossier of failings for you to support your business, use it. The customer can see it, certainly confirm it if prodded in the right direction. If you are still concerned, then board knock and ask the customer why they choose you know who and how are things going. You may be surprised (or not) by the response and don’t forget plan how to go about it. On-liners are wearing a straight jacket, with no room for movement from how they can perform.
Without the media propaganda these disruptors, (not service providers) are lame ducks. The public are starting to see through the spin and spin is all they have offered. Social media is hammering them to death. They are not hybrids. You cannot compete with the cost of the multi million pound media propaganda and you don’t need to. Plan and Educate the customer every time you get chance of why you are so much better … because you are. Estate agency is a service industry, you don’t get service paying peanuts and doing little and less …. wake up people.
I posted this yesterday …
On-liners came out of the box marketed as a new breed of race horse, the bookies ranked them to be an odds on favourite while they were still yearlings and no track performance! The reality, they are all old nags dressed up to look like a new breed, running the same mile with a handicap of limited performance that they have tried to hide. The promoters are happy taking the money while the syndicates get nothing in return and the jockey keeps flogging away to just reach the finish line. Meanwhile in the grand stand, the punters blindly hoping their horse will one day come in, keep gambling on their horse, often to fall at the first fence. ALL the old nags have come last and their only strategy is to try and nobble the other runners with “we can win on the cheap” costing nearly £250m.
Dress it up as much as they like, the new breed are a mammoth fail. Shame they don’t try and run with their own money and just like the mammoth …. will become extinct, after they have trampled everyone!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I bet if I asked a client for a cheque for £1980 plus vat, pre sale, they wouldn’t bite my arm off…..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The future of estate agency is certainly not at medium fee level. That is the area where there is a race to the bottom and where agents are going out of business.
Traditional agents need to race to the top, demonstrate great value and help customers move, not just sell, and they will be handsomely paid.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Good comment. There will always be demand for a good traditional agent who rightly deserves a % of the transaction but those on here that think this online model will suddenly disappear are just wrong. Its a new model that will take time to find its feet but the agents who are worried about losing their jobs or going out of business have to accept that these online agencies are backed by significant investors who will not allow them to fail, e.g. easy property. All you guys that think the traditional model will prevail over the online model need to read The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts by Richard Susskind.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Or consider that something comes along and hands power back to those with genuine knowledge, experience and reputation. Something that comes along, ignores the rules and disrupts the disruptors by putting this industry firmly and professionally back as it should be.
Listing negotiators working their gig from home will be part of the evolution of the industry but it won’t be working for any of the existing wannabees. There is a massive,massive financial flaw in the existing models that the Gary Smith V Pimlico case is likely to reinforce. Once that supreme court decision is delivered it’s likely the wheels will begin to wobble off the disruptor model as we currently know it. If they don’t it will be down to how deep investors are willing to dig to support the liabilities that are being created right now
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register