Agents’ Mutual has passed the critical 4,000 member office milestone and says it is confidently on track for reaching its pre-launch target of 5,000 offices.
Its portal OnTheMarket is due to launch in January, giving some three months for the final push.
CEO Ian Springett said: “Our sales team is now making sure our proposition and our progress are communicated to every independent firm in the country.
“In parallel, the portal development is on track. Key functions and structures are in place and we are testing with very high volumes of agent data.
“The next stage is overlaying the design and styling of the portal, so it will be a few more weeks until we can reveal visuals.”
Springett went on: “We are now working with top marketing and media agencies to create and deliver central advertising programmes and promotional materials, as well as digital marketing strategies.
“These will be geared to driving consumer brand awareness and traffic to the portal.
“We are working to support our members as they prepare to begin listing with us from our launch date in January, and we will be providing materials for the purpose soon.”
Springett said that any firm that has yet to give proper consideration to Agents’ Mutual or is still undecided should now focus on the choices before them.
He issued this direct appeal to those ‘on the fence’ agents: “If you are supportive of the aims and objectives of the project, please do not ‘wait and see’ but get on board now and help make OnTheMarket.com a success from the day we launch in January.
“There are currently two membership schemes available, both of which offer you low and fixed listing fees over the first 60 months. We will be withdrawing or revising both of them soon.”
He concluded: “The implications for all independent agents of allowing the existing portal duopoly to develop unchallenged are all too clear.
“Our purpose is to provide a permanently low-cost alternative which works in the interests of agents, their clients and consumers, and is not driven purely by the requirements of portal shareholders.
“We are now at a stage where we will mount a credible and disruptive competitive challenge, and your support will make it even more powerful.”
http://www.agentsmutual.co.uk/
Comments (87)
Good news for the pro AM collective and especially the owners of AM. I still want to see the point of AM but can't see any real positives? Apparently it will help us take control of stock? And help us save ££££ well last time I checked my portal fees RM is about twice as high as Zoopla which is about the same price AM. Every person I speak to is not brave enough to dump RM so dropping Zoopla, Being we all have the issue with RM and most are leaving Zoopla what does AM solve?
This is a very good point. It seems to me that OTM will have very little direct effect on Rightmove's revenue but a significant one on Zoopla's, surely resulting in making Rightmove even more dominant, not less. Whereas now I do believe a large volume of house-hunters choose to use either RM or Z as their portal of choice (safe in the knowledge that both have large inventories), potentially 25% of Zoopla's stock moving away from them to OTM might mean more users will stop going to Zoopla, won't go to OTM either but will solely use RM as it will hold substantially more property than the other two. If Zoopla have thus far been any sort of check and balance on RM the launch of OTM will likely stop this. So OTM's launch may break the duopoly but take us back to a monopoly. The only way OTM can truly succeed in this regard would be if all the OTM agents were to drop BOTH portals…which we know very few (if any) are prepared to do. So longer term AM agents are gaining the benefit of fixed fees over Zoopla (which as you point out are currently no different really from OTMs) but effecting the weakening of the strong number 2 to a weak number 2 portal, whilst supporting what will be (almost by design) the number 3 portal. I think I might look at those RM shares after all!
Rivero the other point I have made in the past is what do you think Zoopla will do? Sit back and accept it or alter their product / offering to keep them profitable? If as expected the majority leave Zoopla I think Zooplas next step will be to accept private listings, possibly even become the first Internet agent that really works, they will need to adapt their business plan to survive. This I feel is a real worry as we might seal our own doom as an industry!
So if you are correct Rivero……… I assume you WILL be purchasing RM shares tomorrow morning? I mean why would you not IF you are convinced your case is correct…….. I have backed my corner……..win or lose, but I have stuck my money where my mouth is…………so, you I assume with your knowledge of RM being unaffected and in fact "growing" as the major portal you say……you WILL buy tomorrow…….or will you sit on the fence with buying RM shares too? surely not….your case if you believe it is a no brainer!
No I'm going to wait because I think they'll fall further yet, then I will buy yes (admittedly at a low level…I'm cautious by nature as you may have noticed). I'm not certain of any of it, if you look back I use words like 'may' or 'might' because it is interesting to me to look at all the possibilities. I have already said that it may well work for your business, but your position is unusual as far as I'm aware as you're market leader without Zoopla but are going on OTM. So to turn it back round, why do you think OTM's launch will weaken (or not strengthen) RM long term?
PS – my wife hates PIE now it has infiltrated our weekends! lol
hahaha, same here…..genuinely said "not again" this morning…..very funny…… whatever the opinions, its great to see so many of us have a passion about our business and industry…….anyway come on sign up Rivero…..
