It’s possible that I’ve written more about Zillow.com than any other real estate weblogger. More on why Automated Valuation Methods necessarily stink. More on why the National Community Reinvestment Coalition’s shake-down of Zillow.com stinks even worse. More on Zillow.com’s new features.
If I haven’t written more than anyone else, I’ve certainly written plenty. Want proof?
If you Google on Zillow.com, you have to drill all the way down to the third and fourth entries to find my posts. Most days, I beat their own frolickin’ weblog.
But let’s be conservative and simply say that, as a weblogging Realtor based in Phoenix, AZ, I’ve written quite a bit about Zillow.com. So when Fortune magazine writes a cover story about Zillow.com, who don’t they talk to?
They quoted a real estate weblogger — one I’ve never seen before — whose site has been dormant since last October.
And they talked to a Phoenix-based Realtor, Brett Barry, A Realty Executives agent working out of Scottsdale. (Brett emailed me about this article when he was interviewed a while ago.)
But apparently Fortune Senior Editor Jeffrey M. O’Brien didn’t run a simple Google search.
What he did do — almost but not quite — is talk a sweet pregnant lady into turning on her buyer’s agent and disintermediating the bee-hotch. I told David Gibbons last week that the Make Me Move feature puts Zillow.com in the business of brokerage, even thought they’re not taking commissions for it. I wrote about this in December, but, even so, he was taken aback. But in the article, O’Brien is actively marketing his home as a Make Me Move FSBO transaction.
It’s a fun article, but there’s really nothing new in it. It’s impressive, I suppose, that Zillow.com can make the cover of Fortune without even a hint of profitability on its horizons. And it’s certainly a matter of interest to me that I could wrestle my way to third and fourth position on the search for Zillow.com — a search for which BloodhoundBlog gets over a hundred unique hits a day — but not attract the attention of Fortune magazine. Who says real estate is going hi-tech…?
Technorati Tags: arizona, arizona real estate, blogging, disintermediation, phoenix, phoenix real estate, real estate, real estate marketing
Brian Brady says:
This is just another example of how the traditional media is missing the boat. Nothing against Mr. Barry but there are plenty of articles in RE.net. The Fortune columnist either (a) chose to ignore them or (b) was too lazy to search
Isn’t it ironic that the mainstream media writes about an online search and ignores the most simple of online search tools (Google)?
Take solace in the fact that none of your readers read Fortune print magazine.
February 7, 2007 — 6:27 pm
jf.sellsius says:
Amazing. Between BHB and Sellsius, there are enough Zillow posts to write a consumer handbook. Maybe Z cut a deal and said we’ll talk to you as long as you don’t talk to those guys 🙂
February 7, 2007 — 7:08 pm
Kris Berg says:
No surprise, of course. Brian – I vote for (a) based on my experience in San Diego. I don’t believe that traditional print journalists want to acknowledge the online population. I will remind you that when I suggested our local senior real estate columnist for the Union Tribune write about Zillow, his response was “no news here”. Shut my eyes, plug my ears, it will all go away.
Greg – Fix that, would you?! 🙂
February 7, 2007 — 7:12 pm
Marty Van Diest says:
Maybe they didn’t want to acknowledge you. Just like a homes seller might not mention the identical house on the next block over price less than his.
Print media knows, they just don’t acknowledge. It is active ignorance.
February 7, 2007 — 8:17 pm
Richard Riccelli says:
Please…
He Googled you. He found you. He read you. But the story wasn’t about Zillow, it was about the writer. So common, it’s expected.
I’m thinking the Wall Street Journal or the Economist or the Financial Times won’t all make the same mistake when they do their stories … probably a few weeks prior to Zillow’s IPO or some other defining real estate news. Certainly the brokers and analysts won’t.
So stay prepared. And set your “make-me-talk” price. After all, you’ve already made them dance. Now sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
February 7, 2007 — 9:07 pm
Drew Nichols says:
I’ll do my part link-wise to keep your third and fourth place links where they are.
February 7, 2007 — 9:35 pm
Flack Insider says:
Zillow has a great PR team both inhouse and external. They spend more effort on it than probably the rest of the online real estate companies combined. They managed the article, providing access to Barton and Frink, who are rock stars to the general business press and made sure that there were no significant detractors cited in the story. You also have to be cognizant that Zillow’s VC backers are prominent sources of interviews and articles so Fortune would never want to piss off a portfolio company for fear of long term retribution.
February 7, 2007 — 10:29 pm
Media Insider says:
Listen to Flack, first of all.
