A minor war erupted on Twitter yesterday between former Foxtons agent James Dearsley and housing pundit and buyers’ agent Henry Pryor, after Dearsley told how in the last downturn vendors and landlords would be ‘persuaded’ to cut their prices.
Dearsley said: “I remember my ‘power hours’ with Foxtons where we would phone every vendor and landlord on the books to drive down price reductions ‘because the market has softened’ or ‘because the feedback is saying it is overpriced’.
“Whether or not I believed those statements, it did the job and sold or let the properties I had.
“But those people I was driving down were being forced to believe what I was telling them.
“As their agent, they relied totally on my judgment and had to trust that I was right. Without any further proof they would drop the price and hope for a bite.
“Thanks to technology, I, the home seller can [now] see the truth for myself. I don’t need anyone to tell me it’s a quiet market, it’s obvious from the numbers . . . and numbers don’t lie quite as often as I might have.
“. . . I didn’t lie, just to be clear. I was simply enthusiastic about selling someone’s house if they needed it to sell.”
Pryor called these “staggering admissions” and said the worst part was that there are many agents who won’t see what is wrong with this.
He told Dearsley, now at the forefront of proptech, that he was “amazed and embarrassed you did it and that you felt able to write it. Angry too that you clearly see nothing wrong with what you did.”
Dearsley replied that it was 11 years ago, and if a property was sticking on the market “we came together to get price drops”.
Pryor hit back, saying that clients “don’t want optimism, they expect their agent to know when the market is sticking and to get the price right first time. I appreciate that you don’t get it. As I have said, many don’t.”
This provoked reactions from elsewhere, with one person saying that “conveyor belt agency” made her shudder.
Another replied: “Estate agents are a bunch of unregulated, uneducated, unscrupulous charlatans. Your biggest financial commitment and you’re being advised by a 20-year-old spiv.”
Comments (41)
The valuation appointment is your opportunity to sell yourself. To demonstrate what you are going to do more / better / different. If you had to lie about the valuation figure then you failed to sell yourself. You cheated.
If you exposed the property to the market at an inflated and then falling price, then you did your vendor a huge disservice, you ruined his best chance of getting the best price. Fail No: 2.
Relying on a number of price reductions in order to achieve a sale means that YOU didn’t sell it. The price did.
All in all not much cop ! The vendor would have been better off without you.
I read Mr Dearsley’s piece yesterday on the bog door of the other pub.
I genuinely cannot believe I’m actually committing this to screen – and stand to lose friends and credibility (if I ever had any) as a result… AND wish to hurriedly state that as I’m only going off the very limited info above (seeing as Mr Pryor has blocked me on Tw@tter… wonder why…) of the spatlet I reserve the right to amend this statement as and when further information becomes available…
…but I’m inclined to agree with Pryor on this.
(I need to lie down now.)
I appraised a property 12 months ago at £775,000 – £790,000 on the market at £809,950. They went on with another agent at £950,000 4 agent changes and is now on the market at £820,000. It’s probably now worth in the region of £750,000 due to over exposure.
So the bottom line is 99.9% of vendors don’t want to listen to good advice because Zoopla or the Cheap Fee agent says “x”
Surely if a property is worth £775,000 – £790,000, putting it on at over £800,000 cuts out a large portion of the target market for that property that caps its search at £800,000?
Obviously listing at £950,000 is ridiculous beyond belief and it looks like your valuation was probably correct, but why £809,950 rather than £800,000?
completely agree notadoctor. Price bands are critical. Whole point of advertising a property is to get as many people to see it as possible.
Those agents that use the Trueview Property app can feel confident their vendors are getting genuine, data driven feedback directly from their buyers, including whether or not price is an issue. We all know property often comes on overpriced for a variety of reasons – often at the vendor’s request – so being able to objectively identify any sales blockers together in a consultative manner means vendors can make an informed decision without feeling as though their agent is simply trying to force their price down.
Agents are also able to use the Trueview reports to demonstrate to new vendors the benefits of accurate pricing and the results achieved, versus coming on over priced and sticking, which invariably will damage their ultimate outcome.
Suggest you agree an ADVERTISING package with EYE, Mr Amner, instead of copping freebies wherever you think semi-appropriate.
Not copping a freebie PeeBee. Just adding a comment I believe to be relevant given the context of the article.
I often see Robert talking about Rummage4 on here where it’s relevant to the subject matter, but don’t recall you offering him the same advice…
You don’t see it “often”. You might see me here a lot and as you say where approprite I reinforce that’s who I am and what I do. But ‘often’ is more of a brand awareness thing. Mention my name and it links back to the current product, in the same way as Shipside=Rightmove, Chesterman=Zoopla. The brand association is done on twitter not here.
