We are not quite sure what the journalist Harry Mount has against high street estate agents, but here he is – having another pop, this time in the Spectator magazine.
This is the second time in under a month that Mount has written about “overpriced” estate agents. Earlier, in the Telegraph, he queried why someone buying a house should need to pay an agent so much – oops!
In the Spectator, he has left out this basic error. However, championing the cause of online agents – and claiming that one of them, sellmyhome.co.uk, is the fastest-growing – he likens the traditional industry to an “old cartel”.
Indeed, he says it is like prostitution in Turkey, where the practice is legal but heavily regulated.
“A decade ago, the state grew less energetic in keeping out new entrants. As a result, the city was over-run by younger, lither and more reasonably- priced Natashas – to the fury of the old guard, and the delight of Turkish gentlemen.”
Selling a house is easy-peasy, Mount seems to think (we’d beg to disagree). We’d also love to know whether Mount’s views influence the prime minister, to whom he is related.
As for buying a house, it should “be no more complicated than buying a kettle”. Really?
We would hope that even some of the better online agents (and yes, we know there are some extremely conscientious and hard-working operators) would challenge just some of these assertions, not to mention Mount’s glowing mention of an organisation that is cheap but can’t advertise on Rightmove or Zoopla at all because it doesn’t count as an agent at all.
Is this a chase to the bottom? And if so, who does it benefit? We’re particularly interested as Eye is due to chair an online/high street agent debate next week, courtesy of VTUK.
We would also like to hear from just some of the members of the public who, no doubt, have put their homes up for sale through an online agent, parted with £500 upfront and said goodbye to it, having had no result. How do they feel? A risk they knew about? Money well spent?
Mind you, do online estate agents really, gulp, pay £15,000 a month to go on Rightmove and Zoopla, as Mount claims?
If so, won’t they be hiking their prices very soon?
Anyway, hang on to your blood pressure. The article is here.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9246891/the-internet-can-and-should-destroy-estate-agents/ …
Comments (54)
Hmmm…
EYE ran a story a couple of days ago regarding RM investigating an 'Online Agent' who was simply allowing properties on its website and vendors setting their own price.
This wondrous site that Mount is pratting on about – sellmyhome.co.uk – seems to be doing pretty much the same.
"Many agents like to make out that the valuation process is an art and cannot be done by the average person. This is nonsense. In fact, valuing a property is really very simple, and thanks to the internet, you can now easily value your home without the need for an agent."
ANOTHER RM investigation is due, methinks…
The headline "Estate agent chief condemns online 'parasites' Traditional estate agents have declared war on cheaper, digital-only competitors" with subsequent story liked and tweeted 274 times with 57 mainly anti agent comments is hardly the sort of publicity the majority of agents need.
Even on the first telling of the tale by Anna White, Ian Springett had been promoted to a chief of traditional Estate Agents. Why? because a story about Agents Mutual would hold less interest with the general public than a story reinforcing the false stereotypes of Agency.
Harry Mount's LinkedIn page lists his current role as a Journalist at the Telegraph.
Well… that being the case I would imagine Ros must be equally as ashamed of THIS example of her profession as we are of those that drag ours down!
Gentlemen, please…
Our profession is under attack. YET again. We (if you are a traditional model Agent) are ALL being tarred with a black, sticky brush here.
The aggressor – Harry Mount, whoever he is.
Taking away the side argument going on above, it's time to balance the scales, methinks.
From the venomous twaddle he commits to paper(screen), I would suggest he is akin to someone whose 'significant other' has had a dalliance with an Estate Agent (or seven) at some time.
Or in the office of one at least. Maybe that is why he feels no need to spew vitriol at Cyber-Agents – they have nowhere to carry on such shenanigans…
Sorry, mate – we High-Street Agents can't help it if we're irresistible. (judging from the number of times their pics are thrust upon us, I would suggest that the Day's and Quirk's of this world think they are every bit the coyote's cojones so it's not the case that all Onlinies are munters…)
If the above be the case, I would suggest that shorter leash next time would be advisable to avoid a repeat performance.
