Shares in both Rightmove and Zoopla have enjoyed a strong week – Rightmove after Swiss bank UBS raised its price target to 3470p, and Zoopla despite being heavily “shorted”.
UBS tipped Rightmove shares as a buy. It said that the launch of OnTheMarket had had little impact on Rightmove, “with Zoopla suffering the lion’s share of churn”.
The bank’s analysts said: “With all the noise it caused, OTM’s real impact on Rightmove has simply been to dilute the competition.”
UBS added: “The emergence of a credible third player has helped to cement Rightmove’s market-leading position in the longer term.”
UBS’s latest analysis is interesting, given that in January it downgraded Rightmove to “neutral” saying that it was a great business but with “limited upside”.
On Wednesday, Rightmove continued with its share buy-back programme, announcing that it had bought 17,000 shares through UBS. It paid between 3099 .50p and 3142p.
Meanwhile Zoopla has been featured in a “shortlist” in an Investors Chronicle article.
The piece begins: “What do Tesco, Zoopla, Flybe and Glencore have in common? Answer: their shares are all currently shorted by major fund managers.”
It goes on: “Take Zoopla. Investors are currently unsure of the likely damage to the property website from the recent entrance of estate agent-owned competitor OnTheMarket, which asks its members to de-list from at least one of the ‘big two’ online players – the other being Rightmove.
“Four fund managers, Tremblant Capital, BlackRock Investment Management, Ennismore and GLG Partners, clearly believe the pain Zoopla detailed in its accounts in February will continue, and are shorting the stock.”
Normally, when stock is being shorted, the share price falls.
But yesterday, Zoopla’s shares finished at 196p, continuing the upward trend that began in the middle of March.
Rightmove, meanwhile, continued its trajectory since the start of the year, closing at 3,143.
The Investors Chronicle article is here
Comments (59)
PeeBee
1. Much: when RM launched the corps would have had 20-25%of UK stock. As corps have only got bigger. I guess thsts what RM & Z get from them today.
2. The corps can intranet between own brands between local offices. So thats a big mls corp platform. Ie Countrywide often have 2-3-4 nearby offices x 46 brands. LDL being 2nd etc.
But all agents really sub if they put anything on a portal. There is little difference in a sub agent and a portal. So why not vertically share with fellow agents.
3. Logically, I dare say opening your listings to other OTM agents could gain better prices for your clients. But then why stip there.
4. The UK sould be better as a mls platform. Higher fees thst budgets couldnt compete with to join as they dont charge enough to put stock back in. Your better solution is a true union not jusy listing in a same place. You could offer better matches rather than just what you have.
5. It depends on agents who want access to more stock. OTM isnt a property business. Its a media platform thst just carries property data. But it does place restraints on agents which is wrong.
6. Never – why would corps support OTM when they have shares in RM andZ. Look at RM and Z board directors and look at their contacts. To support OTM would be like the locsl blood bank supporting the local vampires. Or a first division footy club supporting a competitor club
1. So… you’re saying that roughly 15% (I seem to remember that figure being quoted here on EYE…) of UK Estate Agents hold roughly 25% of the entire housing stock?
2. a) This answer doesn’t answer the question. You know what I mean – fudging the issue isn’t doing you any favours: b) CAN, yes – but rarely DO. Best you get usually is the name and number of the branch dealing with the property you enquire about.
3. Again – you give an answer to a question that wasn’t asked.
4. PLEASE stop trying to use this as an advert.
5. Are you for real?
6. Tell you what – forget Q5 – answer duly noted for future.
Trevor…You can’t pinpoint all the problems with the Industry back to agents not doing splits on properties in the same way Farage blames all our countries problems on our membership of the EU?! Or can you?
You read it here first, Paul H… ;o)
A lot of corporates have shares in RM and Z. They have much of the UK stock that OTM will never see. RM launched with much stock and it carries much OTM agents stock in more outlets. Follow your dreams guys.
