I am here today to present to you my proposal for a new business venture. The Internet is a veritable candy store of wealth-creating opportunity, and it is our turn to capitalize. On-line shopping is BIG, I tell you, and it is time we got our piece of the pie.
But, we don’t have a product to sell.
So what? Neither does Amazon. That’s why I have identified the perfect target – the real estate industry. We will become agents and dehumanize the home buying process.
But, how will we attract customers?
The way I see it, there are two ways to establish ourselves in an established industry. Either we give them better service or we give them money. We aren’t in a position to do the former, that would just be hard, so we will do the latter. In order to give away money, we will have to redefine the service and deal in volume. Jack In the Box does not make money on their burgers. People come to them for the burgers, of course, but their profit margin is in the fries. And anyone can get a better burger at the steak house, they can get real service at the steak house, and they will leave having had a better dining experience with an A rated establishment, but people are inherently greedy. Houses will be our burgers, but volume will be our fries. Focus on the fries and forget the burgers.
But, (whispers), representing home buyers and sellers is hard work!
QUIET! Do not EVER suggest that real estate is hard work again. This kind of crazy talk will undermine all of our efforts.
But, just take the traditional pre-sale activities. The best, most effective listing agents spend thousands of dollars on a given home marketing and exposing the property, not to mention the time involved constantly improving and expanding their systems. Sometimes this is done for naught; the seller decides not to sell, and the agent is out-of-pocket. How can we afford to give money away?
We can’t, not by representing sellers. The costs of doing business are simply too great, and it is far too time consuming. That is why we will become Buyers’ Agents.
But, buyers’ agents spend hours upon hours studying the market, previewing homes, and showing homes to clients. Sometimes, they can work with clients for six months or more, and sometimes these buyers do not end up buying at all. There are only so many hours in the day, and a single buyer’s agent can serve at most two or three active potential buyers at a time. How can we achieve the necessary volume?
Good point. So we redefine the duties of a buyer’s agent. First, we stop showing homes. That takes time, and time is money. We need to be slamming dozens of these deals home each day to turn a profit. Let’s make the listing agent do that stuff from now on. While we’re at it, let’s not bother with pretending we represent anyone. That would require local market knowledge -it just takes too much time to acquire that knowledge and stay current. And, whatever you do, don’t start dispensing advice about comparable sales, values, specific factors unique to any one home (such as location, schools, physical condition, and the like). That will just get us back into the ol’ service mode, not to mention make us somewhat accountable for our actions. Minimize risk and maximize reward. Repeat after me: Volume!
But, won’t people recognize that we are relegating our responsibilities to others?
So what if they do? That is the shear genius in my plan. Real estate agents have been on the reputation ropes for some time. We will embark on a media blitz to tap into this negative sentiment. We will call the industry “messed up”, we will call agents “lazy”, “unethical”, “under-worked” and “overpaid”. The purchase of a home is emotional, so let’s play on those emotions. Our mantra will be “The Nexus is the Lexus”. From now on, every time we speak of traditional agents, we will be sure to make reference to “their Lexus”, as in, “All the buyer’s agent does is drive people around in their Lexus”. Say it enough, and we will reinforce the stereotype. Consumers will start to see us as renegades, even saviors, sticking it to the man on their behalf. It’s time to get personal so we can make money by being impersonal.
But, don’t you drive a Lexus?
Yes, but the beauty is, it will never have to leave the garage and get dirty again.
But, if we are going to be “agents” now, does it make sense to denigrate all agents?
From now on, we will publicly refer to ourselves as rainmakers, but in-house, we will call ourselves the order takers. By eliminating all duties which can not be automated, we will not only reach our volume goals, but we will significantly reduce the potential for liability. How can a buyer blame us for structural defects, non-disclosure issues, or a poor purchase decision when we never even saw the home? (Gales of laughter).
But, won’t buyers eventually figure out that they have forfeited true representation, counsel and advocacy, and that this could ultimately cost them?
Nah, all they will see is the “rebate”. People are stupid. Publicly, of course, we will profess otherwise.
But, what will happen when the sellers figure out that the coop commission they have historically offered to the buyer’s agent, intended to compensate that agent for the introduction, for the their time and for their representation of their client that they brought to the table, is instead going to us to compensate for … nothing?
Blasphemy! Now all you clowns, get out there, man the drive-thru, and sell some fries!
Sock Puppet says:
Great post Kris.
I’ve toyed mentally with the idea of listings as loss leaders for buy sides myself. Then you realize that for a lot of brokerages thats probably true already.
-Athol
May 14, 2007 — 10:08 am
P.J. Dean says:
To quote an earlier Bloodhoundblog post that summed up the attempted generification of Real Estate for me:
“Discount Realtors are nature’s perfect revenge on people who crave real estate discounts”
We take this phenomenon personally because we know first hand the overwhelmingly positive impact that competent, full service agents can have on people’s lives. We rightfully take pride in the hard work we do will continue to be the ones that have to clean up the messes created by fractured industry logic, incompetence and greed.
I honestly believe that we are best not to lower ourselves by engaging these aspects but to simply let them minimalize and fail by themselves as all others have in the past. Our best defense is simply to continue providing an unparalleled support and service that could never be replaced by anything.
Off my soapbox for now…….sorry!
May 14, 2007 — 10:11 am
Jeff Kempe says:
Kris…
Absolutely brilliant.
Where do I sign up?
Jeff
May 14, 2007 — 11:08 am
Jay Thompson says:
I’m in!
