Here is an interesting conversation on Facebook – online versus traditional, as seen from the perspective of a landlord.
The landlord starts the thread by saying that he is trying an online agent for the first time.
He does not name the online agent but says that it is a perfectly legitimate business.
A flat which has always let almost immediately through high street agents received only one viewing in over two weeks, despite being on Zoopla, Rightmove and Primelocation.
He wonders if “tenants are wary of not going through a recognised agent with a shop front presence”.
The first response is from someone who says: “I am or should say was an online agent but I have come across a lot of comments regarding online agents not being legit so I am opening my own agency with a shop front presence.”
Another person enters the discussion, saying: “I find that local estate agents can be very competitive with their charges nowadays, so unless you are saving a lot of money via an online agent, why bother.”
There is some discussion about a property being lost among the sheer number of new listings, and one participant advises re-posting the listing at morning and evening times – something that would not be allowed by the portals.
The thread ends with the landlord saying that the flat has now let.
He says: “After three weeks with only one viewing it was given a ‘bump’ on Zoopla back to the top of the listings and let at the asking price in a day.”
The full thread, which raises some interesting issues, is here
Comments (12)
i have only joined this forum to worship Peebee
“ruffling the feathers of the wren” did it for me
He says: “After three weeks with only one viewing it was given a ‘bump’ on Zoopla back to the top of the listings and let at the asking price in a day.”
A “bump”, eh? Sounds nice and innocuous.
Or is it the practice otherwise known as #portaljuggling ?
This isn’t Gumtree or Facebook. No-one is selling a tatty armchair that needs ‘bumping’ back to the top of the pile of tatty armchairs.
The Agent involved will no doubt be happily claiming it as a new instruction to fluff up their already vastly inflated feathers.
It has NOTHING to do with looking after their client, I would suggest – and ALL to do with their own gains.
Hahhahahahahahahaha
That’s a lot of ‘Ha’s – MOST of them with correct spelling and everything…
…now here’s the hard bit.
You wouldn’t care to actually add some content we can debate, would you?
Oh go away PeeBee. You bore everyone on here with your un-constructive comments, it’s tiring. Do some work!
Can we take that as “Actually, I have nothing whatsoever to add to the debate other than a manic laugh”, then?
You’re a funny guy.
You’re the only one laughing – we are all waiting patiently, wondering if you actually can muster a comment worth debating.
I guess it’ll be a long wait…
I wonder how much was “saved” after factoring in a months lost rent?
Hybrid Estate Agents are the way forward – On the High Street and Online.
Just out of interest is a hybrid estate agent one with a shop and a website? cos if so I haven’t come across an estate agent with a shop and no website since 1999
If it’s a different beastie do tell.
One of the issues with online in any aspect is that there is no ‘service’ after instruction. Pay your money, no quality control and it goes on line. That’s pretty much it. No one looking at the properties performance, click through rates etc. I’m not just talking about price reductions (which do of course play their part when required) but savvy agents actually reviewing their stock. ‘What do we need to do to sell/let this property’. ‘Refreshing’ stock, as we refer to it in my business, is a key to our results. Looking at photography quality and perhaps changing an external to an internal after a week. Changing write ups, amending details. All of this will give a property a ‘bump’ as the details become refreshed but that focus is, naturally to spark the users interest. The online proposition wants to portray an image that basically suggests that ‘all you need to do is advertise you property on RM/Zoop’. The original article is another example of the fact that this is clearly NOT the case.