After 37 years of playing the game, I have found myself watching from the touchline for the past few months.
For the first six months I was advised by the doctor (OK, the employment lawyer) to take a complete rest from the game. The situation was apparently so serious that an immediate return to the game was out of the question.
Since December 1, though, I have been able to resume light training!
I have found the whole spectator experience quite fascinating. Watching the game only from one place for such a long time maybe wasn’t good for me. I don’t regret staying with the same employer for such a long time, but I do now appreciate quite what a narrow view it gave me.
Ironically, of course, I would still be watching the game from that same place if my team had not appointed a new Manager. That story, though, is for another day…
Watching from the touchline, many things have struck me. One of the most profound is nothing more than the sheer quality of so many agents across the UK. I say watching from the touchline, but in truth I have spent most of the past eight months visiting and speaking to agents across the country (and a couple of other countries).
Small, large, middle sized, corporately owned, partnerships, sole traders, franchised, owned, virtual … you name the category and I’ve been to see them.
You’ll note that I don’t use “online” as a category.
That is simply because, surely, there is no such thing as an “offline” estate agent. There hasn’t been for 15 years.
Until this last eight months, I was on a personal crusade to help the customer understand this simple fact. I have officially given up now. Agents that trade without traditional branches have put their towels firmly on the “online” badge. So, in the mind of the customer – which is the only place where it matters – that is where it is going to stay.
So, OK I’ve been talking to “online” agents too!
Everywhere I go, I have been enormously encouraged by the desire of agents to put the customer first. Encouraged, too, by their understanding that the expectations of customers have been changed forever by modern technology. Encouraged even more, by their determination to keep pace as new changes evolve.
All of this then leaves me puzzled about the situation in which we (and our customers) find ourselves with “portal wars”. Certainly, puzzled by why we have all arrived at the current position. I was puzzled enough when I was on the pitch, but it’s no clearer from the touchline.
Agents’ Mutual setting up a third portal owned by subscribers, I get that.
Using the high street branches and marketing activity of subscribers to promote the brand over and above the well established market leaders, I get that. In fact, it’s a really neat idea.
Calling it something different but really helpful like OnTheMarket, great idea.
Positioning it as the first place to look for new instructions, really neat – even if I’m personally not sure how I’d explain to an instructing client why this was in their interest.
Prohibiting estate agents who choose to offer their clients a service without branches from being members – I do not get at all. I am puzzled by that.
What is the objective? If a full service agent is so afraid of this new breed of agent benefiting from the oxygen of publicity, then it doesn’t say much about their faith in their future. That’s probably for another day as well…
Most of all, though, I am puzzled by what has really been achieved for anyone by the infamous “one other portal” rule.
Forcing members to quit Zoopla (let’s be honest) does no one any favours. The traffic volumes on Rightmove and Zoopla dwarf everything else – even Google gave up trying. Against that background, any unknown new entrant brand would need to invest more in marketing than could ever be sensibly recovered. That was never; it IS never going to happen.
I’m sure that the “one other portal” rule sounded like a touch of genius at the board meeting when it was thought of. But did no one wake up the next day and realise what a counter-productive idea it would be in reality?
Having reached their first anniversary without having achieved their Y1 targets (if they’re honest with themselves), the board of OnTheMarket doesn’t appear to show any sign of recognising the strategic faux pas.
I’m sorry, but if OnTheMarket was going to change the game, then we would have seen it by now.
A lot of agents that I have spoken to who are members of OTM have privately admitted that they feel trapped. They didn’t realise quite how many leads they got from Zoopla, but they do know they’re not getting the same volume from OTM. They are trapped because they know that if they leave then they will lose their investment. They are holding out, hoping to avoid being the last one to leave before the Rule changes.
From the touchline, it looks like it would be in everyone’s interest (not least the customers) if three things happened –
OnTheMarket should drop the “rule”, and allow all paying agents – including those without branches – to become members, and then concentrate on niche functionality, unique marketing, data provision and perhaps, another vehicle to push for minimum standards.
OTM member agents who realise that it is not what they thought it would be, should have the courage of their convictions and ignore the “rule’. A business that has to sue its own customers to retain them is surely admitting that the proposition is weak.