I don't think OTM's launch will weaken RM's strength! certainly not in the short term anyway, as for the long term? I have no idea! I would be guessing, although it is the mid to long term that it could happen…………… I just don't get why any agent would not see what AM is trying to achieve as being a good thing!……..so I am supporting this as I believe if they topple Z, then wow! even though I do not like Z, there is no doubt people will sit up and think wow…..little old OTM wiping the floor with Z……who next, perhaps it is possible to have the No.1 property portal being owned by the people who actually make it work and constant price rises may be no longer………………… am lucky though, as work or not this will actually benefit me whilst we help try and make it work………….but I just still don't get why anyone who admits dropping Z would not be the end of the world, would not support AM…….you have more to gain than lose by doing so surely?
I would stay off it personally now…….. I know this is perhaps my slightly new spin on this…..but you know, I would much rather be leading the way on this as an agent who is only on RM at present and therefore can only really win………………..if my competitors who currently advertise on RMZ stay with them and I CURRENTLY & CONTINUE TO lead the market locally and pull away with only RM to my name as a "national" portal at present, then my new RMOTM -v- their old RMZ will only have me pull away further…… I mean its a no brainer really, for those who KNOW they can sell their company and services without Z as their brand, staff plus success are proven without Z anyway…………….so AM please stop selling OTM now to anyone around me………I stand to do much better as a current non Z agent.
Personally Ric, I think that is the answer accept that RM is the beast it is an embrace it! The truth is RM will never change their stance and agents are too afraid to leave them, ditch Zoopla and ignore AM and invest the £400 – £500 a month saving into SEO or local advertising!
I think for us this is a more likely result than us signing up for AM; AM end up weakening Zoopla to the point we no longer get the right ROI and drop it…without going to OTM which will be even less effective. We will be more at the mercy of RM's whims but as you say that is the case anyway really.
I've seen a huge change in my RM reps attitude towards us. I think on the last meeting the comment was something like "I suppose your going on OTM" when I answered **** yeh, the reply was "I don't care anyway, its rubbish now at RM, the way they've moved our targets, none of the reps are happy"…………… Tomorrow will test this yet further….with a meeting called to ensure I have the bare minimum of exposure on RM. As long as my stock is on it, that's all that will matter to both my vendors and the viewing public…………..I will accept RM if OTM does not work, I will be annoyed that others who moan did not try and make this work, but then there are lots of "talkers" in the world…….time will tell…… PS we advertise every week in the local paper still and are just about to invest about £7k to £8k in website improvements and SEO, we sponsor countless local schools, sports clubs and go in almost every local magazine there is….so this for me not being on Z (other than a 3 month spell) has and will pay for AM ten times over.
Love this! I really hope ALL 5k agents come off RM, the parties at my house! Their share price will go (Raspberry sound) thumbs down!
Bridget said…"Why do you ask?"…I just wondered what the difference would be for you, I guess it could be more or less depending on location, but £16k does not seem a big jump if it brought you in the same amount from vendors/landlords that would only consider a high street agent. I wonder how many additional properties you can gain by having a high street location? In addition, could you possibly be missing out on buyers and tenants who would only consider using an agent with a shop front? How many additional sales/lets would you need to do to make up the £16k. Could you not keep your USP of taking late calls, by having call divert?
I must agree, If it is only circa 16k a year for you then a handful of deals would make that up. Bearing in mind it is accepted that 98% of properties are still listed with traditional high street agents then you would be able to tap into that stream of vendors as well. You sound like you are a really professional agent. The public, on the whole, seem to still want to use high street agents (otherwise there would be more than 2% take up for online agents) so expansion to high street, short to medium term, may make good business sense. For what it's worth, my long term view is that we may see the most successful agents having, say 1 branch/h.q on the high street covering all surrounding towns "virtually" online but coming through their high street branch.
To be fair it wouldn't stop at 16k though would it!
It would be a bit more once you add up the bits and bobs Ric but Bridget could still easily make up all the overheads with only a few additional transactions and if she's already winning market share now then imagine how much more she would be winning if she taps in to the market she is currently missing.
That indeed is the WA Ellis model – highly successful with a prime branch in Knightsbridge, and they have just been purchased as a group, no doubt for millions.
Correction, Wilko. It is never "our" stock.
My sole agency marketing agreement that sellers sign says different. Of course we don't own the properties but the sellers entrust their houses to us to sell in the manner we suggest to them. If they , all of a sudden, say that they don't want to go on with an agent that only advertises on Rightmove and On The Market……insisting they MUST have Zoopla as well, then our stock levels will go down to zero and we'll have to re think – or go out of business……..Anyone who seriously thinks this could/would happen, however, hasn't really got a clue in my opinion.
Do agents increase their fee every time rm and zoopla increase theirs?
I would be charging about 34% plus VAT if I increased our fees as and when RM do………haha…… Now there's a thought……… ALL RM AGENTS to tell clients due to RM cost increases your fee is going up…….that would raise an eye brow against the "can do no wrong" RM in the publics eye.