“They have much of the UK stock that OTM will never see.” Humour me, please, Mr Mealham –
1. Please define “much” – as a percentage preferably.
2. What percentage of Corporate Agent stock would you estimate is currently on multiple listing basis?
3. What percentage of those multiple listings might you think are listed with OTM Agents?
4. What percentage of listings that the corporates have currently on Sole agency basis could potentially become multiple listings?
5. What percentage of those future potential multi listings could find themselves on the books of an OTM Agent?
6. Define “never”.
Sorry on mobile. So should read ‘budget’ and ‘will’
Nice thoughts GPL. But I fear you and Pee Bee would be standing on that front line before the top of the hill with pen knifes and muskets talking of the victory ahead. Whilst on the other side the Starship Enterprise would eventually come over from the other side.
Any agents who think under budget and outdated portal structures can beat whats really out there are only kidding themselves.
Theres some big vcs investing in real anti agent models such as bidget models. The only way to beat one or some portals is a real mutual that retains greater control and flex of its listings. OTM doesnt carry just one set of restraints. OTM wkll end up doing more damage that good in the longer run.
Sorry? Somebody mention the Starship Enterprise?
Ahhh… welcome to my world, Mr Mealham! Gotta say I certainly didn’t have you down as a Trekkie!
Okay… your analogy has The AM Collective going into battle armed with little more than peashooters and toothpicks trying to penetrate defence shields and hull plating. Whilst you don’t clarify which Enterprise we would be up against – the many ships to carry the illustrious name include NX-Class (NX-01); Constitution Class (NCC-1701 and NCC-1701A); Excelsior Class (NCC-1701B); Ambassador Class (NCC-1701C); Galaxy Class (NCC-1701D); Sovereign Class (NCC-1701E) and lastly Odyssey Class (NCC-1701F). Each had its own specification; new technology, modifications and upgrades were added as and when needed and available to the defence and armament systems progressively improving on the former marque.
Never mind us and our primitive weaponry – the NX-Class wouldn’t have lasted twenty seconds when pitted against Captain Picard’s Galaxy Class behemoth. It was the first starship to feature Saucer Separation technology, allowing the main ‘saucer’ section to detach from the stardrive section – effectively creating two independent ships out of one should the need arise.
A formidable opponent to be sure – but no match for The Borg. Enterprise ‘D’ was indeed lucky not to have suffered total destruction on several occasions in confrontations with The Collective. Massively outgunned, almost 50% slower, Borg shield adaptation technology meaning it was no more effective than the peashooters I mentioned above; and an engineered enemy who assimilated the knowledge of countless races of beings in order to reign supreme… yet Picard triumphed when the chips were down and the stakes highest. How?
People, Mr Mealham. People triumphed against technology. Underdog comes out battered, bleeding – but standing – the thing that all movies are made of. Good beats evil.
IT IS possible. Illogical, maybe – but possible.
Live long and prosper, Mr Mealham.
Never have I seen a better or clearer comparison of the various craft that bore (or should that be ‘will bear’….?) the name Enterprise. A thoroughly educational and highly entertaining post with a moral message to boot – one if my all time favourites. Can we have more Star Trek and less portals please? Thank you for taking the time to entertain us, PeeBee.
Why thank you, Robin.
Next week I will be posting my comparing the experiences of dealing with Online Estate Agency and licking a cattle prod to see which is the less painful.
Obviously I am having to prepare for it – there is much research and physical experience involved. I’m half-way there – I’ve left what I truly believe will be the worst by a county mile ’til last and am dreading the actual physical act involved. Once I set myself a task I doggedly follow it through – but to be honest I’m actually worried that I simply won’t be able to put myself through the experience awaiting me. The very thought is making me physically unwell.
Can’t I just lick the cattle prod again… please…?
PeeBee…. As I settle down to dinner at a fine Scottish Country House Hotel in the far North West of Scotland, I reminisce about the 350 plus motorcycling miles I have covered today in glorious weather, empty roads, riding to the 2000ft summit high above Applecross and then a satisfying lunch in the Applecross Inn…. on thru Wester Ross and to Sutherland…. entirely free of The Duopoly!