But, looking a bit deeper, his hatred of 'professionals' spreads wider (which makes me wonder why the reference in his article to the oldest one of all…) – as can be seen from this excerpt from The Statesman in 2013:
"Harry Mount’s scathing article about barristers… is shot through with a very personal loathing of the profession, which I suspect is accountable for its vitriol. It is also heavily reliant on point-missing observations… riddled with false generalizations and concludes with distressingly flippant observations…"
Ooooh! More shenanigans maybe – this time in the Chambers?
Agents… barristers… Turkish prozzies… blimey!
Someone's 'significant other' HAS been a busy little bee… 😉
"The aggressor – Harry Mount, whoever he is."…Mr Mount clearly has no problem in having a pop at all and sundry especially us traditional agents, probably just trying to make a name for himself, just think of all the free advertising his go for that online company 😉
I think it's an odd way to do business personally! It appears that some of these online companies actually factor in to their business plan that they will get business from people publishing such articles, I think I will keep a close eye on Mr Mount for the pure entertainment value alone.
They have to Paul, the "EAT online Autumn" taught us that. The problem with that strategy is that 2% of the market doesn't buy many friends as Nat Daniels is finding out.
There is no doubt that a vexatious trolling story is great for short term readership but if 98% of traffic simply turns off what is the point?
As I have said all along; through not having the benefit of a subliminal presence, Online firms have to spend far more than the cost of a bit of Zone A just to register on public awareness. If these were intelligent business folk they would realise that.
There is simply no need to attack them, most will trade themselves out of existence in two years.
I have to say Paul my dyslexia makes reading posts like yours very difficult to understand, the fact that Property Industry Eye uses Serif fonts makes it more difficult than it needs to be. Most good web design uses San Serif fonts (no squiggly, twiddly bits on individual letters) for that reason
Paul it wasn't me or any other group of traditional Agents who so openly attacked Online Agents on June 9th ( I know that hasn’t been mentioned but I am giving you a chance to read the whole background into why I posted as I did). Despite the article in the Telegraph being very clearly about Agents Mutual, the attack was deemed to come from ALL traditional Estate Agents. Instantly the comments stream on that article had telegraph readers whizzed up and anti all Traditional Agents, not just riled up against the 13.4% (based on the figures quoted at the time)of traditional agents that Ian Springett represents. I fully appreciate what he was saying but until he represents a democratic majority of the industry he ought to be mindful that his recruitment rhetoric is not damaging the fragile goodwill that does exist.
I might be completely wrong about Mr. Mount’s inspiration and motivation for that article but I have enough experience to know that malcontents are usually intelligent but lazy. His article in the spectator isn't journalism it is opinion based on stuff he has read. He has waited a few weeks, plagiarised and rehashed the comment stream, attempted to add chalk stripe condescending wit (a bit cliché in my opinion) and blagged a few quid out of the Spectator for doing so.
If you think I am wrong about the seed and motivation for his story please tell me who has given an angry ‘Tim Nicebutdim’ character the ammunition to write an article attacking all traditional agents.
If it is your opinion that this piece was written by Mr Mount as a direct result of what Ian Springett said about online agents then I cannot see a problem in you expressing that view if you make it clear that it is your opinion. I only raised the point that you had stated that Mr Mount had specifically quoted Agents Mutual because I could not see it anywhere in the piece. For all we know this could have nothing whatsoever to do with Ian Springett's comments or Agents Mutual but instead just another attack on traditional agency as we have seen for most of this year and not just after the 'parasite' comments. As you have said Mr Mount has quoted an online agent more than once which would lead you to believe that he has in some way a vested interest, not only that but he knows that agents are an easy target, this is what I feel are his motivations – if it was Agents Mutual then he would have made that clear!
"I think most people who read what I first posted understood it."….With the greatest respect you have rather you have made this thread about AM and tried to make it out that Mr Mount is making these claims because of AM, but he hasn't directly said that so it's just a guess on your part then and not a fact that he has described AM as a cartel, in fact what his done is have an attack on traditional agency in general.