So that's a No then…
Oh, and well said, Rivero. It's the disingenuity that sticks in the craw. Leaving aside the supreme irony of estate agents – of all people! – whingeing about middlemen taking a cut from property transactions…the simple fact is that this exercise has been dreamed up for one reason and one reason only – to cut agents' costs. Which is fine, of course. But for some to pretend that they are going to invest the savings in providing an even better service to their clients, rather than simply trousering the difference, stretches credence just a tad too far…
Fencesitter …………I am a touch perplexed how you can suggest wanting to "save money to help make money" is any worse than simply "raising prices to make money"…………………Do you think all companies should be "non profit making" or never make more money than the year before?…………………..Do you donate any profits above and beyond the year before back to the public you serve?………..nah…didn't think so.
That's not what Fencesitter is saying Ric. It's the fact that few of you are stating it as it is. Many that are dumping one of the big 2 are pretending it will be better for their customer when in reality they know and only really care about saving on portal fees. Fencesitter has clearly stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with this if one is up front about it and doesn't try to 'spin' it in to something more.
Hypothetically…..would it eventually be best for the customer to by pass you and deal directly with 1 of 2 "super agents" called Rightmove and Zoopla??……because that's where it would ultimately end up without taking ownership of our stock.
Only if RM & Z were able to provide the same level of service to vendors and buyers, i.e local office, friendly, experienced service, local market knowledge etc etc OR if those things no longer become important to the customer in which case we'd all need to adapt or close our offices. None of this worries me whilst we continue to monitor developments in the industry, technology, marketing etc and continually work on making sure our product/service is as strong as it can be and perhaps more importantly stronger than everyone else's in our area. I admit we currently have to be on Rightmove in the same way as we currently have to be in the local newspaper, but we could drop Zoopla…we just don't want to as we actually feel it works..because millions of people use it.
I'm not sure you can make those sorts of assumptions fence sitter. The bottom line is that nothing in this life is guaranteed exempt death, taxes and double price rises from Rightmove and Z, if the latter doesn't flounder as a result of OTM (my personal view and clearly theirs judging by the billboards claiming being on Z gets sellers a better price for their property….how exactly!?!). OTM' s business model is to set budgets for advertising and to then plough money back into keeping rates for agents to a minimum. One agent one vote ensures that. The saving that agents make can then be used within their business, very few will sit back and take the money as I believe that any businesses that stop progressing wither. That means increasing staff, good for the local economy, good for clients who get even better attention. Some will invest in customer service and retention, good for their business and good for their clients. To assume that its just agent profit is just wrong. I can understand the online only agents not liking this but for traditional agents this is a fantastic opportunity that comes at just the expense of R or Z and is that really a problem. No one has to support it if they feel they can't justify the expenditure, but why anyone would want to criticise the valiant effort to regain some control for estate agents of their expenditure and potential future, well that viewpoint just leaves me puzzled.
What worries me about this whole thing is the level of disingenuity prevalent in this debate and also the 'devil in the detail'. It would be nice if information which is actually relevant to the progress of the AM proposition was reported and then discussed. There is again no mention of how many of these '4000' member offices are committed Gold members. The Silver members up until this point are no more committed to OTM financially, legally or otherwise than my pet dog. Also, I keep reading, either from the lips of Mr Springett or in these comments sections, about OTM being better for the customer and yet I am still to see any specific reason provided of how it will benefit the customer over their property being on RM or Z?? It seems dishonest to me, it is only about the agent trying to wrestle back control of portal costs, it has nothing to do with the customer and it is this slight deceit and denial that troubles me about the longevity of the support AM can expect in the future. I want to be convinced by an honest and persuasive argument if I'm going to commit for 5 years, not have to hunt as hard as I have for the actual facts behind the proposition. I would also like to hear a compelling reason why pro AMers feel users will visit (in high numbers) a site with 20% of the property inventory on it? What will drive them there the first time but more importantly what will make them return when they see such a lower volume of property compared to RM or Z? These are all questions I'm yet to see credible answers to.
I understand all your points, and over past months various people have responded (with their views) to most, if not all of them. If you are looking for someone to assure you that it will work to your expectations, then that is not possible. You said you have had to hunt hard for facts…..I simply looked at the Gold Proposal when it came out, then got our company solicitor to check it out, then signed up. You see I believe in the ideology of the OTM idea….simple as that. The proposal and contract legally were fine and since then I, like 4,000 other branches have left the rest to the experts. I trust them….I have to…..got no choice – as I have no expertise or £millions to embark on a project of this magnitude. If you aren't confident to join up now for launch then, of course, that's fine. If the guys do a great job and the site launches successfully then maybe you could re consider your position then?
Well that's fair enough Wilko if you have signed up based primarily (or maybe entirely) on the ideology and maybe this comes down to the fact you are just braver than I…or more prepared to take a punt. The ideology is of course appealing to me also, it's just our board require more analysis than hunch. Of course ultimately speculation, projection etc will only go so far. It is increasingly likely that we will 'sit on the fence', however as seems misunderstood on here we will sit on the fence from a position of wishing you all well rather than hoping it fails. If it is a great success then we will feel like the guests who turn up late to a party with no booze but at least we'll be at the party. If it doesn't work we will have missed the party, the hangover and the clear-up.