However, pre-dinner right now your posts have already trumped whatever desert is on the menu! Finest vocabulary fare indeed… it’s good that you took the time & effort when the same old suspects fire their empty thoughts tinged with… but if it was like this I would want to join!
They would likely have lined up for the war effort all those decades ago with their list of requirements before stepping forward! In life there are those that take a chance and step forward…. and as we read here so often…. there are the comment passing by-standers!…. who will never step forward!! Akin really to annoying sticky things that get stuck to the sole of your shoes!
No cigars PeeBee however a hearty Goin Yirsel!…. nice one!
Dinner calls!…. and no Midges so far!!
GPL – I appreciate you taking time out from what sounds like a perfect day to post.
I trust you agree that the real sad thing in all this is that we appear ‘at war’ with those that should be our brothers in arms.
and as the rain gathers itself… at least my motorcycle helmet has a double glazed visor so it doesn’t steam up… no en-suite tho!
I agree entirely PeeBee with the fact that it is OUR industry and as a collective WE should be driving this vital change together.
Trevor is correct re the fragmentation with the corporates however their involvement with The Duopoly is effectively forcing our industry in the portal company share profit direction…. there are indeed big forces at work… however I do not underestimate the collectives ability to drive change or secure a new direction for the majority of real estate agents out there!
Maybe I have to change my thinking and acknowledge that Rightmove will remain to serve the corporates and OTM can serve real estate agents. Having walked away from corporate estate agents after the shocking fiasco that is Countrywide I see how poorly many of the corporates are regarded by the consumer/our clients.
There is Zero Danger to the Traditional Local Estate Agent providing a real estate agency service…. other than the long term Duopoly Dance which must be broken!
So, Zoopla?….. farewell I think or a medium term vastly reduced and ultimately useless portal.
Rightmove?…. serve your corporate shareholders then with a much reduced inventory and an association with Supermarket Estate Agency!
OnTheMarket?…. the No1 Portal that serves Real Estate Agents! and let’s start with a breakdown of corporate chains versus independent estate agents, number of branches, market share etc …that is perhaps the direction we have to forge…. break free from The Duopoly who serve themselves and their Supermarket Property Chain Shareholders.
In the meantime, hotel breakfast and another day in the saddle beckons!
Applecross is truly spectacular. Sounds like an amazing day.
Not to mention providing the most interesting post in this thread… ;o)
Pee Bee – by knowing who someone is means more can be understood about what they do, how long in the game and how they view things happening in the industry.
Its nice to know the make up of the person giving the opinion. To give false names is often to hide, or say things controversial without being accountable.
MLS works. Its as old a far back as you want to go. Its more traditional in that it was a common way for traditional agents to do better for clients.
Also the tech side won’t be OTM’s biggest costing. Bits like vertical SEO that RM and Z have in place and TV/ media are expensive. Again – have AM got deep enough pockets to challenge RM and Z backers if they chose to throw £30-40m at it?
“…by knowing who someone is means more can be understood about what they do, how long in the game and how they view things happening in the industry.”
I disagree. Take these three scenarios:
I am a Junior Neg with an Independent Agent. I have an opinion.
I am a Regional Director with a Corporate Agent with 400 UK branches. I have an opinion.
I am a Global Director of a major professional body with over 100,000 Members. I have an opinion.
Which of these three individuals opinion would carry more weight in your opinion, Mr Mealham – and why?
Is the choice really so difficult that four days later you have yet to respond, Mr Mealham?
@ PeeBee – why the sudo name 🙂
EHenderson talks a lot of sense. £12m could achieve alot. …..
PeeBee – Are you really a traditional agent?? By this I mean what do you do that makes you traditional?
Ive just placed a property for sale through one of my traditional INEA members. They have subbed it out and as a result of various agents (really pulling together) im seeing more people through the door than a single agent would have achieved.