I’ve actually asked people not to plug R4 as it gives the envious avain something to quack about. I don’t have time for that nastiness. If it hadn’t been for Digital Daffy attempting to be unpleasant in February and now you including R4 in your post there wouldn’t have been an Eye ‘site specific’ search result in 2018
Sorry Robert – I wasn’t trying to suggest anything untoward on your part, just trying to make a point.
Personally, I have no issue if people make reference to their business if it’s in keeping with the article.
No need to apolgise I wasn’t upset. Without intonation or body language posts can be read in our heads differently to what’s intended.
If you are service provider posting with your own name you immediately earn my respect as you’re judged on your opinions and what you say unlike the suppliers who hide away and snipe away behind a moniker.
Mr Amner
“Not copping a freebie PeeBee. Just adding a comment I believe to be relevant given the context of the article.”
Look close enough and apply some imagination and I’m sure you will be able to engineer a situation where every article provides some relevance for you to cop a freebie.
Last one I can see was two weeks ago.
I also note the sheer coincidence that the article of the 3rd was also relating to the universe revolving around Mr Pryor’s every word.
Not sure if riding on that particular back is going to prove a winner for you…
I’m not trying to hitch wagons PeeBee. Just trying to make a crust.
I really don’t see how providing a product that helps traditional agents win business and provide a better level of service for all involved is a crime, even if I do drop the odd post on here from time to time. And yes, I have historically contributed ad revenue to PIE’s coffers, if that makes you feel any better.
“I’m not trying to hitch wagons PeeBee. Just trying to make a crust.”
Erm… okay – we’re all trying to do that. Just not by sliding our wares into comments on articles here on EYE. That would be seen by the great majority as “hitching wagons”.
You’ve just shot yourself in the foot there, Sir.
“I really don’t see how providing a product that helps traditional agents win business and provide a better level of service for all involved is a crime”
Sorry – you’re gonna have to help me out here. Where did I say it was “a crime”, Mr Amner?
“And yes, I have historically contributed ad revenue to PIE’s coffers, if that makes you feel any better.”
And have been the beneficiary of two dedicated articles for you to showcase your product. Neither of which, I am sorry to point out, have been received well by the audience. I’m just the gobby one at the back of the room.
Far as I’m concerned I give not one fuppenny that you’ve paid for previous advertising on this platform. You must have stopped for a reason – and if that reason was perceived “R” not being worth the “I” (surely the only reason to advertise anything anywhere is that [“I” = “R” + ‘x’])… then EYE’d be wondering why you feel copping freebies are worth the effort being expended.
Takes me back to our chat about photographs – which I note was in the comments section of one of your previous articles, from as far past as November 2016.
Have we really been at polar opposites on this subject for eighteen months?
Doesn’t time fly…
Blimey PeeBee, you are hard work…
My assumption is that you’re an agent meaning your market is consumers, not other agents, so it would be pointless you “sliding your wares” into any comments. If a bunch of guys you knew from the pub were discussing appointing an agent, would you not feel it appropriate to comment?
And commenting on an article isn’t “hitching wagons”. as I’m not trying to court favour from any individual.
As far as advertising is concerned, your comments are misplaced. Budgets are directed to areas with the most cost effective ROI, but that doesn’t mean other outlets don’t have a viable audience.
As far as the photography comments go, your memory is much better than mine but I think the general gist is I felt professional photography was a worthwhile investment to enhance marketing whilst you didn’t, which for the life of me I still can’t understand.
Finally, I think “polar opposites” is a little extreme. As I’ve said before, I enjoy (most) of your comments on here and personally think you deserve a medal for your diligent efforts in highlighting the abhorrent manipulation by a certain online agent when it comes to their Trustpilot reviews
“Hard work”? Moi??
Why, thank you, Mr Amner – that’s the nicest thing that anyone said to me all day yesterday.
You are only part correct in your assumption. I am an Agent – but my market is people. I don’t do ‘fancy-speak’. And I’ll state now for the record that in near 39 years of being in the property industry I’ve never, ever heard one of my many, many customers refer to themselves as a “consumer”.
And I don’t expect to anytime soon.
In respect of my recollections of previous discussions, you are far from correct. I have the memory of a goldfish with Alzheimers – but I have a great Search Engine to rely on, thanks to Mr May.
Oh – and it’s free to use, by the way – so I reckon I can ‘cop a freebie’ for it as often as I want without feeling a single pang of guilt.
But I DO get told off by Robert.
Finally, thank you for your kind words at the end of your post. I must however state that I don’t post for the enjoyment of the audience. I post what I think; when I think it. But the very fact that you state you do concur with a lot of what I say is most appreciated and an indication that, when it comes to many things about our industry, we have common beliefs.
But – as a previous business partner once said,
“When we agree on everything, one of us is redundant.”
Have a great day, Sir. I look forward to leaving your ankles alone!
Sounds dangerous relying on an algorithm. Hope any agent using that to justify price checks their insurance still covers them.
Markets are fluid and rarely 2 properties are the same.
