In my undergrad days, I had an accounting professor. He was a great guy actually. He was from Cuba, (pronounced Coo-bah) with a thick, middle aged Ricky Ricardo accent.
He used to tell us all of the time:
“What you are giving! What you are getting! That is important!’
He would then hold his cupped hands out in front of himself like a balance scale to weigh the two. Funny the things that stick with you through life…Nestor Ruiz–wherever you are, thanks. That lesson has been invaluable.
I have been quietly watching and considering some things lately…I see many of the RE.net’s social networking sites get lobbied heavily by bots and their employees who proclaim to be different from the others and yet in the end, they look very much the same. They all look for creative ways to tie the pork chop around their neck just hoping for this result:
They want the REALTOR community to like them. Why would they want to do that? When they say it isn’t about the Benjamin’s, that IMHO is exactly what it is about. Obviously these social networks that they are lobbying are full of influence on REALTORS. The pork chops dull the REALTOR’s (read: dog’s) senses as he prepares to enjoy a nice little exposure snack.
But the cost of the snack may well affect the REALTORS livelihood long after the savory snack has passed. If I follow my accounting professor’s sage advice, I realize that recouping the X million smackers that founded some of these companies HAS to come from somewhere. And a big somewhere at that, IMO.
Logic indicates that advertising models on the web do not do it alone. It also indicates that free (often less than accurate) Automated Valuations are not enticement enough (in many locations throughout the country). Since these bots don’t enjoy universal search engine presence, there are many consumers they are NOT reaching. The clock is ticking and they need revenue. To get it, could it be that they need listings to create relevance? And once relevance and internet dominance are assured, will they will charge the REALTOR, whether via referral fee or via “enhancements”?
I am not saying that they are bad people. Please understand that.
I am simply asking rhetorical questions about the consequences of providing them your listings in markets where they have little presence and far less relevance than many REALTOR websites. Will it be as shortsighted as the fabled Esau trading his birthright for a mess of pottage? Was Jacob a bad man, or was Esau just shortsighted?
Perhaps he should have taken Nestor Ruiz’ accounting class…
Todd Carpenter says:
I think there’s a flip side to helping T or Z gain traction. Currently Realtor.com is the breadwinner of eyes on the Internet. Just by looking at what they are charging to advertise on their site, a think a little competition is a good thing.
November 15, 2007 — 9:33 pm
Brian Brady says:
Realtors willingly gave up their listings to Realtor.com in the late 90s; now they’re paying dearly for “enhanced listings”.
I hope we get Bob Wilson’s take on this.
November 15, 2007 — 9:54 pm
Bob in San Diego says:
I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but it seems obvious to me that T and Z are trying to position themselves as the “Consumers MLS”.
The other day I was playing around with Z’s add a listing feature, slick feature btw… It allows FSBO’s to upload their listing to the Z database of listings, advertise a commission that they are willing to pay a “buyers agent” upload photos, a discription, and even a web address to direct the consumer for more info.
AND it doesn’t cost anything to upload a listing. Realtor.com take notice before you loose even more market share!
November 15, 2007 — 10:56 pm
DavidG from Zillow.com says:
Hi, it’s DG from Z 😉
Thanks Bob!
Eric – Take another look at the banner ads on the site – Sony, Direct Tv – are subsidising the free, rich listings on Z. Its a win-win deal for the brokers, agents, buyers and sellers (and advertisers) that use the site and the networking features.
November 16, 2007 — 12:41 am
Eric Blackwell says:
First off, let me say that I respect all of the positions stated above (and the people who’ve stated them.)
Where I was trying to go with this starts with a premise. On the web (like in the bricks and mortar world), all real estate is local. A real estate site on the web (however cool), only gains RELEVANCE with locally focussed real estate buyers’ eyeballs.
I spent an hour two weeks ago on a conference call with a local TV station’s website folks. They were trying every way they could to get me to give them my listings for their new real estate site–a site that was under development and essentially no different than our own. They said “We guarantee it will be free for the first 6 months.” (And the site was for a Network of over 200 TV stations). They too, want to create a “consumer’s MLS”–on the backs of the REALTORS
My reply was ‘go get relevant local traffic that is looking for real estate and then MAYBE we will talk. But until you do, you are just a cool looking magazine with no readership asking me to buy an ad.’ Hence the analogy to the snack versus the long term commitment. I view them as competitors. Nice folks, but competitors.
@Todd-I respectfully would contend that R.com is NOT the breadwinner of eyeballs in MY location and likely is not in yours either. But they MIGHT be…it is up to each of us to determine that with our own metrics. But since they will not give you LOCAL traffic figures (at least their sales team would not to me–I have asked), I have no way of determining (other than the fact that I am comfortable that they are not bringing business to agents in our office who pay for enhanced listings.