Zoopla (and Rightmove) should make demonstrable efforts to welcome back OTM agents with open arms and without punitive pricing.
Let’s all pretend it didn’t happen.
Bob Scarff was managing director of estate agency at Countrywide until last May
Comments (72)
Fact is guys, we used to get clobbered by the newspapers for extortionate money to advertise locally. Now we get clobbered by the internet for national promotion. The more competition the better. Just look at the utilities and banks. they swallowed up rivals and now there is just 2 or 3 players. It,s a sellers market you could advertise on a fag packet and still sell it.
Of course, OTM is a good initiative but what makes you think they won’t do the same as RM and Z as soon as they reached their goal of being the number 2 portal in UK? Membership prices are set by the portals not the agents,and as soon as OTM will be 2nd, they will do the same as Z and RM, a constant increase in membership fees.
The real solution is a portal where the prices are not set by the portal, prices are set by the market.
You really don’t know what you are talking about. OTM is a mutual whose specific long term aim is to lower prices for its members.
Only time will tell if I was right or wrong.
Actually is it not that simple for AM to increase its fees at any time, members have the final say not the board. That is the basic principle behind OTM and its mutual status. Members have already voted out premium listings.
Were the members in at the beginning offered a vote on letting the newest joinfor nothing then? Seems it’s ‘mutual’ when it suits at the moment it doesn’t suit an increase but who’s to say if it does that the mutual bit gets forgotten again.
It looks like the industry needs a real portal that keeps in mind the interest of agents and everything is measurable. As an agent, why should you promote a portal and do not get anything in return? Why not promote one where everything is measured and the agents get a real benefit from promoting the portal?
As a portal member, you don’t promote the portal – a good portal promotes you. That is the point of RM & Z.
It shows an agents (whether big or small) stock to a massive, targeted, motivated audience. They do the hard, expensive work (TV, Radio, Bill Board, Sponsoring etc) and the agent gets the benefit.
It’s as if you were a Digital Expert or something, well said!
The main problem is that actually agents made the portals what they are now. What do you tell your customers? You tell them that their house will be listed on Zoopla, RM, PrimeLocation, etc. This way, you indirectly promote these portals.
Also, agents are competing each other and even if you choose to be OnTheMarket the big agents will always get a lot more benefits because they create the rules. don’t worry, they get a lot more leads than you from any portal. OTM sold agents “an idea” and they also got free advertising because many agents promoted OTM since they thought they can be a better ZPL or RM! But in fact, agents who promoted OTM at the beginning pay a lot more to OTM than any new agent who just sign up now! Are you, as an agent satisfied with this situation?
Politely nuts! That is precisely the spin you have fallen for. Try telling Alan Sugar and see how quick “Your fired”.
A portal promotes advertising of properties and while doing so in the case of RM & Z cross sells your business to your competitors and you get nothing back. It also sets agents against agent in many ways. It also has a monopoly and becomes a dictator as seen by RM. For a business to be put in a position where your competitor is actively helped in trying to put you out of business i.e. PB and the like by your advertiser is shear crazy.
If your argument is that RM or Z are good for promoting me, then why does that not apply to OTM. The only argument I see is people using stats to support their opinion when the overall position needs to be taken into account. No-one has disagreed that the numbers are down on OTM, that is expected considering it is trying to break into a monopoly dominated market and hasn’t done bad so far.
Clarkuk – ‘leads are leads’ are you really in estate agency? We dropped Zoopla a long time ago for the reason others have stated , their leads are cr*p. The majority were from those wanting a £500pcm 2 bed flat in central london inclusive of all bills. Trying turning that into a successful lead when you are marketing 2 bed flats at £2000 pcm plus!
I think you have to read closely into this. Firstly, Bob says how he has broadened his perspective on Outside countrywide. Yes he had/has a very closeted view and as the MD he took c/w from a 100Million profit business to a diverse income nobody. Strange that several of us tried to tell him that. But then this is the guy who said at a Board meeting why do we have FS? He imported an old IT system well after everyone else had moved away from applicant cards. So he clearly had a title of MD but in reality he was the Captain of the Titanic, so i would hold his well thought out piece with little credibility.
Bob does not have 37 years experience. He has 1 years experience repeated 37 times
Sounds like someone has a personal axe to grind!