I'll save you a few cans of Tennants Super and Diamond White as you will have some catching up to do! Seriously, it's really interesting that your board are still looking to be convinced and our network signed up immediately. It seemed to us to quite simply be the "right thing" for independent agents. That view has never changed. I'm looking forward to my branches being able to offer OTM as a "new" reason for sellers to use us. Sellers won't miss out on viewings (youbelieve the Zoopla pitch that they have millions of users that search Zoopla independent of Rightmove?)You seem to bring up risks associated with leaving Zoopla….I cant really see them to be honest.
Morning Rivero………………..For me personally……as I cannot answer for others…………… (1)……………….I am not on Z and in my opinion Z works(ed) against my vendors properties and therefore the interest of the people who are trusting me with the sale of their property. So for me the advantage of me joining AM is my clients will have an extra portal they do not have with me now………do you agree on this point that my clients can only benefit from me being on RM and OTM rather than them only being on RM now?……………………….(2)……………….. Are your properties on Z? if so, Look at all of your properties you have and see if the information ie "visits/clicks on the property" or the "what Z estimates its value to be" are what you would say is accurate and encouraging for a vendor to read (forget the buyer) look in comparison to say RM+ stats for the same property and ask yourself what is Z actually bringing to the table "genuinely"…………….I say forget the buyer as the vendor is surely the number one priority in who the website should benefit when you are "selling" their home……………this point is simply that, you can most of the time hand on heart show that Z is not a website which is actually beneficial to your vendor other than it is "another" portal, BUT why spend money on 2 portals if 1 of them does not do your clients property justice…this has been my view forever (apart from a 3 month trial which is where I realised how bad Z was) so as I am not currently on Z and just RM……OTM comes along and I have no reason to not want to support them as OTM will double my vendors presence online (not in visits, but then nor does Z)………………….(3)……………… Do you genuinely believe RM treat you with respect and on an equal footing with others and in particular the "corporates" by this I mean Countrywide on RM and LSL agents on Z, do you think they pay as much as you or even the agent across the road who could be on cheaper than you! or are you happy that year on year rises, or spend more on products is used as a ransom to freeze your fee's are fair? …………………………Your rep visits you once a year to say "it's that time" or "we have another product" to find your competitor is testing it for free!……ive been offered many a free test product and said no…..as I know, RM will say "I" have it to the others who will follow to "keep up"………………(3)……………………………….. Only time will tell if "High Numbers" will visit OTM, but hand on heart as no doubt a successful agent you are…….why is it not possible?………..I mean at worst it will be RM…Z and OTM in that order of being visited but if the market STOPS tomorrow, no revenue taken for 8 months……times are hard………. would you rather be on the portal which WILL be fixed for 5 years and the backers likely to vote longer if required, or the one who have proved in any market conditions the fee will only go one way, because they are duty bound to produce results at anyone's expense for the shareholders? ……………………Truthful answer……..unless you have huge shareholding in either RM or Z which I guess most Indep Agents don't…………But eventually as buyers WILL follow the property OTM at some point will have High Numbers visiting……….AND why not help if any of the above has you thinking yep, I can be as strong with OTM and 1 other……..IF NOT, then you do genuinely value RM and Z as being the ONLY reason or MAIN reason people use you……..or simply do not worry about OTM as you will be proved right………..BUT FINALLY if you have EVER moaned about a price rise from RM or Z…….this is your time to put up……..! It will actually not matter to me if it failed, as I would still be on RM, as I have already demonstrated as have my staff, our company is strong enough with just one portal…….
Hi Ric. 1) Under those circumstances yes, however I was coming from the perspective of 'alternative' i.e dropping one of the big 2, as mentioned above by Mr Springett. You are not really disrupting the duopoly at all, you are simply supporting an additional portal. 2) Yes we are on Zoopla as are 98% of our competitors. We do not share your dissatisfaction with the site, in fact we are rather pleased with the level of leads we receive both from buyers and valuation requests. 3) I would expect to pay more than the corporates in the same way that I would expect to pay less per orange if I bought 10,000 oranges than if I bought just the one or 4 etc. We are not fans of RM's service no, I don't think any of us are but from what I can tell most of you are not dropping RM so you will probably unintentionally increase the strength of RM post OTM launch. 4) I didn't say it's impossible, just that it won't happen….oh and I "moan" about my wife sometimes, that doesn't mean it would be best for me to bin her off.
