I love the team concept as it’s executed corrected by some in the business. However, most of them, IMHO, and through first hand observation, produce pre-tax income less for most team leaders than most think. Going even further, I’d say those workin’ by themselves or partnered, using only assistants, not commissioned agents, will almost always bank more coin than team leaders.
The model I’ve used since late 1996 is so old it was in place in ancient Rome. It starts at the top with The Guy who then has as many assistants as needed, doing all the work that supports rather than generates company earnings. I’d never go as far as to say it beats the Team approach every time out, but there are some distinct advantages to my favored MO when compared tit or tat with the typical team.
My MO, as stated up top, is simple. I hire assistants as business volume dictates. The more the business, the more assistants. When I was able to work in my local market, San Diego, there were long stretches when I had three full timers — none of whom were paid salaries or by the hour. All were paid based on my production. See what I mean? Nothing new or ‘cutting edge’.
The Boss (Don’t ask who that is — must I explain marriage?) for years has resisted my somewhat awkward attempts to point her in this direction for one of her companies. It’s a retail bridal gown ‘n stuff kinda store. She’s a well known designer who’s also sold to other stores nationwide via her wholesale operation — she’s been doin’ this for over 20 years. Her store (Yes Stevie, there is a God) shares a wall with Hooters in the Mission Valley area of San Diego. It’s a measly 500 square feet.
Her MO was to hire salesladies to deal with customers. It was a constant pain in the ass, as most of ’em couldn’t manage a one-man picnic if given a plan and a how-to video. I finally resorted to begging and pleading. Then one night not long ago she suddenly announced she was firing everyone, hiring a friend’s daughter to answer the phone etc., and becoming an appointment only store.
I was elated.
I won’t bore you with the details, but sales, which were already better than most on a per square foot basis, are now through the roof. She has so much business she turns down far more bridezillas than she used to. In fact, the other day a couple gals actually thanked her profusely for allowing them in the store without an appointment. Before long I’m confident she’ll need a second assistant to keep things organized, and deal with brides/bride’s maids/bride’s moms who’re being taken care of by the army of alteration ladies she employs.
This new MO was put in place the first of this month. She’s already made just under 80% of last quarter’s production. Her batting average has literally skyrocketed.
But, you quickly ask, “Why is that?”
Don’t over think it. The answer is so simple, even a Realtor can do it. π (Hat tip — Russell Shaw) She’s the reason. Brides wanna work with The Gal. The store is now virtually printing money, and it was doin’ damn well before. But then, only about half the brides were able to work directly with her. The other half were shunted off to gals who could study what ‘Nicole’ does for a year and still not know everything she’s forgotten.
The same goes with real estate.
Back in 2002ish I was operating on all 12 cylinders, and had three very cool assistants who were flat awesome. One of them was an agent I was mentoring, but who wasn’t allowed to have their own clients. After a few months he was not only doin’ typical right-hand man stuff for me, but was puttin’ out 80% of the fires that come up from time to time in transactions. I only had to put out the potential forest fires, he did the rest. Imagine how much more time that gave me to do what made the big bucks.
There were literally a few times when, unavoidably, I had two conference rooms goin’ at once. But with three killer assistants doin’ most of the heavy lifting, I was able to shuttle back and forth, getting things done, adding the final touches. The clients very much appreciated how busy we were, and that The Guy was still the one takin’ care of them.
It’s at this point team leaders are dyin’ to interrupt in order to point out that their buyer-agents do extra deals from which he gains 40-60% of the pay. They’re right, no argument. Also, let’s acknowledge the difference between a house agent and an investment property guy. Whereas a client searchin’ for a home in which to live just wants a home, the investor, or even more important, a wannabe investor, doesn’t wanna be ‘shuffled off to Buffalo’ to some agent they’ve never heard of. “Hey, I thought I was gonna be workin’ with The Guy.”
I get it that home buyers are lookin’ for homes, not agents. But what about sellers? You’ve convinced them of your professional superiority, which is why they contacted you in the first place. Unless you’re Russell Shaw, whose team includes one, sometimes two listing specialists, sellers could easily become disenchanted cuz The Guy ‘assigned them’ to an underling. Russ, and those very few like him, are the exceptions proving the rule, in my opinion. Unlike most teams, they can point to a track record of sold listings that ends any, or at least most discussions.
Can you point to a few thousand sold listings? To a couple hundred in the last several months? Didn’t think so — which brings me back to the point — they wanna sell their property, and they want The Guy handling it — Period.
By ensuring you always have support staff doing 95% of what doesn’t generate income, you’re spending most of your time doing, well, what generates income. Duh.
