More lettings services which charge private landlords nothing – and in one case, actually effectively pays them to list – are getting on to the big portals, sparking anger from the industry.
Online letting agent LeBern takes the ‘free’ concept to extremes by not only offering to list properties on Zoopla and Primelocation for nothing, but paying landlords £10 when it references the tenants.
The tenants themselves are charged £100.
However, if Labour win the next General Election, such business models would come under immediate threat.
Last night, the party announced that it would impose a ban on agents charging tenants fees. While the only exception would be for credit checks, the tenant would get a refund if the tenancy goes ahead.
LeBern uses an online electronic signature document to encourage landlords to sign up.
LeBern tells landlords on its home page: “We understand letting your home through agents can be a nuisance but we assure you it does not have to be that way. We bring a new, fresh and convenient way to find tenants easily through our online letting service.”
A furious Trevor Mealham, of the Independent Network of Estate Agents, hit out at the portals for allowing low-cost, and no-cost, operators to list.
He said: “It means private landlords are let in the back door, and not only for free, but being paid to put properties there. Furthermore, it is properties that agents won’t be getting.
“It’s wrong. I think large portals are taking the mickey, and biting the hand that feeds them.”
We gave Zoopla the chance to comment on LeBern.
The Le Bern website is here: http://estateagentuk.org
Meanwhile, another new online letting agency which allows landlords to list their properties for free, and tenants to bid online, is on Rightmove.
Auctionlets.com says on its home page: “The online letting agency with a difference, created for landlords and tenants only. Landords auction it – tenants bid for it.”
Tenants are told they can bid on multiple properties until successful, and that they have “portable online referencing” which is valid for 90 days. The referencing check, which allows tenants to bid for properties, costs £72.
Landlords are told their properties will receive bids only from quality pre-referenced tenants.
The site currently has two properties – one, an unfurnished flat in Powys, where bidding finishes on May 23, and the other a flat in Leeds where the auction is due to finish today.
It also says that it has successfully concluded its first auction, within six days, with tenant Wendy Simpson’s bid for a new four-bed house in Durham being accepted.
Mrs Simpson said she saw the property on Rightmove before putting in her bid.
The Labour party’s other plans for the private rented industry include imposing a default three-year tenancy across the board, with the ability for the tenant to opt out, with capped increases on rent during the three-year period. Strict new rules would also make it harder for tenants to be evicted.
Comments (70)
Ampersat…
My main motivator is that traditional agency remains, it is quite clear that the duopoly do not care about anything but the amount of profits they report to their shareholders. The £6k per year saving is quite frankly not an over riding issue for me and I believe in time this will be the car for most new members.
Can I ask how you derive at the figures quoted: £32,000, £45,000 and £120,000 of lost revenue?
So you believe that all agents on AM can lose possibly this much to their competition, can you state how this is possible and how the playing field is not level?
I'm sure you would agree that some sort of justification would be needed if your going to persuade people that by switching from one portal to another there going to lose up to £120k in one year?
Paul you and I are motivated by the same master although the difference is probably that I view traditional in a slightly different way to you.
I spent 5 hours today looking at a traditional agency who wants to earn more money. The Agent is a member of all the right trade associations and from the limited information available seems to be a good traditional agent with a mixed portfolio of sales and rentals. Their sale agreed rate is excellent, 8 in every 10 are under offer but they are short of stock to sell. That agency's battle, like yours if you are in London, is not how much they are shelling out in fees extorted by reps they don't like and don't respect but where the next instruction is coming from. Quite frankly it is wrong to be spending money to fix a problem you just described as not an over riding issue. The whole AM campaign is based on controlling the Duopoly which in my opinion and apparently yours is the wrong battle.
I could quite easily say openly on here how I come up with the figures I have stated, but that wouldn't be fair on the agent involved as it gives the heads up to all his local competition who will simply follow suit and effectively be handed the commercial advantage he has sort for himself.
Why is the playing field not level? A £xyz pledge of membership and funding for a small agency might be exactly the same £xyz fee for a large multiple chain office but simple economics; the economy of scale means the larger firm retains financial advantage over the smaller agent. Agent in London who enjoy prices 2-300% higher than the national average might pay off their annual commitment to AM in a fraction of one sale whereas an Agent in some of the less favoured areas of the country, where prices are less than the average, will require multiple sales to cover the same commitment. The figure is the same, the voting right the same but the % of earnings can vary wildly.