"It is not all traditional agents who are campaigning against all online agents so it is not all traditional agents who are acting like an "old cartel" who do you think he is referring to Paul and what do you think motivated him to write the story?"…"Well his not referring to AM as you've stated is he, he has not actually said it!
"My post was not a dig at AM it was a post explaining why I think Mr Mount had written it."…So your opinion and not fact then as this was the impression you've given above?
"If you think I am wrong tell me why instead of trying once again to make an issue about my choice of words."…See above.
Why, all of a sudden are there so many Z list celebs & unknown reporters banging the drum of online agencies whilst having a pop at traditional agents?! Making a few quid out of it perhaps?
With very good reason they are ignorant of the subtle differences between retail and service selling; every example trotted out to justify why online estate agency is the future uses retail analogies, from Tat through to cars and Holidays there is a product that can be seen at locally but then bought on line without the costs of retail premises. It isn't possible to buy service on the internet and have it delivered by courier or downloaded from the ether.
Having now read the offending article I have done a little homework…below is Mr Mounts Wikipedia page…
"He attended the North Bridge House School in London; he then went on to Westminster School and read Ancient and Modern History at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he was a member of the Bullingdon Club.[2] He later wrote warmly of his school days. He graduated with a First.[3]
He received a master's degree in architectural history from the Courtauld Institute and later qualified as a barrister, however failed to secure a tenancy in chambers following his pupillage.[4] He has worked as a leader writer and a New York correspondent at the Daily Telegraph.
He attracted some notoriety in 2004 for refusing to review David Mitchell's widely acclaimed Cloud Atlas for The Sunday Telegraph because he could not finish it, finding it "unreadable."[5]
His father Sir Ferdinand Mount, Bt., is also a journalist, and was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He is a second cousin of the current British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Harry Mount lives in Kentish Town"
One assumes that his views on what the internet is good for and what equates as good value extends to the car he drives, the place where he lives and clothes on his back…I’m sure that his home in Kentish Town is a great value rented studio, that he only uses public transport and that all his clothes are from Primark
And his linkedin list of chums includes……?
"Kentish"
Is that a posh way of swearing, phoenix?
To firstly refute the basic premise of his argument – The average person is no more capable of selling their own house than building their own house. What's so hard about putting one brick on top of another or smoothing some plaster on a wall?? Nothing when you watch a competent person doing but really hard to do right yourself – properly!
Secondly in respect to the source of the bile – The likes of Harry Mount set out with a steely determination to pour scorn on estate agents regardless but understand so little regarding what we actually do that they just end up spouting ill informed junk and stamping their little feet. His previous attack on the criminal bar (in respect to legal aid reforms) was expertly rubbished. Two salient lines from an article by Jerry Hayes beautifully titled 'Harry Mount is wrong' being; 'If only Harry had done a little bit of research' and that his article was 'a masterpiece of bitterness and bile'. I think that sums up his writing style and ability nicely.
How many people who offered their houses on line got a free market appraisal from Estate Agents on the High Street so that they knew what to market their property at. It would certainly help if people only talked about what they know but then the papers would be quieter!
The problem is that because there are so many poor agents practising throughout the UK, as a group, we leave ourselves open to attack. If we had a trade body that truly understood the bigger picture then the GREAT agents amongst us would stand a better chance of standing above the parapet and truly showing what we are made of. As is always the case, the public doesn't get the full picture of quite how hard we all work to get the sale through and because we, rightly, don't argue with our clients when they get it wrong, the negativity of a difficult chain is left on our shoulders.
We are a bunch of individuals doing the best job we can, we aren't joined together to make our sensible and reasonable arguments heard. We sit back and watch these loud mouthed online fools mock us and we keep quiet. As we all know, the real skill in an agent isn't the selling of a property, it is agetting the best price but then taking it all the way through to completion, and that can be seriosuly hard work and take an incredible amount of skill and experience.
Rightly or wrongly, I cancelled my membership to NFoPP 2 years go because I was tired of listening to the wrong message and in the 20+ years of being a member I can't recall a single time I felt proud of what the NAEA was doing for me. Until it acts in the best interest of the GREAT agents out there, we are going to leave ourselves totally exposed.
