MIke Farmer got me to mention the thought of Navy Seal Teams as a basis for real estate marketing. He got me thinking on that…and my mind turned towards my Market Channel Dominance Theory(s).
Or…let’s just call it B-I-N-G-O. In the game of BINGO, you can win by being the first to dominate one row, either across, down or diagonally. Let’s throw out the diagonal option for a second. (and the free space in the middle-there’s NO free lunch).
First off, real estate marketing channels, (local radio, newspaper, TV, Organic Search, Paid Search, Blogging (and you have to break this out for EACH niche and hyperlocal) can take the place of letters BINGO making each column represent dominance of a marketing channel and each row represent exposure generating ability across ALL marketing channels.
My theory #1: If you are a listings focused REALTOR, you need to get exposure across as many channels as possible. Why? Because you want to WIN listings presentations and to do that, you need to answer the $64 question..”What are you gonna do differently to market my home?”. You want excellence for your clients and nothing less.
My theory #2: If you are focused on buyers, you do NOT need to be all things to all people, but to be effective, you need dominance of a marketing channel. This gives you excellence in attracting buyers by having top of mind presence and does not require dominance of other marketing channels.
My theory #3: The ULTIMATE Guerilla marketing group (whether brokerage, team or lone agent with employees-franchise or not) is a highly skilled group of folks who can EACH dominate a vertical (read: marketing channel) and they work UNSELFISHLY to defend each others’ turf. This gives you excellence in attracting buyers and in sellers by having top of mind presence for your merry little band…errr…brand. Like Greg’s recent point here about BHB. None would get orders from headquarters. They would not need to have excellence defined for them. They ARE it. Each would be a specialist and yet communication of threats and opportunities would be immediate and instant.
An example: Our broker and brokerage (admittedly it is a unique place) does not sell. His sole purpose is to provide an environment for excellence and respect. We do not do Pay per Click advertising…but one or two of our agents make a great ROI with it (and I help them). We DO SEO. (leads go directly to agents). SInce we are with RE/MAX, they to the national TV and Radio. We have a team of 20 bloggers who (key here: Each have a different niche and yet all work together). One of our agents buys morning drive time local radio ads. Etc., etc. I could go on and on with increasingly more detailed examples, but you get the idea.
Are there conflicts sometimes. Yes. Is it socialistic utopia? No. (It’s actually capitalist utopia–freedom comes with responsibilities…(like paying it forward to other members of the team and showing respect for their projects, YET COMPETING with them wholeheartedly and then laughing about it over lunch.)
Does it have to be done ‘our way’? Heck no…but I really enjoy the freedom to work in this environment. I think it is working for us for now….
What are your thoughts on my theory?
Mike Farmer says:
I like the idea of targeting. The more focus one has the more likely it is to be effective. It’s easier to measure results too.
June 5, 2008 — 4:02 am
Jim Rake says:
Specialists working together, each concentrating on their own niche with its own responsibility, yet coordinating efforts. Sounds like centralized control & decentralized execution. Excellent synergy – the sum of the parts greater than the whole. Sure sounds like a military operation to me. Did you say Seal Team? Glad to hear its working well!
June 5, 2008 — 4:51 am
Brian Brady says:
I love the idea of dominating a vertical while defending each other’s turf. You should join Mike Farmer’s team discussion.
June 5, 2008 — 4:56 am
Thomas Johnson says:
Eric: You have found a good balance in your shop. I can’t quantify it, but I have always known that the franchise branding brings a secret ingredient to the special sauce in marketing a real estate practice. There are a couple of exceptions where the other ingredients are such unique propositions, that the dish is very tasty without flavor enhancement. Russell Shaw spends more media dollars in his market than most national brands do. He doesn’t want those dollars aiding the competition. High end boutiques, such as http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com don’t benefit from the this type of branding. Greg has positioned himself as the trusted advisor via his newspaper articles. Greg’s offering is so tasty that a sauce would do nothing but detract from what he has served up. The rest of us can always use that big brand to enhance and reinforce our propositions. If we are clever, we can improve our profitability with judicious use of the credibility (and the tools) the big brand brings.
June 5, 2008 — 5:40 am
Eric Blackwell says:
@Brian– Thank you. I will head over there today..
@Jim Rake- I have never been in the miltary. But those who serve have my utmost respect. To say it is a military operation is a HUGE compliment. To say it is akin to the decentralized execution and determination of a Seal Team is an honor that I aspire to.
@Mike-yep. Thanks for stimulating my thoughts further on this.
Like the guerrilla force that it is, many of the accomplishments and acheivments of our group will never be greeted with cheers and accolades other than high fives around the office (one associate had a $1.85MM closing and earned a high five yesterday). Today he is listing a couple more $1MM plus properties from his/his wife’s blog.
June 5, 2008 — 5:43 am
Eric Blackwell says:
@Thomas Johnson- Exactly. Russ and Greg are GREAT examples of exactly what I am talking about. Russell has created dominance in SEVERAL marketing channels that feed him well. Greg has as well…take a look at what he has done to create dominance in the yard signs department. He has his bases TOTALLY covered.
