Agents get leads from different marketing strategies, both offline and online, but where will most of the leads come from in five years? Looking ahead I’d have to say leads will come mainly from one source — Google.
Unless something changes, Google has the lion’s share of searchers. As more and more home buyers use Google to search for area information and sites where real estate listings can be found, it becomes obvious for listing agents and buyer agents that search placement is, and will be even moreso in the future, vital to success in the real estate business.
Before I go any further, I’ll address opposition to this statement by saying that some agents will continue to be successful using marketing methods outside Google search, but I’m talking about the majority of agents working in the real estate business full time. I’m excluding the mega-agents who attract buyers and sellers through their star status and obviously superior abilities of attraction and promotion — the majority of agents will not be stars. Plus, even the offline efforts that give an agent exposure might be eclipsed after someone gets online to begin searching — an agent’s name might appear in a magazine, or a billboard, or through the mail, or a flyer in a store, or on a “for sale” sign on the street, but when the buyer goes back to their computer to search, another agent who has mastered the art of placement will pop up and lead the buyer in a different direction. I predict the online presence will become more valid in the buyer’s mind than offline presence as consumers learn to trust and depend on the net more and more.
I don’t believe Zillow and Trulia will be major factors in lead generation. If they survive, they will be a draw for those curious about real estate in general, but searchers will be more sophisticated and agents will be smarter about SEO.
It’s my opinion that the majority of agents will need to get good placement on Google in order to be successful. Google placement won’t be the ONLY way to market, just the most effective way to market. I won’t argue about other marketing strategies, and I will amend my proposition if it’s proven to be incorrect. There wouldn’t be so much effort expended on SEO if it wasn’t the best future way to market real estate services — and even though other search engines exist, Google is king and it seems they will hold on to that position for quite some time.
With thousands of agents in most good sized areas, this presents a problem with limited positions for placement. Large real estate companies will most likely compete for the highest placement, although they have other means of marketing themselves through media sources. A few large companies, or association of companies, will most likely get smarter about branding asnd distinguish themselves from the pack. This battle of companies of get good placement will make it difficult for individual agents to get noticed. Agents will most likely feed off the branding of the large companies.
The individual agents who can get good Google placement will be a rare breed. It could happen that it is almost impossible for individual agents to get top placement, unless Google algorithms become even better at making fine distinctions and offer results that are really based on quality.
I know Google prides itself on quality results and has conquered the search engine field because its results are pertinent to the users needs. If they improve then individual agents might have a chance to be noticed, IF they are indeed the best local real estate sources a user could find. This will be difficult for Google to determine if “important links” is still the main criteria for top results — the large companies will have more resources available to “appear” more important to Google.
So, how will individual agents be able to get top placement in five years? There are limited placement spots that are productive. Even if agents paid a large company for exposure through the large company’s SEO efforts, you still have the same problem — the large company could only provide productive exposure in a given area to a limited number of agents — the rest would be lost among the many. If agents started bidding for the most productive spots, the costs of exposure would be expensive.
The Super Team/Super Company may be an answer whereby teams of ten within a company could share the Google placement for specific areas to all their advantage. Local within local, zeroing in to areas of business. The overall SEO would be managed by the Super Company positioning Super Teams for focused areas. It seems to me this is the best way to win the placement battle, through focus (again with the personalization and context). The only sad thing about this solution is that it would eliminate people like me. But looking at it objectively, it appears to be a viable strategy for a real estate company in the coming years, if it’s true searchers are getting more sophisticated and zeroing in on specifics in an attempt to design their lifestyles.
Perhaps Zillow and Trulia would get placement for general results for looky-loos, but the Business 2.0 purpose of attracting true leads (transactions)through search engines would be served through specific results (condo in urban setting with view of park + city state condos). The Super Company would hire the experts necessary to get the placement which deemed best for ROI, not necessarily traffic. The teams would get leads which are zeroed in on their area of concern. This would be a great marketing tool to get listings once you can explain it in a way sellers understand.
Just more thoughts as I wait for an appointment. I’m making myself obsolete, but it’s all about transpanency. 🙂 I guess I could join a team — nah, I’ll just keep battling them all.