I agree with what you say Jon 100% as we have no regulation or a governing body that is promoting the industry the good work and value an agent puts in is lost on the public.
Be it NFoPP, NAEA,ARLA or any other body they all lack promoting the value an agent truly adds.
Does an online agent retake pictures to keep the property fresh? do they rewrite descriptions? do they have a database they call out to and proactively arrange viewings? do they accompany viewings? do they encourage offers on follow ups? do they give constructive feedback? do they check the financial standing of the purchaser? do they progress the sale? do they negotiate the best offer? do they hold the chain together when a link looks like it will fall through?
The answer to all the above is no. We need a body that takes this argument to the public to explain why we are worth 1.5% not £400 taken upfront and then not cared about!
jon@hiea.co.uk
"If we had a trade body that truly understood the bigger picture then the GREAT agents amongst us would stand a better chance of standing above the parapet and truly showing what we are made of."
But the trade body you refer to encompasses GREAT, good, average and bad Agents. Not to mention bl00dy awful.
"We sit back and watch these loud mouthed online fools mock us and we keep quiet."
Many of whom are members of the trade body you refer to.
Forgive me for saying (I know some of you won't) but ANY outsider reading EAT and PIE over the last 12 months would come to the same conclusion.
Without understanding the motivation behind Agents Mutual surely AM looks like a cartel of wealthy and influential establishment Agencies who are grouping together to bring down the loved by public portals and exclude a large proportion of the industry from membership.
Without making the important distinction between internet listing services and local agencies who can't be ITZA rated (they don't have a town centre window display) Agents mutual have not only drawn battle lines with the two main portals but with a respected proportion of Agencies who offer service levels far higher than some of their much larger competitors.
I have to say Harry Mount is demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of about 66% of the industry; the honest and decent bedrock of the industry who are not at the unsavoury, unprofessional extremes of the industry, but I suppose that giving credit to hardworking, respected, in their individual communities Estate Agents isn't going to sell magazines.
It is simply lazy journalism to whack together a few words that echo stereotype sentiment, however in banging out a last minute article no doubt inspired by some mate's outrage at Ian Springett’s broad brush attack on online Agencies, Harry Mount has simply failed to understand and report what is really going on. A shoddy and amateur retort but, in context, understandable.
I think that you are bang on with your comments. I really do think AM are missing a trick as my view, initially, was exactly the same. Another Prime Location…another elitist portal for elitist agents. It was only when attended a seminar where AM presented that it became clear that their proposition was far from that.
I am 100% for elitist agents only my understanding of elite is based on the yardstick of honesty, integrity, professionalism, customer service, respect and experience. Time and time again for 30 years I have only ever consistently found those qualities in Independent Estate Agents; small , medium and large. I am not saying corporates aren't good but usually remote policy decisions deny local excellence. Agency should be about the people involved not the money involved.
Of all the portals Primelocation is still my favourite and the one I use by choice but since it has been Zoopla'd it has lost its professionalism and therefore some of its appeal.
Agree with all of your first para but cant say that I do with your second. This said, portal preferances are regional so lets agree to disagree purely on that basis.
In disagreeing about the micro issue of which is our own personal favouite portal we are making a HUGE statement about the flaw in the AM rationale.
phoenix – "…portal preferances are regional so lets agree to disagree…". I would go so far as to say PAROCHIAL, not even regional – thus giving the multi-branch Agents mahoosive pains in the @$$ as to their enforced choice of one!
I also agree with your first paragraph!
"Without understanding the motivation behind Agents Mutual surely AM looks like a cartel of wealthy and influential establishment Agencies who are grouping together to bring down the loved by public portals and exclude a large proportion of the industry from membership"
If any outsider had been reading over the last 12 months they would have seen people from small independents through to large discussing the proposition.
The majority have been trying to gain support and support from ALL agents, big or small. There has been a common theme, we need the all on board to make AM work. It's one man, one vote, all equal.