Thanks Rivero……..So simply put you are happy. I am not, so I am going to do something about it and defend my reason, as you have too………although my only real issue with your answer is that BUYERS look on RM for property not agents…….SO quite frankly the number of offices SHOULD not count in my mind…..I have just under "double the amount" of stock over my four offices -v- my local CW offices in the same four villages……………..so to think they are paying potentially half of what I do to bring half the stock to the table gets me…..If OTM and RM could be EQUAL in JAN2015 I know my local RM rep would give me a discount today on the knowledge they would lose a HUGE number of stock from the website…..which is why Z still today offer me silly re-join deals………time will tell.
Indeed and it sounds like it will work for your business. I want to be persuaded (by AM or posters here) but perhaps I am expecting too much. I guess I am not at this point prepared to take the leap of faith that others on here are. It really will add an extra level of interest to the industry moving in to 2015 and if at any point we feel confident enough to drop one of the big two and join you at OTM then we will be no doubt be saving money whilst offering a comparable marketing service to our vendors, I just want to be a little more certain this is what will happen in practice.
Hi Rivero…………..I think the big thing for me being so relaxed about the whole idea behind OTM, is that we simply did not sell out to Z……..so I do understand the fear some may have not being on both if you are already………………I have simply found it far too easy to sell against number 2. (aka Z) Whatever happens, I am sure you will adapt and succeed and for me it will be interesting to see when (if ever) the time comes where I can drop RM without any worry…………….Have a good rest of the weekend. 😉
It really is unstoppable now. The amount of listings and revenue coming off of the duopoly will be huge but more importantly some of the companies on board are all leading independents and in many areas the non AM agents are already the minority come January. As Mark B says both Zoopla and Rightmove share prices are dropping in fact Zooplas share price is now below it's launch price. Momentum is now clearly on the side of Agents Mutual.
People keep banging on about RM and Z share prices as if it's some kind of indication that OTM will be a giant success. It isn't, it is to be expected leading up to the launch of a new portal which has reasonable industry support. As we all know markets dislike uncertainty and it is true that there is uncertainty about how successful or unsuccessful OTM will be. That's all it tells us.
Rivero "there is uncertainty about how successful or unsuccessful OTM will be" What markers have you got, in your mind, to judge if/when OTM would be considered successful or unsuccessful?
Good question. I think I would want to see user numbers up at around Zoopla levels or at least not far off. Whilst the OTM costs are fixed they do not currently represent much (if any) of a saving over Zoopla. If I felt confident OTM's user numbers were likely to get close to Zoopla's in the first 12 months I would strongly consider signing up in order to fix our costs, however I just don't think this is going to happen (or anywhere near it). Now that's the way in which I would see it as a success, of course other people will no doubt see it differently.
What will drive the numbers Rivero? It's people like you who can help achieve the thing that you want to see that you say would have you sign up………………..if it is simply the worry of traffic and numbers, make it happen……….you I assume do not rely on the internet to get viewings, but tell people to view that house! Same thing…….you, me 4000+ other offices x the staff number in each who will be promoting this time and time again – visit OTM to see our stock….at the same time as Z and RM getting a wake up call………It's a shame if it's just the traffic volume holding you back…………..as if you agree having a control over your portal costs would be nice, then you can help achieve this…..
"Every independent in the country"….. I don't think so. Only ones that conform with the the way they think the industry should be… ie having a high street office, not the way the industry is actually developing, which is independent agents offering a first class professional, personal, flexible, service but deciding to keep risks and overheads and our costs to our customers lower by not having the overheads of an office. We apparently are not able to join as we can't 'co-brand'. We managed to build a business without an office and people got to know our brand somehow so I think we could manage that obstacle! I really think they need to rethink their strategy. As a new forward thinking company supposedly created for independent agents they don't seem very forward thinking about the way independent agencies are developing in the future. If they really do become the number one or two portal in the market over the next few years which is their strategy, then they are effectively stopping us from advertising on the number or two portal. How will that go down with our potential customers who we can sell a great service to, but who ultimately want as many people as possible to see their property. They will potentially ruin what we have spent the last three years of hard work and commitment creating….thanks.
I wouldn't worry bridget, I'm pretty confident your business will be unaffected by OTM.
…..Provided, of course that the 98% high street agent listings aren't eventually pulled from RM and Zoop, leaving no credible major portal to advertise her part of the 2% remaining stock.
Yes of course, and equally providing aliens don't destroy Earth.
I take your point that currently I may be overreacting, but I see it as a bit of a principle that we should be ALLOWED to join if we want to. I may not want to at present but I should be given the chance as I am offering a professional alternative. I thought it was just the internet only £299 agents they were trying to exclude. In the small area which we operate out biggest competitor can, and is, joining OTM. They will presumably drop Zoopla which may or may not have much affect on selling their service. (Probably not a lot). IF AM become the next big thing, which, although I was very sceptical about, I went to a presentation this week and have to say I am now not so sure, our major competitor will be able to offer this and we won't. How is this fair when we are doing just as good, if not a better job for our customers. I see AM at the moment as a bit of a 'old school – lets keep it the way we have always operated' type of organisation with the rules its making and it really annoys me, as you can probably tell! As they have the backing of all the 'old boys' as well as ARLA and NAEA it will probably work and from the presentation it did actually seem a credible model which will eventually be great for the agents that are allowed to support it.