Aaron Fischer says:
I think you might be a little behind the times. Google will not be your lead gen, more than likely it will be Facebook
May 9, 2008 — 1:22 pm
David G says:
Aaaahhhh. The vertical search vs. horizontal search debate. This discussion is as old as the web itself. We could go a thousand comments on this one and will not approach agreement and that’s because both sides of this argument are correct. Frankly, the only argument in this debate that is clearly flawed is the one that says that you must pick one side.
Mike –
I’d recommend keeping an open mind on this but totally agree that you should invest your time wherever it’s most rewarded and that plays to your strengths. I’d also recommend caution in how you measure your online ROI; a few days ago you blogged about not receiving traffic from your vertical search listings. When I took a look at the links on your listings they were redirected through your listing distribution partner’s domain.
May 9, 2008 — 3:12 pm
Bob in San Diego says:
I would not ever bet on real estate companies winning the placement battle. It isn’t about focus, it’s about understanding SEO. Brokers rarely get it or are willing to hire someone who does.
That said, if they did, it would turn into just another lead source doled out like relo leads.
May 9, 2008 — 3:54 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Aaron- no offense, but I think the statistics will back Mike up about Google. Assuming Google keeps the same level of focus that it has now on quality of search and ease of consumer use, they will be dominant and relevant 5 years from now IMO.
@Bob in San Diego – I agree that real estate companies will liekly not win placement. There are a huge number of reasons-lack of adaptibility to search engine changes (too many approvals required to change a site, etc). The lone wolf who is savvy or a team lead by a lone wolf will have many advantages.
‘It’s about understanding SEO’ -Amen.
As to Brokers rarely getting it. I am blessed to work with one who does and is willing to invest. The odds of finding another are pretty long indeed.
@”just another lead source” – that is a challenge for all of us. They are not leads. They are people looking to (eventually) move. I agree that in most places, they are thrown out like candy at a parade.
I do think that a team of a few agents (all somewhat savvy)in combination with a SEO savvy tech / marketing person would be hard to beat.
I think the team of the future will have a remarkable resemblance to a Navy Seal Team of today. (more on that in an upcoming post…)
@Mike-great post. Really got me thinking–again!
May 9, 2008 — 5:46 pm
Mike Farmer says:
I’m not so sure about Facebook, but who knows. I think many people are underestimating Google’s strengthening role in the future. They hit on something and are perfecting something that will be difficult to combat for a long time to come.
David, I think I posted about not receiving traffic from my profile. I don’t carry many listing these days. That’s one reason i don’t have much use for Listing Sites. I make my living by mainly representing buyers. I need a different type of exposure.
Bob, I understand the cynicism, but I’m a die-hard idealist — I just know it can happen, I just know it!
May 9, 2008 — 6:03 pm
Mike Farmer says:
By the way, has anyone reported any success (transactions) through Facebook?
May 9, 2008 — 6:05 pm
Jay says:
I’ve been experimenting a ton on Facebook and have found many ways to accomplish nothing. I’m still convinced there is a way to Facebook oneself into big profits. I may have found it with realbird’s blidgets….Fan pages have a lot of potential as well but how to get the “fans” is another story. Let me know if you have any answers.
Bob I think you’re right. Excellent web 2.0 real estate consultants will have the agility and quick response and specialization required to dominate search engine rankings.
And Eric you are right on: “I do think that a team of a few agents (all somewhat savvy)in combination with a SEO savvy tech / marketing person would be hard to beat.”
I am working on that right now–haha. I person on my team and a couple more to go….These little or large teams will become drive by SEO/blogging rainmakers will be power players in local markets. You better believe builders/sales reps treat me right since my blog ranks #1 & #2 for “arlington virginia condos” or “clarendon condos”. That’s leverage in negotiating that buyers are looking for….
J
p.s. back to analyzing my facebook flops–haha
May 9, 2008 — 7:01 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Mike, I wasn’t trying to be a cynic. Your idea is one I’ve toyed with myself. I have the ability to just drive traffic and basically sublet either a site or a section that ranks.
For example, let’s say I break San Diego down into 50 areas (no reason behind the #). Inside of a year I could have at least top 3 rankings in each area. As either the owner of the company or the leader of a team, I could assign each individual area to an agent. I could also license it to an individual broker or agent not associated with me. It doesn’t really matter. I charge either a flat licensing fee or make it referral based.