Thank you for the conversation Paul. No doubt Ros has new news for us tomorrow and this story and comment stream will slip from view. Forgive me not recognising you from the other place but I will look forward to chats in the future.
Not sure if anyone else is having problems posting today..this is my third and FINAL attempt!
All agents serious about AM want the same thing but the posts in this trail clearly illustrate different views on how to get there. AM really do need to listen to some of these voices from people that really do know what they are talking about.
The free promotion we give the big two is ludicrous of course…on our websites, particulars, promotional materials, windows…the list goes on but, currently, what other alternative is there? Business suicide?
If I were AM I would have already had a teaser campaign in place. Materials should be provided to all agents registering an interest, both printed and digital along the lines of a clear "coming soon" teaser with benefits listed to the users. For this to happen they are going to need to invest in a better web site than currently in place which is far from impressive and would not be where I would be wanting to drive traffic currently. This said, AM will miss a trick if they do not capitalise on the resources at their disposal. Agents do not need educating currently on the subject of AM. Its the market and wider public that need to know what's coming as, without them tapping in the web address, AM have no chance of success.
Hello TPS, I am not sure we have talked before. I reported the posting problems first up yesterday and got a reply from both Ros and Nick who were on duty and working early on a Bank holiday Saturday. That sort of commitment is impressive and leads me to share the same respect for Nick as I have for Ros.
I was hoping to continue the chat with Paul H but have to wait now, probably till Tuesday and then will only get a reply if he digs into the archive.
With respect, I can look at your reply and see that you too are missing the opportunity of the goliath the industry has created. If parents gave up on their unruly offspring in their teenage year’s society would collapse. In the same way as some parents must train and educate their household dominating, virtually un-controllable kids Agents must learn to take control of the portals who are both well served and placed in the public awareness to do exactly what agents need them to do. It would be bonkers to make a parent chose between one or other of their children in order to bring peace to the house especially when it is the parent's fault the problems exist.
Peebee will confirm that I have serious concerns about the value and agents use of Rightmove so I am not here as Rightmove rep, shareholder or other RM connected party. Same with Zoopla; I would have all the collective executives who allowed the FindaprimeZoo merger to take place bought to account for such their serious lack of foresight and bad business judgement. With that said the industry agency has paid a lot of good money to get into the public eye. Now there are two portals doing just what they are paid to do you want one of them to stop because someone posted on EAT, in the depths of a 6 year recession they didn't like the hike in subscriptions, a story repeated 3 years running.
ampersat – I second you wholeheartedly with regard to the commitment and care that the site admins/owners are demonstrating. Like yourself, I was in email contact with Ros yesterday – and in addition to that last week I had occasion to contact her LATE on Saturday night (sad, I admit…) in relation to a something that I spotted that needed removing – and she emailed me EARLY on Sunday morning (sadder…!) to say she had dealt with it!
In relation to the latter part of the above comment – I seem to remember we once crossed swords on that thorny issue – but now for the life of me I can't remember why, as what you state above it is MY viewpoint also! (sort of…ish) 😉
One thing for certain – it is a subject that gets all of our juices flowing.
Thank goodness that Nick and Ros (not forgetting Mr John Brassington – but he is so far the 'silent partner' in the team) created EYE, so that we can do so. It became almost impossible to have reasoned debate on the other site immediately following Ros' departure (not that I am one for reasoned debate – more into ankle chewing…).
Tell you what – with their customer care, attention to detail and commitment to giving the 'customer' what they want, they would make a truly formidable Estate Agency!
We'd all better watch out for them opening up in our patches!! 😉
I was the @ chap back then Peebee rather than having a fixed identity and quite possibly I wasn't posting necessarily with the same viewpoint as today. Not because my understanding of portals has changed but because I needed to incite a different awareness in the readership in order to help guide change.
A Ros-Nick agency is the sort of agency I would relish competing against; only when the competition is strong do standards go up.
ampersat – I so remember those '@ chap' days! 😉
Jeez – the above comment is a teaser-and-a-half!