Yet another brilliant post Ms. Berg!
And where is this drive through? I need some 22 cent onion rings!
May 14, 2007 — 11:43 am
Kris Berg says:
P.J. – Yeah, that!
Jeff – You have to work your way up to the drive-thru window. Our order takers are experienced. They have all sold at least 20 bags of fries.
Jay – But would you like fries with that? π
May 14, 2007 — 11:58 am
Charleston real estate blog says:
Kris, I knew you would have the perfect analysis. Great post.
May 14, 2007 — 1:20 pm
Austin Realtor's Wife says:
So I’m repeating others, but I was HOPING you’d blog about this today!!! Listen, my husband guest writes on Realtor Wives today and I detected some sarcasm in his analysis too (although less blatant) by noting Redfin is like Wal-Mart and is like a tic tac.
Great article, I can always count on you for the “duh” moments!
May 14, 2007 — 2:51 pm
Nicky says:
What’s most hilarious about this whole scuffle is that Redfin isn’t really doing much in the way of volume. They have YET to turn a profit. In their own hometown, they only own something like .3% of the market. So much for “revolutionizing” the industry.
May 15, 2007 — 4:54 pm
Martin says:
I was going to write a long diatribe, but perhaps I should leave it at this: go re-read your two latest posts (“Soul Searching” and “SparkNotes: Multiple Offers”), then ask yourself why people might prefer the sort of a la carte service Redfin provides. I work in an expanding company of IT professionals, mainly young married men, and while the reaction to Redfin itself is mixed, to a man we have decided not to use traditional realtors or real estate agents in the future. Perhaps before you try to tear down Redfin, the real estate industry should take a good long look at why there’s a demand for an alternative.
May 31, 2007 — 8:31 am
Brian Brady says:
Who’s talking about Redfin here? My, my, my, Kris. You see what a little provocative marketing can do?
May 31, 2007 — 8:40 am
Sock Puppet says:
Hmmm, I think the 20 Bags of fries reference in Kris’s comments is a Redfin reference. Though the post itself doesn’t seem to be against Redfin per se, more of a all purpose summary of the way discounters can leech off the full service brokerages.
-Athol
May 31, 2007 — 9:26 am
Kris Berg says:
>Who’s talking about Redfin here?
Athol is correct. I was. Here.
>I was going to write a long diatribe, but perhaps I should leave it at this: go re-read your two latest posts (“Soul Searching” and “SparkNotes: Multiple Offers”), then ask yourself why people might prefer the sort of a la carte service Redfin provides.
I must presume that your argument is that a)Redfin is honest and respectful while “traditional” agents are disingenuious, and b)Refin, from behind the safety and comfort of a computer monitor and staffed with agents which tend to be far less experienced, is far better prepared to handle the intracacies and complexities of a multiple counter offer situation.
I too will forgo the diatribe (and, regarding (a), will refrain from linking to the numerous comments by GK which serve as my case-in-point), but must say that I fail to see the logic. The subsequent posts you refer to were directed not at Redfin or their Redfinish brothers-in-arms, but at all practicing agents. It is the pop-culture trend to bash Realtors, but let’s not forget that limited service agents are still agents, and Redfin agents are Realtors, real bona fide members of their local Boards.
I find it a peculiar strategy for the cheerleaders of these companies to bank their future success wholly on disparaging and maligning an entire profession of which they are a member. Has everyone forgotten that limited-service brokerages are no less driven by financial motivation than any other brokerage? What makes one think that they are modern day Robin Hoods with only the poor, mistreated, overcharged consumer in mind? Has anyone noticed that while promoting their “better way” by professing that agents have heretofore been underworked and overcompensated, they themselves are in fact aspiring to work less and make more?
I suppose this did turn into a diatribe. Let me end by saying I do not question that there is a place for the alternative brokerage nor do I question that many will choose this alternative. It has always been so, and it always will be. I simply don’t get the connection between my posts which implicitly called for higher standards in our industry and the Redfins of our industry.
May 31, 2007 — 10:55 am
Jeff Kempe says:
Martin …
Back when I was in the shoe business there was a startup — this is in the early nineties — that created an enormous stir; may have even made it on to Sixty Minutes. Deja Shoe promised to construct shoes completely out of recycled materials. Techies loved the idea, venture capitalists came up with several million, and department store buyers ate it up. Publicity was automatic in every market they entered.
A couple minor things that were overlooked: they were manifestly ugly, they fit like socks on a rooster and the biodegradable adhesive they used failed to actually adhere. The market spoke loudly, and they were out of business within eighteen months.
And the market will speak here. When something comes along that will seriously challenge the full-service agent model, I promise the people reading and writing this blog will be the first to adapt. Redfin just doesn’t happen to be it.
In the meantime, if you and those with whom you work feel confident in your real estate related skills, more power to you. That’s what a free market is all about.
If you don’t, I’d suggest instead of getting your information from Leslie Stahl, you pick at random as many of Kris’s clients as you’d like — or Russell’s or Greg’s or pretty much anyone else here — and ask if they got what they paid for.
The answers may surprise you.
May 31, 2007 — 11:29 am
Brian Brady says:
“I find it a peculiar strategy for the cheerleaders of these companies to bank their future success wholly on disparaging and maligning an entire profession of which they are a member.”
Hooray, Kris! If this isn’t the defining statement of 2007, I don’t know what is.
May 31, 2007 — 12:01 pm