Actually if you look at the recent CW history Mr S steered a failing business with an awful lot of management fat that needed removing through the market crash to a business that successfully floated for a staggering amount of money where the share price remained at a similar level and has actually dropped since the new CEO took over.
The management fat that he removed resulted in the losses. And sadly the local management was replaced by head office managers.
Hello Hodge,
Have you ever met Mr S?
As an ex Director…..yes and witnessed the introduction of CPL, remote secretaries and a poor IT system, and of course a loss of market share
An axe it is then! Having been around at the time of the crash there were a lot of middle management not doing ‘fat’ lot and to keep the business going it was clear that costs needed to be lowered MDs commanding big salaries looking after 15 odd offices for example. That paved the way for the business to be valued at £750,000,000 5 years later and then a hell a lot more after that.
Hodge – In your day, weren’t all CWD people called Directors?
No. some like myself were on the board and registered at companies house
I wonder how many shares he owns in RM & Z and, if one owned a sizeable number of shares, I wonder if it might influence ones thinking on the subject…
Definately, an earlier post that mentioned this was removed. I would like to know if Mr Scarff has shares in either. I suspect he does. That would make his statement quite bias.
leads are leads – the quality is how you deal with it – if you expect rubbish you get rubbish. We all know its easy to send an enquiry to agents but if you get on the phone to them and talk to them every lead is a good lead. Some will be timewasters and a quick call can weed these out.
I don’t understand how the buyer on zoopla and the buyer on OTM can we different quality. If I get 10 leads a day and they turn into 3 viewings I’ve got a better chance than 1 lead a day and 1 viewing.
I for one am glad not to have any Zoopla leads – they were all of dire quality – really terribly terribly bad. 0/10. OTM produce fewer leads but at least they are decent leads. What OTM agents should be viewing in the distance, is the day they can drop all other portals…
Bob,
I worked at CW for a good few years, i think leaving CW has opened your eyes to the greater market place and what agents offer and you now have the burden of corporate agency removed from your shoulders he get a much clearer perspective.
I great article, well written and thought out. I do not agree with all your thoughts but i like you rational you put behind it.
Would love to hear more about the management shift in maybe your next piece?
Come on Smile. You know if he was on the board of OTM he would be singing a different tune.
I think the tune was very unbiased in favour or against so yes if he had a foot fully in one camp then it would be biased.
I am not saying he may not be bias, but he has an opinion and i think he comes across well in expressing it.
Either way he will upset somebody.
At least he is not making outlandish comments and promises like others, for or against.
Personally i think he is wrong on some points but welcome his input.
To be honest its a much more measured response and thought about response than i have ever seen or heard from Bob. I think the change of scene has opened his eyes.
Its a shame some of the board at CW do not have agency experience. I would suggest any corporate should have an individual with the market they are in ideally from a number of companies.
Maybe the cw employers wil start a twitter campaign #BringBackBob 😉
Unfortunately we will have to disagree as I thought there were a number of outlandish comments particularly in the last two paragraphs which clearly showed the side of the fence he is sitting on.
But life would be a boring place if we all agreed.
Can we concur instead, then?
If so, I concur wholeheartedly.
If not – then I will say nothing.
But I’ll be nodding a lot…
In our neck of the woods agents started with just Rightmove. As zoopla gained momentum a few agents started to use them to gain an edge on their competitors. Eventually all the agents started using Both Zoopla and Rightmove increasing their costs considerable and losing any of the competitive edge the earlier agents might have had. Unfortunately there was then no way back.
If the one other portal rule is removed all that will eventually happen is that all the agents will end up being force commercially into using all three portals. So the whole process that was designed to reduce agents costs would result in the complete opposite.
If all agents had the guts and the gumption to remove all their properties for one day from all the portal then the Rightmoves etc of this world would release that the tail can not keep wagging the dog, and portal fees would start going down not up. I was told the other day that for every £1 of revenue Rightmove make they make 75p pure profit. If this is the case me thinks the are taking the Michael to say the least
So very true and if those agents that are signed up to OTM stopped promoting RM or Z more in favour than OTM that would help.
Where AM fails is its ability to enforce its terms and conditions which are being flouted openly by some AM agents.
Firstly let me say this – I am an OTM fan!