Just like a good serialisation… leaves me wanting to know more!
Any agent capable of selling 80% of their stock is doing something right, when achieved figures are 233% higher than the national average the cost of the duopoly should not be an issue. Even if AM delivers all it promises the average agency is going to be a net £300-500 per month better off. £3600- £6000 over the course of a year. At accepted KPI's that is one sale per year shared across the whole selling staff!
I am coming from the problem at a different angle instead of focusing on the burden of 1 extra sale just to control the duopoly's price hikes I am looking at how the level playing field isn't level despite every appearance that it is. The average Peebee/ Ampersat agency can easily sign up for AM and appear to be playing with the big boys and the high end agencies. We can appear as professional as them, we have bought a membership for the same club. The real problem isn’t the 'unjustified'/'unfair' £6000 too much portal fees a year, it is a cost of between £32,000, most likely £45,000 and very possibly as much as £120,000 of lost revenue. Those sorts of figures would have the Financial Director raising a concerned eyebrow in a small chain, but when they based on a very typical small, hardworking agency it is more than ought to be ignored or dismissed.
I wouldn’t have a problem if the AM restriction were two other portals. Yes it would allow RM and Zoopla to carry on but the restriction as it stands prevents any other portal from fighting on the same side as AM, with the same goals as AM and for the same agencies as AM. If AM don’t need any help carry on but they should be mindful of creating a fight with heavyweights in all four corners.
Good morning ampersat,
Your right about Ros and Nicks commitment, couldn't agree more.
In response to your comments, your are of course right in much of what you say. My issue with rightzoop has never been with their ability to take our product to the market, in fact I have a brilliant relationship with both of my BDM's who give the clear impression that they "feel our pain" in regards to costs and the arrival of AM. My issue is purely one of control, and the complete lack of it. We have no control of costs, as there is no alternative but to pay up (reminds me of the time that the local property press would do the same), and secondly we have no control of their actions in regards to allowing "non agents" to advertise. The whole AM proposition would disappear overnight if rightzoop got their act together and simply reviewed their pricing structure and procedures.
It is funny you mention newspapers TPS; 20 plus years ago my monthly newspaper bill was the biggest single fixed cost in the business and as a result its performance was very keenly monitored. In the early 90s there was a very real decision to make between paying a price hike demanded by the local Director of Northcliffe or continue feeding the children.
To this very day the cost controls introduced to Northcliffe back then are still operational; One week in, one week out, 20 years later the current property editor is reminded of a strike orchestrated by very thin associate that saw the removal of a very self assured and massively well fed Newspaper executive.
It is a misconception that the costs are out of control, it is the operational relationship between Portal and Agency that is badly broken and that isn't going to be fixed in 7 months time by AM. Agency has built exactly what it needed to build it simply lacks the understanding to control it.
You are 100% right and, in regards to the papers, I went through exactly the same with Newsquest over the years and I'm in no doubt that they regret some of the decisions they made.
In regards to the costs of rightzoop, I would agree, operational relationships are stretched to breaking point which benefits no one, however I do think that they have continued to steel from the golden goose that is high street estate agency without thought or fear of implication as they believed no one could do anything about it…IF AM does bring about a change of attitude, if nothing else, then is may well serve a purpose.
The only thing I would ask is that I am allowed to compete on the same side otherwise I become competition to AM as well as all the other minor portals, affinity groups and newspapers who provide a portal listing off the back of their print advertising.
Paul, In that last post you demonstrated my concerns about you being at a meeting perfectly; without even knowing who I am, what I want to do , who I want to do it to and who I want to do it for, you have already started to use words like conspiracy and paranoia as the first chapter in tarring me with the same brush as some would paint people like Peter Hendry (deservedly) and Trevor Mealham (undeservedly*).
You, I and the industry can not afford to paint me as a tin hat wearing loon just because I have enough experience to say 'that's not quite right' or that '*** might be wrong'. Please can you see how you are now, quite naturally protecting your financial investment with the same passion of the 1966 World cup squad and all too soon I am an outcast nutjob with the non procrastinating 11% of the industry prepared to do something.