I fail to see how anything on here would lead you to think that AM is cartel. The fact is a number of agents (and it matters not who they are) have decided to do something about an issue that has been gnawing at ankles of the majority and the industry has been banging on about since time began!
They have put up their money and got the thing off the ground. But they have made it clear, they need everyone to be in this together, big and small.
No matter what name hangs over your door, you will have no less influence than that the biggest of them all.
I think maybe the idea of a cartel maybe in the minds of some of the posters on here!
As for on-line, if you are a believer in them, then watch out, they are the next RM and Zoopla and coming to rip your heart out! What will you do then when you are being battered by RM & Zoopla and the on-lines have become too powerful?!
I can hear it now, when a few agents decide to take down the new menace that is the on-line (non) agents, the dissenters say, you can't get the public to stop going to on-lines, they are too big, too well known, the public are too used to it and now they are now paying vendors and landlords to list on their sites, no no no, until this group can prove to me that they can defeat the menace, I'm not changing my view. arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!
Some might look back and think, blimey we could have all joined together, kept control of our stock and not let the likes of RM, Zoopla and the on-lines control it, or even got hold of it. But hey ho, if I sell 200 this month at 0.2%, I might break even!
I'm pinning my hopes on some bright spark inventing time travel so we can send Arnold back to destroy the creator of the internet, now, there's a thought, where's my typewriter!!!! 😉
And as for Mr Mount, how about we all chip in and secure him a lock up shop in his local high street, give him 6 months and see how many instructions he is carrying and where his cash burn sits. That would be a story worthy of the front pages………
You have read what I have typed but not understood what I typed.
The bit that says "without an understanding" should have been enough for you not to think I am calling AM a cartel.
What has led Mr Mount to describe AM as a cartel? the fact/ pr that the big six in London are the instigators.
He (Mr Mount, not me) is using your own rhetoric against you.
"What has led Mr Mount to describe AM as a cartel?"…Where has he done/said that? I can't see it in his spectator piece unless I have missed it?
REALLY?? Allow me…
Para 10 – "Again and again, the internet has destroyed old cartels…"
Para 16 – "Thanks to the cartel-busting internet, you now can."
How many more pieces of proof do you want?
Mind you – this is also same the eejit who wrote "Buying a house should be no more complicated than buying a kettle" – so he probably won't have a clue what a cartel is in any event…
Not wanting to go over old ground, as clearly there has now been some investigation before posting. However I would say this….
Mr May, you are clearly an intelligent man, of that, I have no doubt. You have had me running to the dictionary more times than I can remember, with the delivery of some of the most exquisite words.
Your subtle use of the written word, allows you to create articles that would, in my opinion, suit your own agenda, whilst attempting to portray an unbiased opinion.
I understood exactly what you wrote, that is the point.
With another story appearing that gives you the chance to fire off your own "rhetoric" your trigger finger got the better of you, as you actually believed you had hit the jackpot when this story appeared. 2+2 = 999 in this case!
The caveat of "without an understanding", holds no water, because, if you don't have something looking like a cartel, there is nothing to understand in the first place.
Anyway, I don't hold grudges, so apology accepted.
Hey PeeBee, for the record, Paul & Paul H are not the same, I'm the better looking Paul! 🙂
Paul, the article supplied to the Daily Telegraph an first published by Anna White was almost certainly the source or inspiration of Harry Mount's submission to the Spectator. It is plagiarism with a twist. The great thing is not only has he embarrassed himself he has embarrassed Spectator too for not realising his was a re-work of someone else's work.
He has twisted the submission into a story that everyone in our industry finds offensive. It is Harry Mount who is without understanding and he is peddling his diatribe to an audience who are also lacking any understanding of what Agents Mutual are all about.
Paul – " The fact is a number of agents (and it matters not who they are) have decided to do something about an issue that has been gnawing at ankles of the majority and the industry has been banging on about since time began!"
The "issue" you refer to being WHAT, exactly…?
The "issue" you refer to being WHAT, exactly…?"…The issue being that Mr May has stated that Mr Mount has described AM as a "Cartel", I am asking him in the interest of good impartial ankle gnawing that this claim be substantiated? A fair question no?!