All those follow-ups, all the day-to-day minutia you’re now takin’ care of, even with a team, simply goes away. I’ll admit this works best for a listing oriented agent. Frankly, we all know in our hearts a high school sophomore can be trained to be a buyer-agent in 3-6 weeks. It’s the listing agents who produce inventory, who add the real value as perceived by the public, not buyer-agents. Listing agents don’t need their counterparts to make a living — but try being a buyer-agent without listings. Can we please, Dear Lord in Heaven, not argue this Captain Obvious point?
So how’s my time spent?
The vast majority of the time, I’m doing one of the following.
1. Having an initial conversation with someone interested in what I have to offer — from whatever source they originated.
2. Talkin’ to an owner who needs to sell or exchange.
3. Causing a contract to be created for the purchase of property. And no, I don’t even do that myself.
4. List property for sale/exchange — something I’m just now doing again. Happy freakin’ days!
5. Create and discuss investment plans with new clients.
6. Speak to groups of house agents’ clients who are — or wanna be — investors, generating listings for the house agents — new investment clients for me.
7. Write posts for my blog and others’.
Finally, but not least important by any stretch, is the difference in gross and net income between the two models. For the most part, I’m doin’ as many, if not more sides than most smallish teams. Even when they out produce me in gross volume, my net almost always dwarfs theirs. My expenses don’t include paying commissioned agents. Most team leaders would gladly trade annual pre-tax income with those workin’ my model. They need more office space, more support staff, and all the rest. Me? Our office totals less than 500 square feet including the conference room. My marketing budget is surely about the same as a small team’s — but I simply don’t have many of their expenses to pay.
If a team leader’s group produces $12,000,000 in sides at 3%, they gross $360,000. Take out his marketing costs, office overhead, and buyer-agent commissions, and what’s left for him — maybe $200,000 or so?
The guy with the assistant(s) does the same volume, pays the same for marketing, but pays commissions to nobody. He’s gonna keep at least $300,000 pre-tax. Even if the team ‘out produces’ him, you’d still rather have his bank account at the end of the day. ‘Course at awards time the team leader gets to brag about his volume — a hollow victory if ever there was one.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Benjamin Ficker says:
This is exactly what I am trying to accomplish with my business. We’ve got shop set up in Phoenix where we are carrying about 25-30 listings at any given time. We are also in the process of setting up shop in Portland OR (MUCH higher sales price). There are only two of us right now; my business partner takes the listings, I handle the bank end of the short sales. We are still referring our buyer leads out to another agent in our office since we both prefer listings. Our idea is to get an assistant in Portland to help us with the day to day paperwork stuff for both areas and have the two of us at the top take the listings/negotiate with banks.
July 16, 2010 — 1:30 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Benjamin — You guys must be excited big time. I’m happy for ya. Sounds like you guys will have a very busy assistant almost from the get-go. Congrats and good luck.
July 16, 2010 — 2:44 pm
Russell Shaw says:
>>>Can we please, Dear Lord in Heaven, not argue this Captain Obvious point?
Oh! I am laughing so hard I thought I would cry!
July 16, 2010 — 5:47 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Gotcha π
July 16, 2010 — 6:01 pm
Greg Swann says:
Wicked cool. This is the way I want to work. We can make it rain, but I want people who will learn to service our clients our way.
Can you expand on how you’re compensating the assistants? Email is okay.
July 16, 2010 — 6:53 pm
Dan Connolly says:
“Listing agents donβt need their counterparts to make a living β but try being a buyer-agent without listings. Can we please, Dear Lord in Heaven, not argue this Captain Obvious point? ”
Sorry Jeff, even though you said please, I can’t resist pointing out that a well ranked website with a good IDX can routinely generate 5-20 calls a day from buyers who want to see specific properties…..(really Captain O, the devil made me say it)
July 16, 2010 — 9:02 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Dan — I don’t dispute that, never have, and never will. My point was that even if you had an order of magnitude more leads than even what your site is generating now, it’d be a moot point without listing agents pumpin’ out product for you to sell.
July 16, 2010 — 9:14 pm
Cheryl Johnson says:
What I want (speaking as a broker, here) is for each and every agent in the office to be The Guy or The Gal. I want clients begging to speak to one of the agents instead of me or Bob. Still working on how to make that happen. π
July 17, 2010 — 3:58 am
Jim Klein says:
Good luck with that, Cheryl. I’m pretty sure that’s what every small business owner wants! I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it really happen, in any context. There are exceptions, I’m sure, like when the employee moves on and then out-competes the owner!
I can give you this small tip though. It took me 15 years to figure out that it /can’t/ be done with incentives, financial or otherwise. The simple fact is that non-owners don’t think or act like owners, and I doubt this will ever change. The best one can hope for, I think, is a non-owner who’s just a great salesperson and so is driven by that motivation. Those exist, which is why they’re the most valuable asset in business.