I accept it has it’s flaws, I can admit that it doesn’t generate as many leads as Zoopla/Primelocation has in the past (the market conditions also have something to say about that). However the biggest flaw is that not all member agents are promoting the portal enough; everyone.
For me the biggest change that OTM should play is to commit that all member agents must show commitment to OTM and only 1 other portal for a period of 12 months, after that point they can instruct the other portal if they feel OTM is not working effectively for them. The agents can then choose if they want to spend further £££££’s on a third portal.
The result of such a program would encourage the Doubters to join and make them promote the portal ; as the long term success will benefit them – any agents who want to join also have to make that commitment even if at a later date.
The key to the success is Stock – you can change consumer habit , admitidly not overnight but it can be done.
Everyday Example – If I want to buy Eggs and Tesco’s has none for sale I doesn’t stop me buying eggs – I’ll go to waitrose or Sainsburys (Maybe even Lidl)
For the stupid : Eggs = Houses , Tescos = Zoopla , Waitrose Or Sainsburys = OTM.
Now let the abuse begin!!
No abuse from me David. I think that’s the most sensible post I have read!
Thanks – although reading it back it is full of typos …….shouldn’t be writing it on my phone whilst waiting for an appiintment.
So if I set up a free to advertise property portal with no string attached, no hidden fees and knowing that the more agents adding stock the more page views I’ll generate. Would you then feel obliged to advertise on this site ?
Because they are out there but we ain’t talking about them !
The reason is simples, you have to spend a heck of a lot of money to generate enough interest to generate enough quality leads just to keep going.
Then you got to make money too!
OTM can have top position and take it away from RM, but at what cost?
This remark tells it like it “The traffic volumes on Rightmove and Zoopla dwarf everything else – even Google gave up trying.”
So you pays your money and you takes your choice.
OTM have no more disruptive tech than PB and Z, RM has the market lead and there doesn’t appear to be any real competition on the horizon
You can have as many property portals as you like but until someone comes up with a real idea that changes the game I believe Mr S is quite correct, let all portals compete for market share.
Let the house hunters decide on their preferred portal and the portals need to wake up to the fact that by making their website more attractive to house buyers to use the more likely they will win more users.
” ……..portals need to wake up to the fact that by making their website more attractive to house buyers to use the more likely they will win more users.”
There is another take on this, portals should be targeting their customers which are not the public, they are their agents, the ones that pay them. It seems that for some it is convenient to forget why OTM came about and something that Mr Scarff has either conveniently left out or hasn’t a clue. If it is the later, that is shocking.
But surely a portal with no house buyers looking at is of no use regardless how much that portal panders to the whims of it’s subscribers?
House buyers have no real loyalty to any particular web portal. RM are currently number 1 not because of the public but because the agents gave them their properties to advertise FOR THEM. The public will go to where the agents advertise. What RM have managed to do so far is put a spin on that, the public now choose which web site they want agents to advertise on and that is the issue about having a Monopoly.
My thought about OTM is ambivalence so i have no agenda here only to see the different opinions and how other agents see the world. I see the world from my perspective and it is this. The vendors I speak to have a preference between RM or Z formed through behaviour having given each a go. I have not so far had a vendor say I use OTM as my preference. I put this down to two things lack of stock (as you mention above) and there isn’t as much info to hand with OTM that the public like. The first is easy to fix get more agents on board (which also promotes awareness as more people talking about it) which is solved by clear pricing structure for all and less onerous clauses for member agents as mention by Mr S. The second is a marketing and design issue for OTM which will increase cost as they have to pay for some data which is not an easy choice always as something will have to give elsewhere.
I agreed, particularly with the second point you make which is one of the bones of contention between the for and against OTM. For many agents they can only afford to be on one, not two and three for some would be impossible which throws out the other portal rule, doesn’t make any difference to them? Logic therefore means for them to make a change of the market place, they need to ditch all others if they want OTM to work. If that is where all or near all the properties are listed the public will happily move to OTM, as needs must!
Another neat idea would be for RMV and ZPL to pay us for our data.
Has anyone seen Zpl trying to win business from Rightmove ?
One portal owned by data providers please.