From the 1890’s to 1990’s main agents subbing was a common traditional practice. Today its proving to hold its own. The higher comm offered to the winning agent allows subbing out to fellow agents = likely better offer due to greater exposure.
So PeeBee – do you ever work with other agents? My gripe with RM – Z and OTM is that they take agents property data up, but the RM schema doesn’t allow back send. As such OTM. ANOther Portal or which ever next portal sets up next week, next year, next month. Anything running the standard UK data schema has restraints in the way it restrains agents actually being a mutual.
So my comment as to AM should have spoken with Z is simply its No. 2 and alike AM’s OTM wants to be No. 1.
You now have a greater fragmented 2nd – 3rd – 4th – 5th etc that has moved No. 2 further from the No. 1 spot.
As for saying none of the 5000 have been forced – thats not true. managers and negs are told what to do by MD’s.
“You now have a greater fragmented 2nd – 3rd – 4th – 5th etc that has moved No. 2 further from the No. 1 spot.”…….So what is the problem? A stronger Rightmove will continue to drive their prices further North which makes it even more important that OTM is there for agents to switch from £1000s per branch per month to £250 per branch per month. Not to mention Rightmoves’ private seller options and sale of agency data to 3rd parties!
“sudo name”? Although I really can’t be chuffed to repeat myself – here I go again.
BECAUSE WHO I AM IS IRRELEVANT. You won’t have heard of me anyway – so why does it even matter?
Tell you what – I’ll change ‘PeeBee’ to a name you recognise if you like… if you want to address every post starting with, say, “@ Gloria Hunniford…” would that make your response to me any better or worse – or have more or less impact? Those who post here (in the main) receive responses based upon THE CONTENT of their posts, Mr Mealham – NOT who typed it. Why do you have a problem with that?
“EHenderson talks a lot of sense…”. I wouldn’t disagree. I spouted a lot of the same “sense” for long enough.
“…£12m could achieve a lot…” Yes it could – BUT IT’S NOT £12m, is it? It’s half of that. Or a quarter… a third… pick any number between 1 and 82 and stick a ‘%’ on it. It certainly won’t be 83% of it or more because I very much doubt the operating profit of OTM will be anywhere near that of RM anytime soon. It’s not designed to be, don’t forget – it’s a mutual.
Sorry – but I’m not getting dragged into your MLS free advertising roadshow again. Let’s just say I sell houses, for people who want them sold, to people who want to buy them. If I needed help from others – then the vendors shouldn’t instruct me in the first place. My view – yours is different. End of that – okay.
“As for saying none of the 5000 have been forced – thats not true. managers and negs are told what to do by MD’s.”
Oh come on! I expect better, Mr Mealham. My actual quote that you seek to dismiss with the above was “NOT ONE of the 5000 or so Member offices have been “forced” to sign up.” They haven’t – because they are OWNED by those that made the decision. To be brutal – the staff know what they can do if they don’t like it. The owners risk that happening – but I would expect that the great majority of said owners have so far given their core staff sufficient confidence in their past decisions to justify confidence in their current ones. Hell, Mr Mealham – this is a change of PORTAL we are discussing here – simply moving stock form one shop window to another – which is equally accessible to the one it was displayed in the week before! Same people doing the real job. They haven’t sacked everyone and brought in a load of YTs who can’t string three words together other than “see you later” to everyone they interact with (spot MY ‘pet hate’ with the next generation of budding EAs if you can…). The Lister has had his/her Audi A3 traded in for a Skoda – so what? If a seller chooses an Agent on the car they drive frankly you wouldn’t want the business.
Now all this is from me – who made a mahoosive song and dance about the whole AM thing from the second it was announced and how we should simply tame the beasts that were there instead of creating a new beast. But that was never going to happen – was it? Correct me if I’m wrong – but there hasn’t been a single ‘new’ argument put forward in respect of AM since my initial rantings back end of 2013 when I was almost a lone voice against those of ‘Paul H, ‘wilko’ and those I dubbed “The AM Collective”.