…and that is another reason it will fail. It is not inclusive of different industry models, therefore as time goes on and the number of 'alternative' models increase it will merely become more and more niche. I am not a fan of many of the newer models but to close your eyes and pretend they don't list property that users will want to see is crazy. It is shockingly old fashioned for a website which will launch in 2015.
I can see a point in letting everyone on the portal to be fair! and I mean fair in my mind and fair over all…….after all cheap online agents have been around for ages and I am aware of one "online only agent" who actually delivers a decent service in a smallish area close to me and poses no problem, as their fee's are not far off ours, with upfront and on completion options……….In a way to really ensure AM can get to number 1, letting everyone on it, is actually the way forward…so I understand you concern and the way you post seems to suggest your outfit is nothing like Easychris.
Sorry Bridget I didn't mean you were a cheap online……that was just a general letting the other cheapies on…….as the one I refer to in my post (not easy chris) is someone I know and quite like. So there is room for different models.
Whether to be 'allowed' to join AM or not should be based SOLELY upon services rendered. If an agent provides a full service agency and they are independent, they should be allowed to join. Otherwise, OTM will become niche when more move away from High Street offices, yet still provide outstanding and FULL service estate agency for their clients.
Bridget, can I ask how much is the price difference between you being in a serviced office (presumably you are now) as opposed to a high street location?
We opened working from a home office in outbuildings at my home, not a serviced office or a high street office as we didn't want to risk the up front investment of an office when we felt we just didn't need one. There is hardly ever anyone in our main competitors office. Our overheads for offices are therefore zero. We then do everything else the other agents do and because we are at home we are far more flexible as I can work and answer calls etc at any time. We always go to our sellers and not expect them to come to us for paperwork etc so again we are making life easier for them. As we don't need to be in an office we can sit at their properties when need be to be in for surveyors, etc and still get on with work from our cloud based systems so again offer the seller great flexibility and personal service. One time the phone rang at midnight on a Sat (they assumed they were calling the office just to get opening times on an answerphone) I answered, arranged a viewing for 11am on the Sunday at the property they wanted as it was empty and I had keys and didn't need any confirmation from sellers, and sold it at 11am on the Sunday. How is that not a better service for both the seller and the buyer and yet we are not deemed as credible enough for AM. I don't make a habit of answering at midnight by the way, I just assumed it was an emergency call. To me it just seems that non high street locations are the way forward in an industry that pretty much relies on the internet for the 1st port of call and then a personal service thereafter so it seems odd not to recognise that. When I questioned them their response was that it was because part of the AM contract said we must co-brand and without an office we couldn't do that! Hence serviced locations or non office based agents were excluded. Hmmm..
The other thing I didn't say, but have also felt and reminded me reading some of the other comments about the 'power' of RM and AM being set up to stop that, is that AM are actually exposing small independent non office agents like me to even more 'Power' from RM. They know that I don't have an alternative so I wonder where they will head for increased subs when AM members start leaving them!! Another reason why I don't think NAEA and ARLA should be showing so much support. Its an anomaly that they set up because they don't like the big boys having a monopoly and power over them so want to create healthy competition, but are really against competition in their own industry as they are stopping people like me who are looking for credible alternatives to the office based model playing on a level playing field if I choose to.
I make you very right that that Rm and z will be looking to increase your subs and that of all online agents to try and make up some of the circa £20million that they will lose p/a from those agents leaving them. Like you say, you have nowhere else to turn…..Unless the online agents start their own "online mutual" offering to showcase their wares?
We started from scratch and have run and expanded our entire business on a very tiny startup working capital which has now been paid back. I don't think the budgets of any agents in my position will stretch to starting our own competitor website. Any anyway, we don't want to be lumped with the cheap online agents either as we feel we give a high street (and better) level of service for a reasonable (slightly less) than high street price, to reflect our lower overheads.
Some good points made Bridget. Can I also ask how much it would cost to have a high street office where you are based?
We were offered an office by a competitor who started after us but couldn't make it work. It was 12k pa rent and approx 4k for rates and expenses. We did consider it but then there would also be the cost of keeping it manned for the long hours which we offer and at that point we realised that it just wasn't the model we wanted. It was too risky and didn't offer the flexibility we needed and would change our brand offering to be just like the others. It isn't just about money, the way we work works for us and our customers. Why do you ask?