Just from the information you have given me there is a greater than 50% chance I am already influencing your day to day working life and can therefore I have a fair idea that the real cost to your agency of what you should be discussing is already, on average, worth £4400 per month [ on a scale 0.66 to 3 dependent on your town, competition and ability to sell ( £2900-£13200)] Instead of considering that important the apparent aim is to manage and control a cost that, in total, amounts to about 25% on what you are missing out on.
* Trevor Mealham is a good bloke and is certainly very enthusiastic about the benefits of agents working together and multi listing. Because he posts as himself it is too easy notice his repeated posts saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. His idea is a good one for some, it helps smaller agencies compete with larger firms, chain agencies, franchise groups and corporates and so it is a scheme that works for them. Just because Trevor hasn't quite worked out how to do internet media well INEA isn't a flawed idea. (not a member, wouldn’t be, been there done TEAM)
Note to Trevor- please don't post thanking me for the smidgeon of support. Wait until there is a story that is relevant then post some well considered words that command the respect the effort and idea.
Ampersat….with the greatest what on earth are you talking about !
I'm actually scared by hose figures you've come out with!
You can come along, you are smart enough to be scared! How about instead of a group chat I find a way of looking at you and your competition and help with the stuff you ought to be tackling ahead of a battle with either the RM or Zoopla rep?
I'm not one to be rude and discard the efforts of someone who wants to see some positive change. I'll be more than happy to chat further once Eye have supplied the platform to do so.
Although I'm looking forward to the Zoopla and Rightmove rep coming in to try to win back the business .
Hello Paul, it is down to me to navigate my way through the communication barriers not you. Without giving detail about who you are, would you be prepared to supply on here your location and KPI's? (make them up if you like) I can give you some meaningful figures that relate to your business or one similar to yours. I agree the figures are scary and agency ought to be worried about them. Through a worked example I can show how it is the use of RM and Zoopla that is the problem and not the cost.
Ampersat…
I am the owner of a 1 branch agency in London, we are members of ARLA and the NAEA. I have no hidden agenda. I'm pushing AM because I believe in it, in addition, I'm now financially involved and want to make it a success.
I posted many times on EAT although not as many times as some of you but if you check back some of the threads you will find my posts.
Theres nothing wrong with healthy paranoi, it's a must have quality of any entrepreneur, **** I spend everyday trying to outthink the people I deal with, but some of you guys are reading far too much into this conspiracy theory. I know where your coming from…I get it but can I just suggest that you go to a presentation and study the proposal fully, I only signed up after doing so.
I'm off to brush up on my 1980's dance routines !
All of these excahnges on RM lead me to belive that whils all want the same thung, many have ideas as how to get there. Comment on RM/Zop0la promotions in agents windows are a serious topic, not even taking tinto account all the other promotion we as agents do on the Duopolys behalf…however, currently, we have little choice as that's wht the consumer is asking for. If I were AM I would have already contacted all those that have signed up with material along the lines of a serious teaser campoaign that all supporters could add to their windows, websites etc. Getting the message aout at the end of the year with a JANUARY LAUNCH IS TOO LATE. am
Turn it in Trevor, there are an awful lot of us that wouldn't touch the INEA with a barge pole me included. All you have ever done for me is clog up my internet.
People have been calling me wardy since I was at school Trevor. A long time ago.
Your right though, talk is cheap and you do a **** of a lot of it. Infact I'm yet to visit an industry site without your self promotion plastered all over it. It's boring.
For around the last 10 years Rightmove and/or Zoopla have featured prominently in the vast majority of estate and letting agents' windows, not to mention their websites, stationary, etc. How much difference might it make if come the launch of Agents' Mutual agents replaced all that with Agents' Mutual marketing material?
Add to that the fact that those agents might be listing on RM, or might be listing on Z, but WILL be listing on Agents' Mutual.
"If AM can at least put a stop to the over the barrel, short and curlys sales techniques of RM then I'm up for it."
Sign up as a gold or silver member and the price is frozen for 5 years Wardy and may well even come down within that period.
ampersat, This is a great place to have the debate and hopefully some of the players from the major portals are reading/watching/sweating. The good thing about the anonymity is they have no idea who we are or more importantly how big we are.