Your idea works – it’s just that most brokerages tend to move like glaciers and are dependent upon someone like Eric to keep it working. If Eric splits for greener pastures, the broker has a problem.
The advantage goes to the entity with the vision and ability to execute. My suggestion would be to not join a team, but instead form the team.
May 9, 2008 — 8:24 pm
Bob Wilson says:
The challenge with the team approach to the SEO is simply one of too many cooks in the kitchen. Partnerships are difficult enough to manage. Success with a coop business model is the exception, not the rule.
May 9, 2008 — 8:27 pm
Sue says:
Forgive me for this lamo comment, but I just want to say…Mike, this blog and the comments are tremendously insightful. My head is exploding with the various possibilities.
May 9, 2008 — 8:45 pm
Mike Farmer says:
Thanks, Sue. “Exploding Heads Realty” — that might be a good name for a company.
Thanks, Eric — I like the Navy Seal image — it’s empowering.
Bob, yes, brokerages are slow — it will no doubt require a new breed. I might start that team, yet — I’ve been knocking the idea around. Not many people here trust new ways of doing things — that’s both good and bad for me.
Jay, let me know how it goes with Facebook. They are interesting, I’ll give them that. But, I have my doubts regarding focus when it comes to Facebook.
May 10, 2008 — 4:40 am
Sean Purcell says:
Mike,
Great post. You and I have discussed this off and on before and I agree with your premise on both Super Teams and Google.
For those that don’t see brokers moving quickly enough to enact Mike’s ideas, I believe your idea of a Super Team is mistaken. I refer you to a post of mine from some time back regarding the disbrokeration of the industry and how the very problem of disconnected and bloated brokers will be eliminated.
While I think your (and Eric’s) take on Google is accurate, it is the time frame that concerns me. Brian Brady has been speculating it may only be three years before the big boys come in and close out the top spots. The challenge then is to create your community of raving fans and put a fence around them before this happens.
I call this mayoral marketing and the idea is to establish SEO juice and top positions for the next three years while building a group of clients that use and refer you. Once that group is large enough (let’s say 300 people for a RE agent), you can stop making top search engine placement a concern. Your community already knows how to find you. Your job becomes simply one of providing fresh, topical and interesting content to that community and driving continuous referral business to yourself.
One final thought. Top spots may eventually be dominated by big firms and Super Teams, but the premise of guerrilla marketing and the Long Tail is that “they” can never move as quickly or with the same agility as “we” can. Always play to the niche. (And never miss the opportunity to learn when an Unchained opportunity presents itself.) 🙂
May 10, 2008 — 6:08 am
Eric Blackwell says:
@Sue– the comment is not “lamo”-grin. Mike’s post and the comments below it are probably germinating a lot of thought around the country right about now.
@Sean – disbrokeration. I agree with that. Those that cannot stay nimble enough will die. Like Bob Wilson said…the ability to do this is the exception, not the rule. He’s 100% right about this IMO.
I am going to comment further on the big boys and Search Engines shortly. The ONLY reason that Brian would be right about it being less than 3 years away is because REALTORS are so vulnerable to link bait like widgets and the like. Trulia did a GREAT job of sucking our industry in and then GIVING away the search engine positioning.
Size only matters to an extent in SEO, but our Army of David’s each took 5 smooth stones from the brook and handed them to Goliath and we wonder why the big dude is pelting us with rocks!
Bob said it, I said, Bramlett said it…Those widgets AIN’T FREE. (grin)
**Eric steps down off of soap box**
@Mike–glad you enjoyed the thought about Seal Teams. That empowered me as well. I am working at it from the other way. My mission is to teach 120 agents in a large brokerage that they CAN succeed and being the exception to the rule that Bob W is referring to. (read: tough task ahead)
May 10, 2008 — 6:54 am
Mike Farmer says:
Great comments. Sean, I hope we can keep this conversation going about Super Teams — I believe any 6 or so of us here at Bloodhound could give any area a run for their money and more.
Eric, I look forward to your article. “Just say NO to Trulia widgets.” I wonder if we can get Nancy Reagan to be our spokeswoman.
May 10, 2008 — 3:38 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Why do you feel you need a team of agents to do that? It isn’t necessary. The size of the team or company or entity has nothing to do with success with search engine results.