Bridget – you are absolutely right and I have posted similar on many occasions. I too moved FROM High Street branches into serviced offices in Kent and Knightsbridge. Office location is not important – nor is a High Street window. It is the service offered and with virtual PAs and 24/7 real time call answering, this 'Hybrid' model will become the one that will emerge successful. High Street banking is going the same way, following the footsteps of EGG, etc and estate agency will do the same. The differentiator will then be on levels of service offered – not whether a High Street office is employed or not. And at just £325 plus VAT for a prime Knightsbridge serviced office where clients can STILL come in if necessary, the savings on High Street shop/office rent, rates, staff etc are huge. Well done and keep going! You are a leader and not a follower. AM will benefit when allowing full service agents the opportunity to join, not just those offering full service plus a High Street shop.
Egg?…..how they doing as a brand now?
Ric EGG and First Direct were formed by Mike Harris and these are two of his orignal 3 x multi-Billion £ companies he formed, when the banking sector refused to reform into off-high street banking. EGG is now under the Yorkshire Bank and First Direct is the most recommended bank, open 24/7 and doing very well I believe!
Fair shout JAM01, to be fair, it was a daft question and one born purely out of I once won a FSA/FSO complaint against them, when they had seriously lied to me about something, fortunately I benefit 10 fold off the back of it, but that company sticks in my mind as being BENT…..(just my opinion based on personal experience, which the authorities agreed with)
Wakey wakey fencesitters ! OTM WILL happen and will be around for longer than the doomsters predict: its early death has been much exaggerated during these last few months on PIE and elsewhere. Put your doubts behind you, get off the fence and support what will be in all our (agents and consumers) interests.
Hey "Fencesitter" – I think you mean easyproperty..
The permanently low/high/dead alternative.
Home sellers…. Remember them? They're the ones that if listed with an OnTheMarket will see buyer interest in their property at HALF the level versus listing with an agent that's listing with both Rightmove and Zoopla/PL.
How is that 'in the interests of the consumer'…?
OnTheMarket simply won't have the exposure or traction of the proper portals. Buyers won't know they exist.
Wait for the 4000 offices that have signed up so far to limp back to Rightmove and/or Zoopla when their selling customers demand so through lack of exposure in a cooling market.
This is the $64,000 point. The market is cooling and vendors will, in the short to medium term of Agent Mutual going 'live', not gain any advantage of being listed with an AM agent – their perception of the exposure of their property to just one other major portal will have them asking whether this is the reason the property is not selling, if that indeed is the case.
It could be a bit of a perfect storm, as the market has peaked, it is colling and will 'SHIFT' into a buyers market, at a time when 4/5000 independent agents are withdrawing 50% of their national marketing (short to medium term, as I say).
It offers the Corporates the opportunity to make hay and ALSO to justify high fees, as they will be exposing the property to ALL portals and will convince the vendors of the additional cost to the Corporate in doing so, hence the higher fee. But when the property sells, the vendor will believe the higher fee maximised their sales opportunity and will have gained the best price for their property.
2015 will be interesting….
I think it's remarkably easy to make a very compelling case for why you no longer market with both those portals if required. I can't remember the last time I was asked to confirm which portals we market with just that we market online as well as through other media. In my patch it's usually the corporates driving down fees and then attracting the staff that go with that. Highlights the story of why 75% of experienced job seekers in the industry specifically want to work for independents as I read here the other day.
Thanks for the insight JAM01 on what the Countrywide (CW) Area Managers are being brainwashed with and in turn feeding down the chain of command……….I look forward to bringing something to the table in 2015 which the corporates will not be doing around me!……………for instance specific to my company against the CW agents I will be DOUBLING my "national presence" by adding OTM to my RM advertising portfolio and at the same time showing clients why the corporates are stuck with RM and Z, based on their shareholding problem……..any rise in CW fee's I welcome especially if service is how they will try and sell the rise…………Are you a corp?
"for instance specific to my company against the CW agents I will be DOUBLING my "national presence" by adding OTM to my RM advertising portfolio and at the same time showing clients why the corporates are stuck with RM and Z, based on their shareholding problem"….And what a problem it could turn out to be for the corporates who have possibly shoe horned themselves into a very tricky position indeed. In fact I heard that Countrywide have recently signed a 5 year discounted commission with Rightmove. The likes of Jam01 have as much to lose as the onliners such as Russell.
Completely Agree Paul H….. In fact with the member agent advertisement and any TV campaigns etc, it will leave a fair few CW vendors asking why they are not on OTM……………… Exciting times ahead #OTM2015
Paul H – to be honest, I have nothing to lose, as I totally understand that the internet DOES NOT sell houses. As I said, it is a perception on the part of the potential vendors. Agents sell houses and the best agents list the most and sell the most – and I am one of the best, who does not rely on leads from RM or Z. When they come along, great. But not fundamental to listing and selling. Trouble is, too many other agents hold too much store to internet leads. It is just a remote shop window and takes the place of the first viewing – the rest of the full service required has to then be conducted. Onliners can't deliver this.