I'm backing AM all the way….well as far as I can without actually spending money (yet) but I agree there are much much better ways of creating critical mass on launch than the one portal rule.
"the major portals are reading/watching/sweating"….I've now received two requests from Rightmove in the last week asking me to carry out a survey with the first question being…"Where else do you advertise" with one option being "Agents mutual -when launched", to me it was a clear dig for information!
Of course their worried.
never got that one! I did however get a letter telling me despite the signed contract freezing fee's for the next year, premium listings are now double the price and I'm contracted to have them.
If AM can at least put a stop to the over the barrel, short and curlys sales techniques of RM then I'm up for it.
Ultimately what is surely needed to defeat the duopoly is for agents to unite and work together. Agents' Mutual seem to be doing a good job of making that happen.
"Ultimately what is surely needed to defeat the duopoly is for agents to unite and work together."
Firstly, Agents WON'T – never mind CAN'T – unite to do ANYTHING.
Secondly – they had the chance. It was called PropertyLive. It failed because AGENTS didn't support it and it starved. They killed the goose that could have laid many golden eggs.
Thirdly – Agents have grown the duopoly for over a decade. Nurtured and fed them into what they now are. And then, having put all that effort into it – you want them "defeated". Good luck… they are WAY bigger and more influential than us – even collectively (refer back to first point for why that is a non-starter in any event…).
A long time ago in a place far, far away (…but our Editor was the then Queen of that green and fertile land…), one of the contributors suggested a "secret" revolt against the portals. Here we are, three years or so down the line, "secretly" plotting again.
And the poor portals won't suspect a thing…
ampersat (no typo – his monicker doesn't have a capital) is absolutely on the money with his comments relating to The Great Portal Debate – ESPECIALLY with regard to how, if and where it should be aired.
Oh – and by the way – he and I don't see 100% eye-to-eye on the subject so I'm not kissing **** here for the H£11 of it.
**** Is not an allowable word on EYE??
BRILLIANT!! We will never, then, be subjected to the self-generated advertorial drivel concerning Faisal Four-asterisk like the poor audience of that other "news" site! 😉
Having followed your posts for some time (don; worry i'm not a stalker!) I think I can sum you up as the most positive yet pessimistic agent I've come across…and that is a compliment 🙂
…then I shall take it as a compliment, Sir!
(perhaps, however – and strictly for the avoidance of doubt, you understand – you would be so kind as to point out exactly WHICH PART of that statement is the "compliment" bit… ;o )
Good evening all, apologies for the late reply to an interesting debate.
One thing about Propertylive, it was killed off before it started by Lou Turnbull and suffered greatly be cause of Clap now King's NFOPP debacle. PBK decimated NAEA membership losing all the curmudgeonly experienced Fellows who knew the industry but disagreed with his personal empire building.
Running through the collaborations I have been aware of/ with all have failed because everyone knew best, as they said at the time about Team; Agents across the country working together as one TEAM! ( but all pulling in different directions)
Paul I simply am not discussing the AM objections on here, if you want a clue look at the big firms involvedand wonder why their size and professionalism hasn’t allowed them to dominate the market thus far. If 3-500 per chain office is really a deal breaker for them about 5.6% of a single deal/ month in the areas they dominate one really does have to question what the **** is going on. It is so not understandable I don’t.
Wardy you are the sort of chap I need to talk to same with Peebee and Wilko. I am quite literally fed up of the procrastination and want to discuss solutions for our future well being.
Well I'm absolutely mortified that you do not wish to include me in your future discussions ampersat, perhaps if I see you at the ESTAS or some such event in the future, I can persuade you of what a cool agent I am with my body popping skills and break dancing skills at the after party !
In other news – I do agree that solutions for our ever changing industry do need to be discussed and certainly this website/forum is providing a fairly good platform for it.
Don't be mortified Paul you do a great job promoting AM and with a Gold membership commitment you would hardly be coming to the table with an open mind, added to that the number of hours you are putting in on PIE I have to suspect you to be a tad more involved than a subscribing Agent. Much as I would love to see you in Party animal mode I am still under the Doctor from the thought of Simon Whale going Gangnam style, a bit too David Brent for me! If you were kicking around EAT I didn’t notice you there.