The high street agents have created
Sounds like Mr S is looking to open a online model on all 3 portals. That is if a couple of restrictions were lifted maybe 🙂
My thoughts exactly, Mr Mealham – there’s an agenda here.
Time will no doubt tell in that respect.
To whom it may concern or otherwise huff – please note – this is NOT an attempt to immediately shoot down a new business venture or anything like that…
The most balanced piece I think I have ever read anywhere on this issue. Sadly, for any true believer, balance itself is a betrayal. And so it goes on…
Completely misses the point…. Rightmove and Zoopla charge far too much for their services. It is unsustainable with their constant price increases. I doubt Mr Scarff has had this problem at Countrywide since they will receive a far cheaper rate than virtually any other agencies bar LSL.
The one other portal rule is the only thing that gives OTM a competitive edge, drop this rule and it would disappear. If it disappears, agents would have higher portal fees to pay and no doubt would need to charge higher fees to cover their higher costs. Which incidentally would help the ‘online only’ agents. Funny that.
I’m sorry. Enough is enough.
When will people accept that ‘the one portal rule’ was the only reason that OTM ever got off the ground. That was their USP. Without it they would not have the financial wherewithall to even compete and would have died with barely a whimper. But that of course is what the supporters of Z and RM want. They don’t want a competing portal.
I am surprised that someone with 37 years experience cannot see that, and then to actually advice agents to break the law…..
Ulterior motives….?
If it can’t exist without the one-other-portal rule there’s no hope for it at all. The ‘properties here 24/48 hours before everywhere else’ is a far better USP.
Yes it was their USP but it was the wrong one. OTM would have been better off creating a rule that listings where shown there 24hrs before any other portal. Upload to OTM first. OTM could of been the ”First place to find property” rather than ”another place to find property”
Wardy – Spot on. As we apparently are saying today.
And you really think that 6000 office in the first year would have signed up and paid good money based on that USP? Get real.
I would of – 6001
Not on a five year contract and at the current fee levels which allows them to compete. If you can’t compete you die like all of the others that have tried before.
Yes I would of. If it was one week exclusively before any other portal I still would now.
That is how you break duopoly, not by restrictions, and that has become quite clear
No I don’t. I think it would of been much more.
The USP for agents is that it’s agent-run, cost price, taking back control etc. The USP for house hunters is being the first to see properties as they come on the market. It could absolutely succeed on these two strengths – if it weren’t for the one other portal rule!
Exactly. At the moment OTM has no USP. Nothing to benefit me or more importantly my clients.
They really have missed a trick here, especially in today’s market where buyers are desperate to see property listed as soon as they can.
If a property is ready to be listed on the market it would be ready for any of the portals. Therefore if the seller went with an OTM agent who had the ‘must list it here first’ USP they would have to wait another week for it to be listed on the portal that the majority of people look at – Rightmove. How do you explain to your prospective client who wants their property advertised to the widest audience ASAP that they have to wait another week/24 hrs/48hrs whatever the rule is for their potential buyers to see it!!
Sensible words.
Suppose – just suppose – it happened, HarryN…
…what excuse would you then roll out for not becoming an OTM advertiser?
I (and many others) have been saying the same thing for ages……hopefully now OTM will listen to Mr Scarff
Fascinating. I can see why you are no longer at Countrywide Mr Scarff. You know far too much about real-world estate agency.
Very sensible thoughts
Where has the voice of reason been? Well done Mr Scarff. Well said.
Spot on. But too late I suspect
Welcome back, Mr Quirk. Been worried about you.
Seeing as you’re here – any chance that you could kindly answer the questions that have been hanging over you now for a couple of weeks in respect of your ‘interesting’ piece on the HomeOwnersAlliance website, regarding the proportion of properties which you state “fail to sell” and your opinion that in many instances this is down to unrealistic pricing:
‘…perhaps you would please confirm the actual proportion of properties that are listed with your own company which fail to sell, and the proportion of properties listed which require their price to be adjusted from the original listing figure?’
please?
To whom it may concern:
‘Disliking’ the questions don’t make them go away.
Without clear understanding as to why and how this article is written from an entirely neutral position, it may reasonably be regarded as a course of action designed to undermine AM/OTM. Please provide further clarification in this respect. This would seem especially important given Countrywide interests in competing UK stocks.