Ric – had my own agency for 8 years. Closed for 2 years whilst abroad and coming back soon as a Corp to get back into it. Will be interesting to see the difference. Re: indys paying higher fees for staff – been there, done it and many get too comfy my friend on high basics without the pressure of having to sell. Fine in a sellers market when property is flying out the door. But in a buyers market, and the market is shifting that way, most can be found wanting when having to generate the leads themselves (prospecting and marketing). Personally, I am happy on a smaller basic but getting rewards for listing and selling. Should be fun!
Do RM and Z perform equally RussellQuirk? Can any RM and Z agent do me a favour and post a properties stats to see how close the last 7 days of interest was between the two?……………..I came off Z in 2013 after a 3 month trial as the stats we 1,000's apart with Z showing only double digit visits on most properties……..now Z was not an emerging website then either! the traffic was there.
Russell, In my view you have the best of the online offerings by far and should do well if the same level of focus is continually applied and you don't get sidetracked (like a lot of your online competitors) into having a moan at the high st agents. Lets just say you were still operating successfully out of your Grays High Street office. Knowing you of old I believe you would back on the market, recognising the importance it has to the traditional high street agent. Bearing in mind your current business model relies, to a large degree, on Rightmove and Zoopla taking 98% of its listings from traditional high street agencies (so you can place yours with those and gain market attention), it's fair to say that you would encounter problems if all the high street agents pulled their properties from Rightmove and Zoopla and put them on OTM, which you are barred from using. I'm not saying that would happen overnight, but I put it to you that the real reason you are against OTM is that, if it is ultimately successful, it will seriously damage your business model. I believe it is this you are worried about….not, as you say, the consumer.
I agree with everything you said there Wilko bar the status of Emoove. Looking at the portals and have tracked the listing rates of his and Purplebricks he is coming second to them and whilst they have only converted a pitiful 38% of the property they list to under offer, Emoove have only managed 32%….. God help the sellers silly enough to list with them if the market cools off….oh hang on it is.
What I meant to get across is Emoov does seem to at least try and provide a minimum service requirement (unlike some online agents like my property advert for example-£69 to do an advert on rm/zoop ) They, like most online agents, will always have a very very poor conversion of listings to sales as their model relies on listings rather than sales. An online (upfront fees) agent competed with me on a val recently. He suggested marketing at £450,000 when the house was only worth £300,000!!!! On this occasion the owner realised what he was up to but there will always be those that are dragged into their unrealistic valuations.
RealAgent – you state "Purplebricks… have only converted a pitiful 38% of the property they list to under offer, Emoove have only managed 32%….. God help the sellers silly enough to list with them if the market cools off….oh hang on it is." I think it is only fair to reiterate a point I have made before, that whilst where you are, 38 or even 32% SSTC ratio may be considered "pitiful" performance, in other areas of the UK it is more than what 'the best of the best' are achieving – and those that play "the numbers game" start the process with the expectation of 'list 100 to sell 50 or 60 at best'! I have 2 Agents in my town that can't hit 15% SSTC on their stock levels – and as I do the stats for all of our branches I know that my town isn't unique…
And that would be a very fair point PeeBee but PB have only launched in the Meridian area (down South) and I only included properties from both companies in a geographic area from my offices so I could make a comparison with the 88% that we converted from for sale to under offer. It wasn't scientific but a good indicator that if thats all they are achieving here, its likely to be a lot less elsewhere.
Russell, listing with your firm sees them with less than half of the market exposure anyway so your point is what?!
Russell Quirk, I think you are the emove lad that works for James Caann aren't you? – I'm sure you rocked up here with a wet patch on your strides a while ago because you can't go on on http://www.onthemarket.co.uk? You seemed quite cross about it, I assume you've got over it now? – Jonnie
Excellent news……roll on 5,000 plus.
"…a permanently low-cost alternative which works in the interests of agents, their clients and consumers…" When it comes to being economical with the truth, this really takes the biscuit. Is Springett seriously suggesting that participating agents will pass on the savings in lower fees? And if not, where exactly is the benefit to "clients and consumers?"
Passing on the direct saving or even part of the saving is not always the way a client/consumer can benefit! and its a pretty weak pop at AM to suggest that they are selling this as "what will happen"………………the above certainly does not suggest that……..and clients who want cheap tat marketing can "cheaply, quickly and easily" list their property on easyproperty….. however for me a saving on property portals will mean more money to spend on other areas of the business which WILL benefit clients……..very short sighted to think a saving MUST be passed on to a client, who will have a choice to accept the fee quoted or not!
Was just typing the very same, beat me to it!
Are we running businesses or charities ! , don't know about everyone else but I went into business to make profit whilst delivering a first class service , any threat to my profit has to be treated as just that a threat !
I'm pleased to hear that the revolution is on track , I'm sure the city analysts will be starting to take this seriously now . Z & RM shares are taking a hit, good job I I sold mine !
Any agent that doesn't back this portal in my opinion is rather short sighted , this is an amazing oppurtunity to get control of our property and what is done with it , so come on agents , grab the nettle and put a halt to these companies blatant disregard for the hand that feeds them . Amen