I woke up this morning to my many Google alerts, and began browsing & mentally chewing. I don’t spend a ton of time doing this, but it’s a big part of my day. Regardless, I landed on a UK story/interview with Simon Baker, CEO of REA Group. Reading the story, a few of Baker’s points really stood out:
- “…today accuses real estate Web 2.0 sites of being a ‘total fad’.”
- “You don’t have to look sexy to deliver,” he says, pointing out that scale, consumer traction and money to fund marketing activity are much more important than aesthetics and cute functionality.
- “Sites like Zillow.com get a lot of press and they look great but will they deliver?” he asks. “I doubt whether they do more than US$3 million a year compared to Realtor.com’s US$300 million…”
It was a little comforting to learn that the “real estate establishment” is a crotchety old man the world over, and that we’re not part of a freakish business mindset distinct to the States. However, it got me into “you know what really grinds my gears” mode.
I don’t like the term “web 2.0” because it implies that we’ve released a stable platform straight from beta testing. In actuality, we’re probably on “web 2.3.2 beta.” However, nit-pickiness aside, I love, love, love to defend modern web practices against guys like Simon who are stuck in 1998.
- Web 2.0 is not a fad. The internet is an evolving, organic beast. If you don’t evolve with it, you were a fad.
- If you have tons of money to market an inferior product, you’re effectively throwing a match on that wad of cash. If, by “cute functionality,” he means “interactivity” then bring on the cute functionality! It will create visitor loyalty, and viral buzz that money can’t buy.
- The internet is not a passive medium.
- Sex always sells.
- Realtor.com does an asinine volume of business due to an extremely bad business decision by the NAR years ago. If they don’t evolve, and recognize that their competition is providing far superior products, they will be a fad.
</gear-grinding>
Realtor.com 3 year traffic graph:
Lori Turoff says:
Eric, you are so right! Many people, however, don’t like change so they resist it in any way possible. Often, they don’t have to change because ultimately they get left behind. Having had a previous career in the travel industry, I witnessed the same reluctance by traditional travel agents to adapt when sites like travelocity and expedia began to catch on. We all can see what happened there. I suspect we’ll see the same types of results – those who adapt succeed and those who don’t find other work.
I’d love to hear more about the NAR decision you mention and what it meant for realtor.com. Could you expound a bit?
Thanks.
Lori Turoff
Robert DeRuggiero Realtors
Hoboken NJ
http://www.hobokensbesthomes.com
March 14, 2008 — 9:18 am
Eric Bramlett says:
NAR basically sold control of Realtor.com to homestore in 1996. Homestore is hideously behind in online marketing (hence the horrible site.) Here’s the details on it:
http://www.realtor.org/realtororg.nsf/pages/Rcominfo2?OpenDocument
March 14, 2008 — 9:24 am
Lori Turoff says:
Thanks for the link. If Homestore is so terrible at on line marketing (and I couldn’t agree more that Realtor.com a terrible site, and for agents, very user UNfriendly) why do they still have such a big share of the market? Just yesterday I was trying to update one of my listings with upcoming open house dates. The site won’t let me add the dates without completely retyping every detail of the open house screen from scratch. Just how I want to be spending my time. . .
March 14, 2008 — 11:25 am
Todd says:
Just to “dog pile” Homestore’s code work is atrocious and it will not be portable to the iPhone ( as mentioned in Greg’s post earlier this morning). But Zillow Mobile will.
http://www.zillow.com/labs/ZillowMobile.htm
March 14, 2008 — 11:50 am
Eric Bramlett says:
While alexa is by no means the definitive resource on traffic, it does give us some idea. Here’s a link to the 3 year reach of realtor.com:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/nin.com?site0=realtor.com&y=r&z=3&h=400&w=700&range=3y&size=Large
March 14, 2008 — 11:50 am
Mike Taylor says:
Good post Eric. R.com will very soon be an internet dinosaur if they don’t adapt and fast. I don’t know about you, but I am tired of paying dues to such an out of touch monopoly that ostensibly has no idea what is really going on.
March 14, 2008 — 4:20 pm
Wade Young says:
@Eric
I don’t get your link. Unless I’m not reading it correctly, the link is for traffic stats for the band Nine Inch Nails. When I plug in the data for realtor.com, it looks fine. Maybe I’m missing something.
March 14, 2008 — 9:04 pm
Jacksonville Real Estate says:
Eric must of pasted the wrong link. Here is the right one: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/realtor.com
There were people who thought cell phones and VCR were fads. You know what they say about opinions … everyone has one.
Offline marketing can do alot to bolster realtor.com traffic but unless they keep up with what the public wants they will definitely become a dinosaur.
March 15, 2008 — 10:56 am
Doug Quance says:
In all fairness… that chart doesn’t tell the whole story.
The market has been in decline – quite in line with the Alexa chart – so I expect the traffic to decline, as well.
Also, Realtor.com is a gateway whereby many buyers start their search – only to be picked off eventually by local agents and their IDX search engines.
Just a few points to consider.
March 15, 2008 — 12:16 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
I hope the RE market isn’t declining that much! It looks to me like their traffic is about 20% what it used to be.
March 15, 2008 — 12:28 pm
Wayne Long says:
Eric – you are right on target as usual. The cause was very, very bad decision by the NAR. I am hoping that Realtor.com continues down the exact path it is on now. I don’t think they should change a thing. 🙂
March 30, 2008 — 11:22 am
What's my condo worth says:
Can you please guide me more about Web 2.0. I’m curious to now about it..
April 3, 2008 — 11:35 am
Selling a home in Richmond Hill says:
Please guide me about web 2.0
April 3, 2008 — 11:37 am
Greg Swann says:
> Can you please guide me more about Web 2.0. I’m curious to now about it.
This post is a good place to start.
April 3, 2008 — 11:49 am