Personally, I think Jeff’s approach makes loads of sense. When everything’s stripped away, it’s a simple optimization of talent, and hence value, for everyone concerned.
July 17, 2010 — 6:22 am
Jeff Brown says:
Greg — Each assistant made $350 per transaction. My first assistant and I soon learned that exchanges had to be divided by their component transactions. Duh. Also, the pay for assistants was adjusted by me, regardless of the agreement, based upon the specific time/intensity demands of the deal. There were times when I paid my ‘mentee’ well over $350 ($1,500 once) if the deal turned him into a constant fireman.
My TC back then got $250/side, $400/double end.
Bottom line is that the quality of the assistant, what volume they could handle, dictated when I was forced to bring on another one. In your case I suspect one smart, hard working person would meet most of your needs. That said, I’ll use my own operation recently as an example.
When my son came on board in late ’04, fresh from college graduation, I paid him a flat $1,000 monthly. He wasn’t worth it, as being an assistant to a highly experienced/productive investment broker is challenging to say the least for a rank beginner who’s only gone to school or worked for Trader Joe’s. Very quickly though he became a legit, dare I say indispensable part of my operation. I ended up payin’ him $3,000 monthly. Even though we did business in multiple states, and had teams in each one, he managed it all, such that I only had to produce income.
Josh was the best all time right-hand-man I’ve ever had by far. He was literally the equivalent of the three I spoke of in the post. It didn’t hurt that he was WAY smarter than his employer.
You definitely need a Josh. π
As I write this it dawns on me how many hours you work. I’d love to know how those hours break down — prospecting/listing presentations/showing property-writing offers-negotiating vs stuff you need not do, but are ‘forced’ to, due to your personality type. It’s my conviction you of all people would benefit infinitely more than the average agent by implementing this model to the fullest.
Here’s a glimpse into what I think would work for you. Yesterday I was virtually belly-to-belly with three investors. Three offers (total) were generated by two of them. I simply told my assistant what was needed, and offers magically appeared in my laptop. All three offers will be accepted. That is $1.5MIL in volume (3%) and it took me less than five hours on the phone. One is an ongoing client, the other two are newbies.
I’d wager a buncha dead presidents you could literally triple your production with this approach — IF you prove you can delegate most of what you do now.
July 17, 2010 — 8:54 am
Jeff Brown says:
Cheryl & Jim — Your dilemma, Cheryl, can be solved in one move, IMHO. It is amazing how having someone who is hungry to be mentored by someone of your caliber frees you for increased production. In your case, like mine, you’ll end up with agents who’ll be The Guy/Gal when you’re done with ’em.
Of course, the industry’s idea of mentoring and mine are worlds apart — an understatement of epic proportions. Those I mentor, if physically present, are allowed (required) to become virtual Siamese Twins with me. Most of the teaching is done by showing them in real time during real life day to day work. Talk about killin’ two birds with one stone. π How good would an agent end up after watchin’ you as your assistant for a year? I insist they be at every client meeting, from the first to close of escrow. They heard both ends of most phone conversations — not only with clients, but with title, escrow, lenders, and all the rest. They saw how I handled things, learned what mattered and what didn’t. They went into the field with me always.
By the time Josh had seen all this for a year or so, clients literally began looking to him sometimes at meetings for answers. THAT’s when I knew he was ready. The clients were granting him quasi-equal status with me. That was hard to swallow at first, though it made me proud too. π
Jim, do you see how this type of one-on-one mentoring would create The Guy/Gal? Before you bring up that Josh is my son, he was the third kid I mentored in this way. One turned out to be a competent investment agent. The other ended up owning his own investment brokerage.
You said, “It took me 15 years to figure out that it canβt be done with incentives, financial or otherwise. The simple fact is that non-owners donβt think or act like owners, and I doubt this will ever change.”
I agree wholeheartedly — but with a huge caveat. How many in those 15 years were mentored ‘OldSchool’? Dad had an entire company populated with The Guy/Gal. How else did less than 30 full time agents, and a few (very) part timers, produce 1,000 sides a year for four straight years? I don’t recall any problem with people callin’ and insisting on working with ‘Mr. Brown’ back then. Pretty much, if you worked there, by definition, you WERE The Guy/Gal.
Make sense?
July 17, 2010 — 9:26 am
Judy Orr says:
Wow Jeff, this was the best post (and comments) on the subject. I’ve been trying to figure out how to expand and create a good team and always thought it would be better than hiring an assistant (or two). You opened my eyes with your comparisons.
