I have been thinking alot lately about RE Web 2.0, particularly in light of the recent news regarding Redfin and Zillow’s current layoffs. Greg also recently posted regarding the current state of the Realty.bots.
“Indeed. We have seen the future of real estate marketing — and it is us.*”
I am not entirely convinced it has to be all us.
I am a process guy. Prior to delving into the real estate business, I developed sales and marketing strategies for technology firms – many of which targeted supply chain solutions. When I approach a process, I try to focus on the inherent value a particular set of activities delivers.
Perhaps the double edged sword in the real estate industry is that we are all independent contractors – we approach our businesses in differing ways. On one hand, we have the ability to run our businesses in a way that capitalizes on our strengths. Some of us use a consistent process to bring a deal together, some of us don’t. I suggest that many consumers approach the purchase and sale of real estate apprehensively. Many simply don’t know what the correct process is for purchasing or selling a property and they look to a professional to provide the knowledge and expertise to consistently deliver a successful closing. Unfortunately, not all agents are created equal, therefore mileage varies – alot.
I believe that the myth to the core of the business of buying and selling property lies within the MLS. This process is not all about the data. While the data is key, it certainly does not provide a consistent process for facilitating a transaction – there is a natural progression to a transaction.
Up to this point, if not the most successful, at the least the most recognized RE Web 2.0 search solutions have focused their solutions surrounding the myth of the real estate transaction – it is all about the data. Again, the data is important, however, it is only part of the process.
My frustration with the current search solutions is that it does not address the natural progression of the real estate transaction. While extremely powerful, the solution implies that the consumer is only interested in searching – dialing the agent out of the search for a property allows the consumer to doing the transaction themselves – wrong answer.
The process of property search isn’t necessarily the most logical point to begin the process. I don’t believe search can be valuable until the client and the agent understand clearly what the client’s needs are.
Perhaps some consumers have a very clear understanding of their needs and wants. I believe that does not represent a majority of consumers – and while some have a sense of what they want, it never ceases to amaze me how they change throughout the process.
Personally, my first step with any and all prospective clients is to define their needs and to better understand their lifestyle. Next is to define what can they afford. What is their budget? Just because you can afford to spend $400,000 doesn’t mean that’s what you want to spend. What mortgage product is best for their circumstances and why?
The aggregation of available properties in the MLS is a good first step in terms of search, however, I believe the evolution of a valuable search must be heuristic in nature – I believe technology can play a significant role in better defining a client’s needs, however, the process must be consumer driven. These needs and wants could be derived from a property’s attributes, not necessarily all within the MLS. Some of the data stored in the MLS regarding a particular property includes unique attributes, i.e. the unit faces east.
I believe the evolution of search must incorporate unique property attributes which then align with a particular client’s needs. In providing a heuristic solution, the search process would narrow the parameters of the search to greater and greater levels of granularity. Again, not all of the property’s unique attributes are defined in the MLS.
For example:
A family is being relocated from Wilmette, IL to Boulder, CO. An anxious mom is concerned about leaving an excellent school district, uncertain about the new neighborhood and future school performance for her 7th grader. She will only consider a school district which has exceptional test scores in math for 7th graders. The MLS may certainly define a specific school name or district, but for a consumer who is completely unfamiliar with a new area, they may only be able to articulate a need by defining a school district based on scores.
In this example, most anxious moms would rely on a real estate professional to provide that level of granularity.
Another example:
An empty nester couple is giving up their suburban home to move back into the city. They don’t have time to wander around, looking at all the properties available – they only want to see the properties that meet every criteria. They want to be closer to the action – walk to shops, great restaurants maybe even the lake. They are particularly interested in the newer construction units closest to their favorite hangouts – they want to be only steps from their favorite restaurant. Problem is, the area is densely populated with luxury highrises. View is paramount to their search, but it isn’t always clear from the MLS which units have the best, most unobstructed views. While the MLS may provide attributes that determine what orientation the unit(s) may have, it isn’t always clear as to the view. Granted many agents will provide remarks, but some might – you know – puff alittle.
Again, most consumers would rely on a Realtor to provide the specific knowledge.
In both instances, advanced search could provide solutions to both scenarios, however, I believe in order for the search to provide greater value, properties must have deeper attributes – some already exist in the MLS, some may require access to complimentary data.
Search is an evolutionary process.
In terms of RE Web 2.0, no solution has tackled the intersection between a consumers NEED and an agents CORE COMPETENCY in a way that will induce a consumer to recognize value prior to the consummation of a transaction, i.e pay to play.
I believe that where there is an intersection between a consumer’s need and an agent’s core competency, there may be a way to quantify value outside of the ad generation model.
1 Pingback