Also – and I mean this sincerely – consider why you write here. Is it so that senior editors at Fortune, Money, Dow Jones, and the like pay you homage?
If so, keep writing posts like the one above, although there is little guarantee you’ll be on the short list of SMEs selected for use in a story. No editor, or writer especially, cares about appeasing a wordy blogger who has exactly ZERO impact on their publication’s readership, or more importantly, has no leverage (positive or negative) over ad revenue.
How many realtors have an opinion on Zillow? How many of those opinions mirror your own, even if they don’t have a blog and aren’t as quick with the pen? I’d wager a bet that your views on Zillow aren’t as unique as you think they are — lest you actually be interviewed. High Google ratings mean that 1.9 million worried realtors are perhaps flocking to your blog for a little validation, and that shouldn’t be confused with true insight.
When a major media outlet writes a story about how bloggers see Zillow, or probably a sidebar on it as part of another cover, thank your lucky stars if you’re chosen to be the realtor-blogger they choose to talk to.
But that’s only if your goal in writing online is to gain mentions in news articles. Is that really your goal?
Or is it to become a hub for sharing and expounding on online marketing practices for realtors? If that’s the case, then I’d suggest to you that you shouldn’t give a flying saucer over what an editor at Fortune thinks, or whether they ever acknowledge your existence.
Know your audience, and don’t confuse your target readers with the needs of your own ego. Simple as that.
February 7, 2007 — 11:05 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Listen to Flack, first of all.
Relax. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Fortune magazine. I was making a joke.
In general, I think people are overthinking this. The examples cited in hack-lit are so much wax fruit, selected on the fly as ornaments, not exemplars. I’ve known since I got Brett’s email how he was selected: He is quoted regularly in the Arizona Republic, and the writer ran a Lexis/Nexis search for a piece of wax fruit (sorry, Brett!). I hate everything about smug, pomo, phone-it-in writing. Lucky me, I won’t have to hate it much longer.
February 7, 2007 — 11:24 pm
Kevin Boer says:
Google’s search algorithm seems to take geography into account. In Phoenix, Bloodhound may be #2 for the search “Zillow.” Here in the Bay Area, you’re #4 (the order is Zillow, Zillow blog, ysearchblog, then bloodhound.)
In New York, or wherever the fortune editor is sitting, perhaps you’re only #12 or something like that, and he didn’t bother to go to page 2 of the search results.
Could that be the explanation for them not calling you?
Nah, too much of a stretch. 🙂 I think the reasons given above are far more likely.
February 8, 2007 — 11:48 pm
Brett Barry says:
I have no idea why he called me initially.
Jeff O’Brian lives in SF, and he told me point blank by email message back in December that the way he found me was by “googling” me. I do believe he telephone interviewed a number of Realtors (including me) and decided after speaking with me to come out and spend a day. I didn’t appreciate his cheap shots at me (the perma-tan and bleached white teeth, Canary Porsche comments, etc), and questioning Realtors commisions in general.
The writers biggest flaw to me, however, was the statement that “Zillow has Zestimates for 99 percent of all Phoenix homes and claims that 72 percent are accurate to within 10 percent.” Oy Vey, mission control we have a problem.
The writer never analyzes the fact that being off by 10% on a $700,000 home would be close to a 70K screwup. In the Phoenix market, being off by 10% is totally unacceptable. Zillow’s Zestimates need to approach the 2-3% rate of accuracy IMO before anyone will take them seriously. I know I don’t.
Also, Jeff O’Brian’s example of getting a call on his own historic $1,000,000 home in SF (must be nice for a writer to own that kind of house) doesn’t compare to average Joe Phoenician who owns a $300,000 production stucco & chicken wire home!
The writer (as most Real Estate writers do) got caught up in that old fairy tale that a Realtors only job is to market homes for sale to obtain a contract. In reality, most of our hard work & sweat comes after the ink is dry on the contract… when appraisals, ispections, seller/buyer psychology, and numerous lender issues all come into play. Let Zillow figure those little goodies out for zero commission – it ain’t gonna happen.
I have no issue with Zillow personally, but Zillow.com is no Expedia.com. I highly doubt that Zillow will be changing the paradigm of the entire business. The historic sales data & mapping is interesting and thats about it.
Cool tool – not the holy grail.
February 10, 2007 — 12:22 am
Greg Swann says:
> Cool tool – not the holy grail.
Very well put from start to finish. Imagine if O’Brian had gone to people with different points of view and had them write as you have written, a colloquium of half a dozen short essays. That would have been informative.
February 10, 2007 — 5:59 am