@DG-I’m sorry, but to some extent you are suffering from the sins of your predecessor sites (read: Realtor.com).I realize that you do in fact have advertising deals out there. and I agree with Bob that the listings are free (for now…) Can we take this as a written guarantee that you will NOT in the future turn to the REALTOR for any remuneration once you have gained the relevance that you are asking us to help you attain? I acknowledge that you guys have some really cool ideas….but that alone will not quite close the deal for me…
All that having been said, I think the discussion is healthy and needed. My best to all parties on this one…perhaps I am just jaded?
November 16, 2007 — 5:47 am
Teri L says:
Eric- I’ve got the same “perhaps I am just jaded” outlook. And I think you are correct- it’s about relevance in my market. Some things are cool and fun and easy to use, maybe even free (for now) but if no one is looking at it, and/or it doesn’t differentiate me, it’s a waste of time.
November 16, 2007 — 8:17 am
Katie Huebschen says:
Entertaining image and excellent post that should be required reading for all brokers.
We dropped our enhanced listigns on realtor.com this year.
We are being courted by the local newspaper (when was the last time THAT happened?) to give them our feed.
My favorite part of this post series is “Can we take this as a written guarantee that you will NOT in the future turn to the REALTOR for any remuneration once you have gained the relevance that you are asking us to help you attain?”
You can ask that question to just about anyone right now.
November 16, 2007 — 9:53 am
David G from Zillow.com says:
Zillow is relevant; 4 Million consumers use the site each month. That’s why we started with Zestimate values; Zillow was a household name in much of the country *before* a single listing was added to the site.
We have no plans to charge Realtors to list on Zillow. We don’t plan to charge for links to virtual tours or to your website or to charge listing agents for attribution on their listings. We don’t slap no-follow’s on the links related to to your listings and we don’t charge you anything extra to post stacks of photo’s on your listing.
Zillow offers a significantly unique opportunity to Realtors. I’m glad those differences are starting to show.
November 16, 2007 — 10:16 am
Greg Swann says:
> Zillow offers a significantly unique opportunity to Realtors. I’m glad those differences are starting to show.
Monday night Jeff Turner was beating me up about not making Real Estate Weblogging 101 a true paper-bound book. This is me from email to him this morning:
November 16, 2007 — 11:04 am
Bob Wilson says:
The perception differs depending on your business model.
Listings are relevant”
People do look at it.
If you are a listing agent, than your sellers will disagree.
Experienced agents know that two factors are key in the sale of a listing: price and exposure. Sellers want exposure. They do not care that it doesn’t differentiate you, the agent.
I understand the position of fear that comes with seeing more online entities enter the market, and more important for some of us, the search engine results. The fact of the matter is that the only ones who don’t like these entities are the agents, and even then it is not an all inclusive dislike.
Many agents derive tremendous value from Realtor.com. When the market was hot, Realtor.com’s enhanced listings were merely a way to differentiate yourself from the other 37 agents begging for the listing. Now that the market is slow, Realtor.com offers valuable exposure. Is it needed with the advent of IDX? It depends. If you are not able to leverage IDX as a lead generator, then Zillow and Realtor.com are among your best friends.
I do not understand what you mean here Eric. A search for “San Diego real estate” brings up a local site like mine along with Realtor.com, Yahoo real estate, and the local paper. All four have every residential listing on the MLS, plus access to real estate agents. I doubt the consumer cares, as long as they get access to the inventory that they want.
I have been an outspoken critic of Realtor.com, Trulia and Zillow. It doesn’t matter though. They are not going away. So using the wisdom found in “The Art Of War”, I will use their strengths to my advantage.
November 16, 2007 — 12:56 pm
David G from Zillow.com says:
Agreed, Greg.
My primary takeaway from NAR was that the social media marketing opportunity in RE is misunderstood and largely ignored. Yet, I’m more convinced than ever that SMM can revolutionize real estate. I actually had a fleeting thought yesterday as I walked the expo floor that it would have been cool to have a booth dedicated to Real Estate Weblogging 101 and that “bloodhound” might well become a premier REALTOR (or agent?) designation / qualification.
Dan Green and I had a fascinating conversation. Dan’s attitude towards SEO forces you step back and ask “so, why blog?” … and that answer is more interesting (to me at least) than all the Google juice in the blogosphere. I’ve finally formulated a thesis about why SMM leads are so much more valuable any other customer inquiry; including traditional referrals. I’m going to have to blog that up sometime soon.
November 16, 2007 — 1:45 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Since you are not on the receiving end of the lead, how would you know that?