The problem is Paul, I and many agents fear AM is either a Trojan Horse or Japanese Knot Weed and there is a nervousness about a Duopoly becoming a Triopoly with the small and medium size agencies getting no better deal than they have now. The larger firms could weather the onslaught from an angered and vengeful beast , many of the smaller firms couldn’t so will continue to do what they have been doing until change is forced upon them.
Has anyone told Dave Evans the party has changed venues? I went back briefly to see a story about……. Adam Day…. Yay, same old same old and Dave Evans was in the thick of it.
ampersat
It's only fair to warn you… you'll need to enlist the services of an 'Oop-North' interpreter if you want to talk to me – as Ros will confirm! 😉
Tup knorth? by eck tha knows Usuv studdied; Last of the summer wine, Corry, Emmerdale, Brookside, Gordie shooer and Rab c Nesbit making me fluent in all of the main tongues spoken knorth of Knutsford.
All agent that have expressed interest in AM seem to want the same thing but the posts here clearly illustrate that many have their own ideas on how to get there. AM need to listen…
Comments on the amount of advertising we all carry out for the portals, FOC, is a serious point howerver whats the alternative currently when that is what our consumenrs and clients demand?
If I were AM I would have serios teaser campaigns already in palce with promotional materials and text provided to EVERY serios interested agent. We ccan then promotes the site actively up to launch and , hopefully, get the vendors, purchasers and wider market talking.
These exchanges are VERY interesting and it strikes me that that, far from being obtuse, the writers are actually after the same thing. Our business is pretty straightforward but there are considerable differences in how agents operate in their respective geographic locations. The biggest example of this is the central London and particular prime central London market which is alien to many. Like minded professionals contacting each other via this medium perhaps turns the Eye into something other than what it was designed to be but I for one don’t see that as a bad thing. Group discussions, working parties, passionate exchanges and the like may be the way forward for AM as they work towards their launch in order for them to be clear on what their members would, in an ideal world, want from the site? Like many, I still continue to learn about the business and having the opportunity to listen to others is not something any should underestimate.
Thank you for the clarification Paul. The problem I have is that the AM solution is not strong enough or smart enough to do what it actually needs to do, let alone what we think it needs to do.
In your posts you are showing that AM is fixing the wrong problem, in surveying terms painting the wall not chopping down the Conifer tree causing the green mold. The fees paid to both Rightmove and Zoopla are only about 7% of the problem agency has created for itself by its use of Rightmove and Zoopla. There are stories on here this week that demonstrate my point and un-arguable statistics to prove it. I am not being deliberately obtuse and anti AM it is that this isn't the place for the discussion.
"The AM solution is not strong enough or smart enough".
The solution is an agent owned portal, why is this not strong or smart enough?!
"In your posts you are showing that AM is fixing the wrong problem"
What problem do you refer to and what problem should it be fixing?
@ Pee Bee, I'm there for agents. My work has broken the data sharing restraints that the rightmove feed imposes. as such I have been able to unite agents. If some then leave portals that allow more and more budget models in then I can say that I am helping agents save £1,000's pa.
Ive also introduced technology where I can pull in other agents data and return it to agents websites, thus turning agents websites into mini local portals. I've always been there for agents and also work now with many regulatory bodies putting independent agents views forward and have managed to get some changes brought in in favour of agents and agents being able to collaborate which favour agents and not portals.
Ampersat…Your right about your point raised re anonymity! I hear that some changes are due on this website soon perhaps there will be the ability to contact other contributors!
Over to you EYE 😉
Paul H. Thanks. Contact suggestion noted!
Forgive the typos…
Exchanges
Competition
Cant NOT can believe!
Whatever happens with AM the kind of excahnges in this trail can only be a good thing. Passionate agents, talking passionately about the service they aim to provide.
In reality, there will always be alternatives, we've had it for years on the high street, let alone on line, but how an agent, or business for that matter, sets its stall out is down to the individual business owner. I don't think AM will need to dictate to anyone as I think that they will attract serious agents. Some will of course be opportunists who will be weeded out quickly but I think that the majority will want to play by the rules yet be happy to go "toe to toe" with their completion. I can believe anyone logging these posts has lost the fire in the belly and feeling of satisfaction gained from winning an instruction when up against a hatful of competitors….