July 17, 2010 — 9:36 pm
Jim Klein says:
I don’t know, Jeff; it’s a tough issue, and fairly ethereal. In my case, the “trainees” did have the advantage of seeing every aspect of every transaction, not to mention a boatload of the underlying philosophy. Of course with me, that might be a hinderance! Still, it never really worked and not for lack of trying or lack of incentives.
My hunch is that in your Dad’s case (and by extension yours) you guys had the ability to spot the qualities and talents that count. IOW I wonder if it’s less mentoring “to think like an owner” than it is being an owner and so able to discern the important relevant attributes in those you decide to mentor. A relevant question in this regard would be, “How many of those would be able to do what you guys did?”
Even on the assumption that they were able to do what they did as well as you could, my guess remains, “Not many.” And for this, your son doesn’t count because he comes to the party with various underpinnings that the others simply don’t have.
When everything’s stripped away, the lesson is simple—“Think like the customer,” since it’s to his values that we appeal. A great salesperson understands this and everything else is detail. In my experience, the person who doesn’t think like this, never will, no matter how much mentoring or incentives are offered. Brilliant management is spotting this sort of quality in others, and of course teaching how to instantiate it, and my guess remains that this was your Dad’s brilliance and yours.
It’s amazing how much money and resources the big boys will spend on finding good management people, and even most of those won’t necessarily have an “owner’s perspective.” I’m inclined to think those companies aren’t foolish for doing that, and I continue to believe that there are many aspects to ownership, particularly philosophically, that most people just won’t ever understand.
Really, if anything, I think your approach supports my POV. You’re not duplicating yourself; you’re offering your understanding of various roles in the business to those who can do them as well as you, and you show them how to do it. It’s division of labor within the context of a single business. Each person’s talent can then be optimized. It may seem like it’s you doing each part, since each part is mentored by you and so done your way, but there’s a level of integration that I (once again guessing) suspect is present in you that’s not present in the others. Luckily, as long as you’re around, it really doesn’t matter!
July 18, 2010 — 9:11 am
Jeff Brown says:
Much appreciated, Judy — If you’d like to chat about what your plan might be, I’d be happy to contribute.
July 18, 2010 — 9:12 am
Benjamin Ficker says:
Hey Jeff,
Were those assistants licensed?
July 22, 2010 — 2:07 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Benjamin — It depended upon what they were doing. If a license was required, that assistant would take care of that task. Why?
July 22, 2010 — 2:09 pm
Benjamin Ficker says:
That question seems to come up from our Principal Brokers more than anything else when talking about hiring. It’s funny, you simply asking me “Why?” made me question where I would actually need a licensed assistant. And the more I think about it, there is less licensed work then I thought.
Also, did you pay a portion of that $350 if the deal fell through?
July 22, 2010 — 2:18 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Most learn there is a ton of work not requiring licensees to complete. I had, and still do an almost non-existent dropout rate, once in escrow. The exception to that was recently when the underwriting became wicked stoopid. Since they’ve righted that ship, so to speak, I can happily report that the next failed escrow this year will be the first.
To answer your question, yes, but not always. If it dropped out early on, not usually. But if they worked their butts off and it failed for outside reasons, I almost always paid them for their hard work. As a matter of fact, if a particular transaction was akin to passing a kidney stone, I almost always paid them more than agreed, sometimes WAY more.
July 22, 2010 — 2:25 pm
Benjamin Ficker says:
Sounds reasonable π
Did you run into any issues when the deal takes x months to close? For example, we have a lot of work that can be done soon, but most short sales take 90-120 days to complete. My fear is that they would get burnt out too quick while waiting for the pay. How many hours were they working weekly?
Sorry to keep badgering you with questions, I’ll try to make a list next time and have them ready all at once π
July 22, 2010 — 2:29 pm
Rich Holmes says:
While you are training the buyers agents, I recommend a curricullum that includes, right up front on the afternoon of the first day, everything they will need to know to be a listing agent including advanced order taking, writing up the listing agreement and putting in the yard sign. You can include a couple of minutes on how to be an insufferable boor, insult the people that bring you your paycheck for no good reason and the practice of undeserved arrogance so they will have a clear picture of the listing agent’s role. With that as a backdrop, these sophomores will then be able to begin learning about being an agent serving the most important part of the transaction, THE BUYER … without whom there is no deal, while carrying the weight of the overblown listing agent on their shoulders.
July 26, 2010 — 10:57 am
Jeff Brown says:
Rich — Touch a nerve, did I?
The first thing I’d tell buyer-agents is they should thank the Lord for listing agents, as they’re the ones providing the ability to make a living. Listings generate buyers. Buyers, for the most part, don’t generate listings.
Nobody including me would discount the importance of the buyer — duh. But as a lister I can find buyers all day long. Buyer-agents are limited to suckin’ of the teat of listers — period.
July 26, 2010 — 11:17 am