I’m frankly amazed that AM ever got off the ground seeing as generally three Estate Agents have four opinions and won’t listen to the other five. But it did – big style – and my company is one of those that have chosen to support it.
And I, in turn, support my company and those that choose to use our services – which we STILL provide, don’t forget.
Alternatively, of course – if at any point I decide not to, then I know where the door is.
*Pseudo
EHenderson – “If they got £100 and 10k offices they would have £12m per year to invest.”
Erm… NO wages? NO running costs? NO taxation?
Not sure on which dim and distant sun your planet orbits – but I’d sure like to open an office on it – as long as a large chunk of the “investment” it receives in fees is duly invested in ME, that is…
Thats Springetts gig PeeBee and at a quarter a million in year in wages he wont be keen to farm it out !!
Oops ! I meant to write “The flaw in the logic was that it FAILED TO recognise…
As a passionate supporter of AM/OTM, I applaud PeeBee’s cogent and humorous analysis. I observed his frequent postings in the run-up to OTM’s launch in January and honestly couldn’t make out whether he was for or against. I confess to having certain misgivings about the operating model but the ship is well and truly on its way. Whether it prangs an iceberg in the form of apathy/disinterest/cold feet is up to those of us already in it and those not yet decided. The issue with taking on the RM/Z behemoths is that it was always going to be a tall order and if we recall the early AM graphics of ‘market disruption’ they showed AM taking equal chunks out of BOTH portals. The flaw in the logic was that it recognise the possibility of the vast majority of us dropping Z rather than RM as (probably) for most of us Z was the weaker link. The only way to inflict similar damage to RM (who, make no mistake about it, are already planning to use our hard-won data to damage us) is for OTM to gain critical mass. The platitudinous answer to this is for the fence-sitters to join up. Change, if we see it as necessary for further success, can, as Robert May posts above, be better effected from within OTM than from without.
“Change, if we see it as necessary for further success, can, as Robert May posts above, be better effected from within OTM than from without.”
It can ONLY be effected from within, marcH – but it needs SOMEONE to drive the change.
My vote is for the guy who is dropping all the hints about what needs doing – since well before AM was formulated – and in my opinion very possibly has identified and is developing ‘what it needs to succeed’.
“The flaw in the logic was that it recognise the possibility of the vast majority of us dropping Z rather than RM…” One of the beastings I had to endure was on that very subject.
Effectively Zoopla is switched off already around here. So far 4 AM gold members have seen what I a up to albeit a very early UX release but I think I can, from the feedback I have received, say that I have built something that allows my AM dominated area to switch off Rightmove too. I am not for one second saying any agent should but the fact they could hands them the trump cards.
I have already said that both Rightmove and Zoopla are legacy systems and to a few people I have proved it. I have demonstrated that the one other portal rule is ineffective in controlling the main competition, I can demonstrate how it serves to stifle development of ally websites and up above can show how it is preventing agents from joining the mutual bit of the project.
Create a copper and tin level membership that gives agents a voice, charge the offered £100/ branch ( no portal presence no marketing restrictions) and see what the face of the industry looks like within 3 months. I might be very wrong but entrenched into two camps as they are now something has to give before membership can be accelerated to the minimum viable level I estimate at 5900 branches and then on to 10,000 by the end of the year.
Sometimes its wiser to befriend the mammouth than to take on the tiger direct. AM may have been better to have struck a renegotiated deal with Z. Rather than take on Z and RM.
Behind RM and Z are some very deep pockets.
On Zoopla I was told there are around 450 budget models which obviously anger the many OTM agents.
To me AM could have made demands and won more ground than going it alone.
The other flaw is in replicating the standard UK portal model with a data schema that by design is flawed for a true mutual group.
Mr Mealham – “AM may have been better to have struck a renegotiated deal with Z.”
Sorry – but this reads (to me, at least…) like you just don’t ‘get it’.