November 16, 2007 — 2:06 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Anyone asking that question doesn’t understand the relationship between the two.
November 16, 2007 — 2:13 pm
David G from Zillow.com says:
Bob –
Simple; I listen … and have talked with literally hundreds of pro’s about this topic. When I meet a blogging Realtor, I always ask 3 questions;
1) Does SMM drive your business?
2) How many leads come from SMM?
3) How do your SMM leads convert compared to all other leads?
I hear the same things time and time again. And when I get this written up you’ll see that it’s common sense. Think about it; a blogging Realtor is the only Realtor that a client can get to know and come to trust without meeting them first.
November 16, 2007 — 2:13 pm
David G from Zillow.com says:
Bob – you missed my point. What’s refreshing about Dan’s attitude to SEO is that it forces you to consider the benefits beyond SEO. SEO and SMM are well understood but it’s only a (small?) part of the SMM value proposition.
November 16, 2007 — 2:16 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
Bob-
Good points. And this is EXACTLY why I wanted to start this discussion.
I’m learning here as well. How are you specifically using their strengths to your advantage (to bring buyers / business to YOU–not just a listing tool, because my sellers are not bringing bot names up to me as a way to get exposure…)?
and @ Brian–if you’ve got some techniques as well, I am all ears. From the sounds of Greg’s comment you do..care to share? (grin)
T and Z currently attract VERY little Louisville bound traffic. (David -if you’ve got info to the contrary on that-PLEASE provide it to me and I will HAPPILY retract that and be your biggest supporter in this town.)This was not meant in an inflamatory way at all…
I just have never seen any evidence offered FOR that. My sellers do not know who Zillow is and they know FAR less about Trulia. National stats do not equal local relevance or put more precisely local market presence.
David, if you can offer some LOCAL red meat here, that’s what THIS dog is looking for (grin). I do think there are areas of the country where Z’s top of mind presence would certainly warrant posting listings. My Cuban accounting professor would only insist that this be weighed out, and not assumed.
David G–Also,I do think you may be right that you can differentiate successfully from the rest and that those differences are becoming more important and apparent.
The ideas that you guys are coming up with AND the fact that you are taking the pledge to stay out of the REALTOR’S pocket ( I think that is what I read and do not wish to put words in your mouth…did I hear correctly?) are the MAIN things that will differentiate you going forward…
Best to all;
Eric
November 16, 2007 — 2:26 pm
Bob Wilson says:
In a busy market, no one waited around long enough to read anyone’s blog. They wanted to see property, and they wanted to see it now.
Now, with most buyers in slow motion, that may be true.
I’ll be looking forward to your thoughts.
November 16, 2007 — 2:29 pm
Ned says:
The small websites, however easy to use or cheaper, doesn’t give the results as the well known sites. In order to sell your home, popularity is key.
November 16, 2007 — 3:08 pm
David G from Zillow.com says:
FYI – Denny Oh just posted a great story that demonstrates how well qualified blog leads are. See the last half of this post: http://www.geekestateblog.com/6-months-as-a-new-blogger/
November 16, 2007 — 4:19 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Denny Oh just posted a great story that demonstrates how well qualified blog leads are.
Of all the things he wrote about — traffic, SEO, carnivals, comments — this is the only thing that actually matters:
SEO can be helpful, but only if you can overcome the bounce rate. Carnivals bring other bloggers. Most comments on most RE weblogs are from other bloggers. I’m a poor example in real life, but BHB/REWL101 is a great teacher on this point. Conversions come from the people you know nothing about until they approach you. Teri Lussier has this down cold.
November 16, 2007 — 4:36 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Actually it is just the opposite. The more relevant the result to the search, the lower the bounce rate, the higher the conversion and the better the lead.
Just curious. What do you consider to be an acceptable bounce rate?
November 16, 2007 — 4:44 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Bob– Eric clicks **agree**
Properly done SEO IMO can drive hellaciously focused folks to a site and keyword control and targeting is essential to that…the part that most people see is “city real estate” and other such vanity type terms….
@Greg–I totally agree with you about Teri’s blog…just visited her blog a couple of hours ago and dropped her a comment. It is customer facing and a good example of something designed to convert and get her known as the local expert.
November 16, 2007 — 4:56 pm
David G from Zillow.com says:
“Conversions come from the people you know nothing about until they approach you.”
Amen, Greg. This is a strong theme in the feedback I hear from successful bloggers. I nearly slapped Dan when he told me that he turned off the comments on his blog – but I eventually got it; none of his leads leave comments.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m still a bit miffed that I can’t comment on Dan’s blog. 😉
November 16, 2007 — 5:50 pm