@Franchises– FULL DISCLOSURE. I want to be careful here…I am NOT a huge fan of franchises in general. At all. HOWEVER–I have to measure what we are getting vs what we are giving.
At present (2008) HUNDEREDS of leads have gone to our agents from REMAX.com at no fee to them (outside of their dues, etc..). These are 95% buyers.
I watch my analytics as well..we currently receive MUCH traffic via our website via the keywords Louisville remax and remax Louisville…more so than Louisville homes…and we are currently blessed to be #1 in Google for both.
I add those two things together and subtract the cost…I see return there. If I did not, I would be their worst nightmare. It is a pretty straightforward calc in my book.
I am pretty fiercely independent by nature and see no need in subsidizing bureaucracy…but I see no reason NOT to participate where there is a return.
June 5, 2008 — 5:58 am
James Boyer says:
Nice post Eric. Since I have not put the Seller marketing channel together yet (not for lack of trying) I have concentrated on the buyer channel, which for this stage of the real estate market is more advantageous.
On the sellers side I still have not figured out how to consistently get the appointment. I have figured out how to get the listing once I have the appointment, which for the last year I am running about 95% success rate once though the door.
June 5, 2008 — 6:21 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Very good post. I really like the bingo analogy, as well as the differences in marketing strategy between buyer/seller agents.
My take on it is a little different b/c I’m a small shop. I never did it consciously, but have definitely reached out to other small shops to work together and defend our turf. It’s exactly the same concept, and works extremely well. There’s plenty of business out there for the top 10%, so just make sure you’re in the top 10%, and that you network with ’em!
June 5, 2008 — 6:34 am
Genuine Chris Johnson says:
Beautiful. And some compensation structure should be created to persuade elite performers to stay on. I.e. the first X % of dollars in go into a pool, and then are thus divided, so the listing agent benefits when the buyer’s agent sells.
An internal compensation model…this is my next BHB post.
And it makes me hanker to get my license back and go sell some houses again.
June 5, 2008 — 6:42 am
Steve Simon says:
My God a team of twenty bloggers, domination! etc.
I guess I have just been lucky?
I just do what is asked of me in a professional manner; answer questions when I am sure of the answer (find the answer and get back to the person that asked it when I don’t know the answer right off), and I have done nicely.
Maybe I’ll start putting together a “Blogging Team”?
Nah 🙂
June 5, 2008 — 6:51 am
Eric Blackwell says:
@Steve- grin.
I am in a little different position that most everyone here. I am the Director of Technology and marketing for an office of 120 agents (all in one building).
Lot’s of fun! Blogs range from Investments to hyperlocals, to Kentucky Horse Farms to First Time Home buyers, etc.
Everyone is at their own level. We just support ’em.
June 5, 2008 — 8:20 am
Mark Eckenrode says:
eric, good stuff. you’ve built a team where each focuses on their strengths rather than spending/wasting time trying to elevate a weakness.
June 5, 2008 — 11:34 am
Bob Wilson says:
In a business of self employed entrepreneurs, a business built on communal ownership makes no sense to me.
June 6, 2008 — 10:31 am
Malok says:
Having everyone break out into their own niche, allows that person to become the dominant authority for it in the minds of consumers, as well as other real estate agents. And having that many persons gives everyone the ability to watch each other’s back and keep an eye out for one another without the feeling that its a competition amongst themselves.
June 6, 2008 — 4:14 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Bob- This is not communal ownership. It is simply cooperation among entrepreneurs, at least in my view.
Someone who does mainly commercial real estate can easily work with someone who specializes in Kentucky horse farms and they both can work with someone who is an investor specialist.
That’s not communism IMO..just cooperation.
June 6, 2008 — 4:50 pm
Genuine Chris Johnson says:
I would definitely look for a non selling broker if possible. That would be the thing to do
June 6, 2008 — 8:40 pm
Bob Wilson says:
who owns the blog your agents compete on?
June 8, 2008 — 11:05 am
Eric Blackwell says:
@Bob- They own the domain, and in most cases I host it, BUT that is not a hard and fast rule. Malok, who commented above, both owns and hosts his domains…He would be the most successful blogger of the bunch ($ and cents wise).
If you are looking for trickery here, you won’t find it..they are here, working with me by choice. We TRUST each other and we don’t step on each others’ toes. I trust them and we work together…
They can leave our brokerage if they want…they find too much value in working together to leave. At least that has been our experience so far.
June 8, 2008 — 11:47 am
Bob Wilson says:
I’m not looking for trickery, Eric. It isn’t clear to me what the structure is with this approach. Does each agent own their own blog? If so, I don’t what is really being accomplished.
June 8, 2008 — 12:59 pm
Sue says:
Thanks for the post Eric, sounds like a good setup. I like that the broker doesn’t sell…manages and does SEO. I believe when the agents concentrate on focused areas, it becomes like a finely tuned machine operating very efficiently.
June 30, 2008 — 6:29 pm