I’ll continue your “mammouth” analogy to a degree – but respectfully suggest it needs bringing into the 21st century I’m afraid, as we traditional Agents are often described as ‘dinosaurs’ by the onlinies let’s not perpetuate and encourage their scorn by talking mammoths, but their modern-day descendents, the elephant.
1. Agents didn’t buy in to AM for it to create cosy little arrangements with other portals and nestle in with the herd somewhere under the two bull elephant’s legs.
2. Since first coming across Ros in her former position, and subsequently here at EYE the common thread when portals ever hit the news (a daily occurrence even pre-AM…) I have seen nothing but animosity towards RM & Z from their paying customers and the wish to put them in their place – or shut them down completely.
3. No one can deny that the two bull elephants now firmly believe that they are Kings of the property jungle. They have evolved from service supplier – and they have used OUR money to do it. And we have sat and watched it… and done nothing other than bleat on.
So… along comes AM – with a ‘put up or shut up’ proposition.
3. NOT ONE of the 5000 or so Member offices have been “forced” to sign up. Many, like me, had and no doubt still have reservations as ONE elephant is a huge task to bring down and eat – never mind two. But we have bought into the whole concept – and now it is up to US to feed the animal and strengthen it. We’ve done it before – we can do it again – but this time it will be harder because of the two dominant bull elephants.
There is only one way to eat an elephant, Mr Mealham – one bite at a time. And trying to eat TWO at the same time is both illogical and impractical. Even with 5000 sets of teeth.
Now – if we had TEN thousand…
In ‘meat’ terms, we have already polished off one leg and a rack of ribs of the Z elephant, and getting ready for the next course. Z is making a lot of noise and thrashing around as you would expect any animal to do when another is biting chunks out of it (I was lambasted a year ago here on EYE for ‘predicting’ it) – but the screaming and thrashing won’t make the other stop and be its fwend again. RM are currently standing and watching – but only because its not THEIR rump steak that’s next on the griddle. The current Z propaganda attack will seem like a stroll on the savannah compared to the stampede that Mr Shipside will muster up given the opportunity, I have no doubt. BUT… by then AM/OTM will have to have grown in strength and support – both industry and public. With one will come the other – as the history books demonstrate.
In ‘meat’ terms, that’s a load of tripe!
Come on then – explain why!
Sorry PeeBee – No time to reply right now – too busy responding to Rightmove leads!
I’ll wait… you can’t keep me hanging on any longer than Messrs Day and Quirk usually do…
Still responding to all those leads I take it…
Anyone else getting this unprecedented avalanche of leads?
Outrageous! EYE has been infiltrated by realism and common sense.
The only beneficiaries medium and long terms of OTM will be Ian Springett and his team.
I simply do not understand that post Harry are you able to explain in a bit more detail?
As I see it there are two parts to Agents Mutual; the affinity group of agents who are working together with a common goal, one agent one vote etc and then there is their is their product, the portal On the market. Now whether you aren’t thinking things through as deeply as I am or you have a different motivation but the existence of AM benefits all those agents who qualify to join; they have a collective influence and negotiating power that is only second ( in theory) to RICS, ARLA and NAEA.
If the product is wrong you won’t have a voice from outside AM to change the product and change the rules but from within you do. The hard bit to work out is whether what you will sacrifice to join AM and hope to change OTM to suit you and the other 12600 qualifying branch non joiners, is less or more than remaining outside. If 5001 branch fence sitters all joined up they could vote to change the rule that was keeping them out.
There has been lots and lots of debate about the one other portal rule, now OTM is live and the effects on Zoopla and RM are known there can be informed discussion whether the one other portal rule will or won’t work and what the likely cost of forcing it to work will be.
Do you qualify to join AM Harry? Would you join AM and if you would what changes would be necessary for you to join?
I’m with Harry.
This silly, divisive project is doomed to fail and Springett will have done very nicely along the way.