"REALLY?? Allow me…"…Should we be getting worried about you PeeBee;-)
Sorry but where has "Mr Mount described AM as a cartel"?
"Send 4 and sixpence we are going to a dance"
I think most people who read what I first posted understood it.
It is not all traditional agents who are campaigning against all online agents so it is not all traditional agents who are acting like an "old cartel" who do you think he is referring to Paul and what do you think motivated him to write the story?
My post was not a dig at AM it was a post explaining why I think Mr Mount had written it. If you think I am wrong tell me why instead of trying once again to make an issue about my choice of words.
Paul (OP)/Paul H – are you one and the same? It would make life a lot easier than trying to respond to two different people…
I actually think the issue Paul (no H) is referring to is different to the issue Paul H is trying to engineer.
Different issues for different Pauls, Paul.
"engineer"….Pot kettle….Youv'e tried to engineer an article about someone having a go at traditional agents as an article about someone having a go at AM.
Erm… I feel an 'OOPS' moment coming on here…
To Paul AND Paul H – apologies – I misread. It is AGENTS that the numpty is referring to as a cartel – NOT AM.
Sorreeeee… (imagine an embarrassed smiley…)
Apology accepted PeeBee…as you were!
OK, sorry! I am wrong too, the bloke isn't referring to Ian Springetts attack on parasites. He has picked up on some other more general attack by all traditional agents on all online agents that I am not aware of. Where was that article? EAT, LinkedIn
His multiple use of the word cartel is purely coincidental and me being a bit thick I am the only one who thinks the use of words like members club, consortium and syndicate could be twisted , by a journalist trying to sensationalise an article, into something with a more sinister connotation.
I am the blackest pot on the range now can someone please point to the site where an agglomeration of traditional Agents have common charter to combat common enemies including Online agencies.
Without a reply I can only conclude I can stand by what I posted 24 hours ago.
Definition of 'Cartel':
"A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members".
AM is therefore NOT a cartel. AM is NOT attempting to regulate or install a system to keep estate agency charges at an agreed level – fees will remain fully competitive and negotiable throughout the industry. What AM is doing is attempting to regulate our COSTS by challenging and hopefully defeating the existing duopoly of RM and Z which could quickly become a cartel itself if not controlled. Getting together to control costs is nothing new, nor is it illegal or even immoral. How many independent but related organisations get together to increase their spending power by ordering in bulk – farms, councils, schools, lawyers – the list is probably endless. I am fed up with some people claiming that there is anything wrong with indendent businesses trying to manage their business costs by working together. There is nothing in this proposal which is attempting to keep fees artificially high and five AM members in the same town will no doubt all charge very differently – what they will not be doing is paying through the nose for their internet marketing. On-line property services will still be able to use their existing means of advertising but please don't expect us to allow them to show their stock in our shop-window.
"What AM is doing is attempting to regulate our COSTS…"
There – it is said. Out in the open. None of this "regaining control of our stock" malarkey.
But you can do that NOW Robin – no need to rely on AM.
Just COME OFF RM & Zoop. Simple as.
Think of the saving. 😉
Someone needs to explain how spending £500 to save £500 is regulating costs.
If one spreadsheets that equatiom the saving keeps coming back to zero. There are economies of scale savings if one is a big Agent with lots of branches but the average independant agent isn't going to save a penny.
"Someone needs to explain how spending £500 to save £500 is regulating costs."
Or to save less than £200 in the case of some…
To be honest, Robert – I'm much more worried how spending that amount might 'regulate' INCOME.
Mr Mount – A classis name for someone who knows the Turkish *** market so well….. you just couldn't make it up….
Comment of the week!
Why thank you Robert…… 🙂
It was a close run thing; Ros Renshaw in circumventing her own MWRWF (Mary Whitehouse rude word filter) resorted to a classic euphemism to report Rightmove's (all of our) opinion of Mr Kahn/Elliot!
Problem with property is that everyone who bought one thinks they are an expert. Strange, because they all own computers but they don't think they are computer experts.