May 10, 2008 — 4:40 pm
Jay says:
Bob, Mike wasn’t talking about teams beating the large brokerages in rankings. He was talking about super teams competing with larger brokerages in sales volume.
Or the real concept that is pretty untapped is building Super Teams not bound by geography that work from a domain with google juice with an excellent agent in each market doing their share of the writing/lead follow up through that domain in their particular market. That’s where some of us are headed or want to be even if we haven’t voice that yet. I’m sure several of us have that vision. Probably stupid to point it out to others….
Next few years will be interesting to say the least.
May 10, 2008 — 5:34 pm
Mike Farmer says:
What Jay said. Individuals will most likely be pushed out.
But let’s say we take Eric’s case — a large company made up of small super teams placed strategically over a large area. Each team is optimizing their area for the focused, productive terms for search engine placement, the social media marketing and the traditional marketing — volume will be handled more efficiently through a co-ordinated team effort — therefore pricing can be adjusted.
Huge brokers with unfocused efforts by anybody who can get a license will be behind the eightball.
I truly believe teams of internet-connected agents who work together toward a common goal, focused on the goal of dominating an area would be formidable.
Like Jay said, the teams could expand across the country, drawing the best from each area using a system that will be light-years ahead of the competition.
It would be very difficult to do — but i believe it can be done. I believe once talented, connected agents “get” the concept, they would be inspired by the challenge and the possibilities — it would be something new and exciting. And with the right leadership, that understands true leadership, something incredible could be created, something consumers would recognize as revolutionary and service based — rather than salesperson based.
May 10, 2008 — 6:13 pm
Bob Wilson says:
>It would be very difficult to do — but i believe it can be done.
it is being done.
May 10, 2008 — 6:39 pm
Mike Farmer says:
Good. I hope it grows.
May 10, 2008 — 10:50 pm
Sean Purcell says:
I see Super Teams as being more than a way to compete with standard brokerages. I see them as more than an opportunity for transactions through internet domination. I see them as more than an example of greater profits through efficiency. I see them as… a salvation for the real estate industry… (note to self: wait for the choir of heavenly angels to finish their Hallelujah) 🙂
Seriously: if Super Teams continue to develop along the model we have witnessed thus far it will change the nature of the industry. Within a Super Team there are what I call “named agents” and the team develops with the sole purpose of building the business of that named agent. There are no slackers, nobody who doesn’t produce, no one enjoying a “part time job” as a professional real estate agent.
The Super Teams will concentrate income in the Top Producers, create an intership style training program that actually works (or the Super Team would not exist) and jettisons dead weight (be that the load of a brokerage system skimming profits with no added value or the drag of unskilled, unprofessionals more interested in conversation around the coffee pot than real estate transactions).
Can Super Teams be combined with some of the previous comment ideas? Sure, a team could expand horizontally or geographically rather than vertically as long as the inherent motivations remain the same. Possibly the most intriguing idea is a company made up of Super Teams: a Super Team Team (or ST²). How would such a conglomerate come together without repeating the inefficiencies and profit skimming of a typical brokerage? Would this be more of a co-op? A partnership similar to a law office? Mike, Jay, anyone else: thoughts?
May 11, 2008 — 9:41 am
Mike Farmer says:
“I see them as… a salvation for the real estate industry…”
I see tham as more than the salvation for the real estate professions, I see them as the salvation for all humankind…and puppies.
I think your ideas are spot on. The difficulty i was speaking of in creating the super team is the widespread dissemination of teams. I’m sure there are teams already functioning at top level — but to replicate that on a broad scale would be quite an undertaking — you see the problem with the possibility of bureaucracy, bloat, settling into the old style brokerage. This is the challenge — to keep each team nimble, quick and innovative — it’s much easier on a small scale.
I would like to draw a diagram of how I see it being implemented on a widerange model — that visual would help me connect all the dots. Maybe I’ll get a large drawing board and create the connections and think about compensation models, and how to keep fat eliminated. It will be a fun exercise.
May 11, 2008 — 10:25 am
Jay says:
Sean, the idea of ST (squared) is very interesting. I’m starting the process of finding a “team” player in another market right now. Already in getting started I can see how challenging it will be to sell a stranger on the idea. I need to find an agent who gets it but doesn’t know how….
May 15, 2008 — 6:53 pm