Robert, the only thing that would persuade me to join is dropping the exclusivity requirement and reducing the monthly cost to £100 so I can support it while it establishes itself without significant financial impact. The current requirement for members to take pain and pay market rates is madness.
If they got £100 and 10k offices they would have £12m per year to invest. If £6-8m of that could go to marketing, it could establish itself over 5 years.
The problem is that they have set up central london offices and from what I hear a very expensive and over-staffed team, so with their current structure investment in marketing would be unsustainable.
So I would vote to change the team, move the location, pare the sales operation down to a minimum (no need for a large sales team if pricing is realistic) , out source the tech (maybe a deal with Zoopla as Trevor suggests where they power the etch at no cost?), and then we might be on to a winner.
There must be plenty of agents who got pulled into this thing who are feeling like they have been sold a pup. Thankfully the structure of the thing means that the smaller agents who will most be feeling the pain could drum up support for change and the power is not in the hands of the corporates (although of course they do make up the board which may prove impenetrable).
Good luck!
£100 a month, a bit like the needaproperty model then?
Disingenuous…Needaproperty didn’t fail because of what it charged did it?
Erm… it failed – end of.
That was the upshot Peebee but like all things there is a back story to what went on there.
‘So I would vote to change the team, move the location, pare the sales operation down to a minimum (no need for a large sales team if pricing is realistic) , out source the tech (maybe a deal with Zoopla as Trevor suggests where they power the etch at no cost?), and then we might be on to a winner.’
This is a great comment. I believe that IS and his team did a fantastic job of planning and executing right up to launch when some frankly bizarre marketing decisions were made.
Shouting about Z/RM costs whilst having a London based office and seemingly low tech based solutions just doesn’t make sense. Plus it shows a London centric, Prime Location-esque mindset to non-London agents.
To my mind OTM should differentiate via technology led, self service listing solutions for agents to use. Non-London based call centre for customer service to help agents and also promote OTM to fence sitters. Small sales team of regionally based staff to visit pre qualified appointments for maximum return on time on the road. Take a broader approach and offer smaller agents centralised support e.g phone answering services, admin, marketing solutions. Have deep Agent relationships with tangible, practical advantages to using OTM other than been Zoopla light with a fear of consumer focused products.
I’ve said it before but right now the only thing that differentiates OTM is it’s T&C’s and that’s not a sustainable business model.
It’s also a shame. Someone said in a previous post that if Portals disappeared tomorrow people would still buy and sell houses. This is true. But If agents disappeared tomorrow people would still buy and sell houses via a different model. Believing you are indispensible is foolish and the quick route to unplanned obsolescence. Contrary to what some posters here think that applies to portals and Estate Agents.
Well said Interestedobserver
Thank you for that reply it is balanced, logical (as is your style) and it is what the existing ordinary members need to hear.
Would you consider committing 12 months £100/month membership to Agent’s Mutual while your and other fence sitters objections are resolved? In other words subscribe to and support the affinity group but not (for the time being) the portal product the group has produced. If you would get hold of your local rep and make them the offer, after all they are paid to listen to and overcome objections. As you say another £6 million/annum in the kitty while you and the other 4999 branches (adjust if you are more than one branch) sort out the objections would get AM to the 10,000 branch total in short order and give opinions on both sides time to be understood and considered. If AM turn down an offer like that it resolves once and for all how the game has to be played going forward.
I believe agents like you are an important level of membership to AM with Agents like you and Harry AM becomes a stronger voice to properly control industry service suppliers (not just the dominant advertising portals) and the crowd funded PI, Agency trytobe’s.
Yes, I would join but they would have to drop the ‘one other portal’ rule, which I doubt they will unless forced…
Amazes me how you and others constantly criticize the AM leadership and AM in general, and keep banging on about how “if it did this” “if it did that” I’d join.
Remember its a mutual……why not join and campaign for change from the inside????.. or do you think you are so above the rest of us members that you can dictate how you would want to see it managed, and when all your boxes are ticked then you might consider joining!!!!! Absolute tosh!