With respect Smile, that’s not how it works. Happy to explain it to you fully if you wish
Good luck Shaun, it took me 4 years to win his trust and respect enough to show him my system.
Thank you for sharing this Ros. It was an interesting discussion. The important point is that technology is now the enabler in the client seeing hard fact rather than just advice from an agent. It is clear and transparent.
The irony on the discussion yesterday is that no mention was made about how some buying agents get their fees . – in Henry’s case, on top of a retainer, he can claim 25% of any price reduction he obtains for the buyer – over £30,000 per deal if his website stats are correct.
Agents work for their clients and aim to sell (at the right price) and buying agents work for theirs to get the best deal.
Only one of those in that discussion is driven to get the biggest price drop possible.
But thats the difference isnt it James, a buying agents job is to screw the price down, our job is to make sure we get the best price for our client.
Far too many valuations have i been on over the years where the vendors (despite lots of evidence, comps etc) chooses the agent valuing their home at the highest. Technology is useful but appealing to a vendors ego is still the hardest barrier to get over.
That is fair ArthurHouse02 and I am sure many will say that Foxtons value(d) high and then found the right price over time by techniques I mentioned above.
However, that is why I have found my own technology enabled house sale (which failed with both Onbrid – my name for Online and Hybrid – and high street instructions where I compared the difference in attitude/technology/systems/prices) and now repeating the process going through the rental market.
Been a fascinating insight. Having talked about PropTech for many years and then seeing it first hand with my own property, you really get an appreciation for both sides and what they both bring to the table.
Out of respect for PIE and Ros, I won’t post the series links here but I have been writing about my own journey for a while now. If you search online you will find the complete overview
But finding the right price over time is not what clients want us to do, They expect that the asking price we recommend is the correct one from day one, unless we are having that honest chat “I think we can get about £300,000, but lets start at £310,000 and see how it goes” …Anything else is misleading and looking solely at getting the instruction. I’m not naive this still goes on by most agents. I’m not knocking you doing what you had to do to get instructions, but please dont try and explain away the moralistic side of what you were doing.
Also please please dont ever in the future try and be like the online brigade and run down high street agency, looking at your past, realising what you were doing was wrong and that there was another, better way of transparency!
I am about to suggest a very controversial idea.
If it was an ombudsman rule that if a vendor has to drop their marketing price, they have the right at that point to get out of the contract (if they wish to), and any fee they have paid upfront refunded…..would that stop deliberate overvaluing?
I ask this because a corporate tactic we have seen in our area over the years has been to overvalue to get the instruction and then tie people into a 6 month contract.
I have been called out a few times to properties that have had hardly any viewings, but I have then had to point out to the owners that we could do little until they were out of their (in my opinion excessively long) initial contract period or they could get the agent to agree to nullify it.
What do other people think?
And how would that work in a sharply falling market?
I only suggested it would be an option. If you have the trust of your vendor, and they can see you are trying to do the best for them, I doubt they would want to exercise the option.
I would always prove to the owner what was happening as well.
Does anyone really want unhappy clients who don’t trust the advice, backed up with evidence, you are giving them?
I have never really understood the mentality of a vendor when an agent says this is what i think your property will sell for and then want upwards of 4 months to sell it ??????
have the courage of your convictions market at the right price and do the best job for your client in a reasonable time.
Just Saying
Love this idea. Or get rid of long contracts altogether- they only serve the agent anyway.
Only one of those in that discussion is driven to get the biggest price drop possible.
But both should be driven to get the best deal for their respective client.
We are one of the very few agents in our area that don’t have a sole agency period, we ask they give us two weeks notice to either disinstruct or go multi agent. Our client retention is very high and only a few take up either option.
Oi Peebee! I was wondering, how do you tell a Coot from a Moorhen from the underneath? Impossible I reckon!
Erm…
Ummm…
I gives in, Mr May…
How do you tell a Moorhen from a Coot from the underside?
I love riddles!
I wasn’t a riddle, just one of those things one thinks about.
They have very different feet – Coots have lobed feet.
I have learned a useful new fact. Thank you Ostrich17.
p.s. Are you called that because Ostriches have 17 toes?
Brilliant, I’d never noticed that. fascinating! Thank you.
The lillies are looking well this year! Must be the rain!
Moorhen…. Moorhen….. Coot! Careful lads, pike!
I can recommend a good search engine if you need images 😉
Pond life….don’t you just love it?
Ostrich17
“Coots have lobed feet.”
From what I can see, so do Moorhens. They are, however, a different colour.
I would suggest though that, seen from below and (if I read Mr May correctly) assumedly underwater that would be almost impossible to discern.
Depends on the variety – here is an extreme example.https://rollingharbour.com/tag/coot-v-moorhen-feet/
Not quite sure what this has to do with Foxtons tho’?
It hasn’t! The very superior Mr Pryor thinks we’re all “fat and lazy” “pond life” I am cocking a digital snook back at him.