One firm unlikely to be doing things the eMoov way appears to be Foxtons.
Here is a screenshot, sent to us by a reader, of the Google pay-per-click advert that Foxtons are serving up when people go online to search for eMoov or HouseSimple.
“Using a virtual estate agent? – You get virtually no service. Don’t cut corners with an online estate agent. Use Foxtons instead. Demand more!” says the advert.
Interestingly, says our reader, Foxtons do not appear to be doing this for searches relating to Tepilo, YOPA or even Purplebricks.
Comments (16)
Should it say? Landlords using Foxton get virtually no profits, as Foxton uses every trick in the book to increased chargers, including hidden mark-ups on repairs.” While limiting the demand by haveing very high tenant “referencing” charges.
However a local agent targeting google adverts in that way (along with the location of the searcher), with the advert talking about being a long established local expert, and not a remote call center could work very well…..
I like it – (applause)
And would like to borrow it.
Wish NAEA could/would do something, well anything actually.
They did years ago with their “bee”. It didn’t work. EA is a people business and nothing has come along to change that, sure there is the odd on-line disruptor but they still have only a miniscual hold on the market. If people like you and have confidence in you, you get the business. Many consumers don’t like this kind of marketing so could just be a turn off? Proof of the pudding will be when they can honestly claim business went up as a direct result and how many walked away from them.
There is nothing libellous in their advert, it is suitably ambiguous in the terminology used and also makes no specific reference to any particular company.
If you think Foxtons would run this without having it signed off by legal you underestimate them.
Before we worry too much about alleged libel, let’s remember all those horrid claims on line / call centre agents have made against traditional high street agents.
Agencyinsider, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Today’s report on PIE shows traditional agents portal juggling along with onliners, another recent report on PIE revealed that 60% of portal enquiries aren’t answered by agents, many high street agents defy the law by not posting sale fees as well as letting fees etc.
I have no doubt that most of us traditional agents offer a far better service than onliners, but our high street profession isn’t 100% perfect by a long way.
Humans are involved so will never be perfect.
Just parking the libel issues for a moment, how about applauding Foxtons for having the b*lls to actually DO something about taking on the misleading claims of so many of the hybrid/lowcost/online offerings.
So many people bang on about how awful these companies are and how the public are being duped yet few actually take steps to counter it.
We should ALL be doing something similar – within the law.
Good points but this is where the system is wrong. You shouldn’t need to take action. We have enough rules and regulations to stop misleading advertsing but it isn’t effectively policed and when it is … well we all know ASA is not fit for purpose. The power to impose stiff fines would stop them all in their tracks, just like Thames Water.
With respect, you are all missing the real issue.
Making statements, claims, posting reviews etc about your own company is one thing …
Making potentially libelous claims about another company (or person) is another.
You only have to look at how closely PIE police potentially libelous posts to prove that point.
Like it or not, Foxtons are on dangerous grounds.
When you see the competition using these tactics to influemnce consumers and you think you have to go down this route to fight back….. Was it a sound business move or someones personal opinion got the better of them. If you have to resort to these tactics …. were you actually loosing that much business or should you be looking more closely in the mirror?
We have all seen how rating systems can be systematically manipulated! I don’t trust them for anything anymore.
House simple, simple may be the word with only 4.3 star rating on Google.
Not 100% customer satisfied then!
How does housesimple get away with ‘100% Customers satisfied’ & emoov with ‘UK’s best Estate Agency for Service’? Surely both claims are unprovable?
I was thinking the same. I’m better than emoov, there advertising is a lie? They can’t serve non-internet consumers!
Foxtons may have scored an own goal.
By targeting Emoov and House Simple by name on PPC – and saying that they give ‘virtually no service’ – it will be very easy for both companies to prove that this accusation is directly related to them, challenge that accusation and potentially claim libel damages if the derogatory claim cannot be substantiated.
PPC ads can be written in seconds, are almost totally unpoliced and because of this the writers can get carried away and forget the legal implications.
PPC ads, in exactly the same way as Facebook posts, can be libellous.
Libellous Facebook posters have found that to their cost.
The last laugh may be on Emoov and House Simple.