If you are prepared to join and give them £1200 per branch per annum just to have your voice heard someone ought to take note and listen. Twelve hundred quid is not a small amount of money and if you are prepared to shell out that just to have a voice it is in my opinion only courtesy that someone is prepared to listen.
I don’t know how clear or loud the buying signal has to be but every bit of passion posted by objectors and fence sitters is saying “I want to join but…..”
“but every bit of passion posted by objectors and fence sitters is saying “I want to join but”
More tosh….many objectors and fence sitters who comment on here have absolutely no intention of joining and just consistently say how badly it is being run.
More Tosh wilko? I suspect E Henderson is/was a lot closer to a discussion with AM at this end of the morning than at the beginning.
There really is no hope for the project if people like you dismiss clearly stated objections and buying signals such as ” Yes, I would join but” as tosh.
If it is your intention that not everyone who meets the criteria for AM membership is wanted by AM at least have the good grace to say so. There simply is no other explanation for an attitude such as yours!
Robert….If E Henderson is considering joining OTM then he sure has a funny way of showing it. His comments/opinions are mostly completely unbalanced (eg yesterday listing the “high end publications” that OTM advertise in- indicating that OTM is only for the posh London agents whilst declining to mention the other advertising avenues that cover all other “walks of life” in equal measure )
He has stated that he has no intention of joining whilst there is a one other portal rule…..sorry but that’s one of the main reasons that I, and most others signed up…..and it’s not for changing any time soon whatever his,or anyone elses views!
I could go on, but really, if people can’t see what is trying to be achieved by now, and the means to go about achieving aims, then I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t expect them to join in the near future, and frankly it doesn’t bother me.
I believe it is important to have and maintain a viable alternative that agents can switch to when RM vastly increase their costs continue with private sales and sell agents data.
I’m just sorry that others don’t see it as simply as that and insist on only joining if it is changed to support their own viewpoints.
And as for your comment about posters wanting to join…but. You only have to read some of Dannys posts where he has clearly said he has no intention of joining any more but still happily fires off personal dire tribe at the OTM management and feels it is down to him to constantly criticize things like the company pay structure!!.
I’ts a bit like a Tory supporter going on the Labour website and saying “if you change your policies a bit more in line with my Tory views, then I might join you!”
I think EHenderson is a Lady Wilko.
So are your views the official line, categorically for the next 5 years they will be no change to the one other portal rule, like it or lump it. It is a matter outside the voting authority of the membership?
Even if the advantage and strengthened position of Rightmove continues and Zoopla carries on a bit battered there will be no U turn?
If that is the case I think you will be the one who can take credit for shoving a whole heap of sitters off the fence!
‘they have a collective influence and negotiating power that is only second ( in theory)’ – In theory maybe…but what exactly has been negotiated with this so called power? This will sound condescending (and I don’t mean it to) but for a man with obvious intelligence and articulation I find your opinions quite surprising on this subject…not that you should care what I think of course.
It isn’t at all condescending and I thank you for the respect of worrying it is. I am very aware my thoughts are apparently contradictory at times. On this particular subject I don’t work for AM and am keeping my own counsel on the quality of OTM and the advertising that supports it but AM is something I advocated and got slated for in September 2012, many many months before the core members got together.
I have been thinking and posting about this for a very long time and have a very deep understanding of a subject I have been grass roots involved with since Homes on line popped up at PCS in Queen Street way back when (1996).
I don’t want you to care what I think I actually want you to care about your business, your staff and your industry. That is my role in all this and those that know what I am up to will hopefully vouch for both what I understand and what my intentions are.
I don’t want to discuss everything openly on here that would be like Barnes Wallis documenting his experiments with ping pong balls but Ros has my contact details if you would like to hear what I am blabbing on about in more detail. ( I got it down to an hour with Ric)
Fair reply…contents of which are duly noted. Thanks
Go on, Rivero – DO IT! I dare you…! ;o)