"whether it is arrogance or ignorance Agents Mutual are wrong to try to dictate what Agents do or don't do in terms of their (the agent's) business and marketing strategy in order to bolster their own (Agents Mutual's) public awareness."
It appears you have answered your question there Ampersat. The aim of trying to bolster AM's public awareness is surely one of the driving factors that will make it a success. All members pushing the site when speaking with clients and consumers, through marketing and advertising etc and more importantly by using only one other portal which will ensure that it creates the disruption required and enters the market in a position of strength unlike needaproperty or propertypropertyproperty and all the other portals that have entered the market with a far more risky approach. If it is to work and be a true agent owned portal then it needs to be pushed by it's members, both financially and verbally.
Yes PeeBee, the same thought occurred to me….
A furious Trevor Mealham… hit out at the portals…
He said… “It’s wrong. I think large portals are taking the mickey, and biting the hand that feeds them.”
Sorry – is that the same Trevor Mealham that (back in the day when 'that other' site was where we discussed the industry) was pushing his MLS system as the way to reduce portal costs by "sharing" their use between several branches/companies??
Pot and kettle come to mind here…
I am not disagreeing with that Paul I whole heartedly agree but whether it is arrogance or ignorance Agents Mutual are wrong to try to dictate what Agents do or don't do in terms of their (the agent's) business and marketing strategy in order to bolster their own (Agents Mutual's) public awareness.
The saying "you don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong is very apt and should be at the front of thought for making policy and strategic decisions at AM.
If AM consider themselves a force to be reckoned with having only 11% of agents signed up and commitment for just 3 months realistic advertising budget my own impression is one of over confidence and hype.
A home for Professional agency is the way forward but not at the expense of Rightmove or Zoopla. Good business sense dictates owning or controlling the competition not fighting it. Both RM and Z need a reason to keep behind agency and not an excuse to compete with Agency. There are 16,000 agents not convinced by the AM prospectus, that is more than enough to keep RM and Zoopla in the profits and public gaze to the extent that the public won't notice the 11% total agents who are suddenly missing from either RM or Z but not both. Such a dilution of effort makes the tactic an ineffective own goal.
If the numbers of AM fans were higher it would be possible to claim that they have the Lion's share of Professional agents but as the numbers are there are 4 or 5 Professional firms not signed up for every one that is.
Putting to one side for the moment some of your other points, let's look at those numbers;
Firstly, yes there are currently 2100 gold members (as per the advert on the right), which equates to roughly 11-12% of the market, however many of those agents are leading agents in their areas that hold a huge majority of the market share in that area. We could conservatively say that perhaps 20-25% of the listings will come off of either RM or Z at launch from those 2100 branches alone. That is a significant amount of stock that will vanish overnight!
Secondly, these 2100 members are ONLY the agents that are CURRENTLY listed (sorry to shout!), don't forget that many additional agents have already given a non binding agreement to be silver members.
Thirdly, The reps are yet to go out and present the proposition to other potential members.
Fourthly, bronze membership has not yet been offered to agents.
Fifthly, all this before the web name, branding, advertising and launch of the product.
You say that AM does not have the lions share, well there is a full 7 months until launch and a week is a long time in politics especially when you consider that RM and Z seem to be falling over themselves to give agents a reason to look for a viable alternative on a daily basis.
I used to agree with you Amperset but, cost aside, the rate at which the major portals (RM and Zoopla) are accepting "listing" "online only" "ebay £9.99 for a listing" agents that don't have a high level of proffessional service is alarming. I moved towards the idea of Agents Mutual initially because of cost protection-nothing else. I even questioned Ian Spriggett when he boldly stated that only "professional-non online-listing only" agents would not be welcome on AM. However, this industry is moving so fast in different directions that I now see AM as a flagship portal proposition for agents that offer all types of property ,in all areas but with a high end service that many online newcomers tell the public they dont need. If you are a proffessional agent that offers excellent customer service then I would say that you will NEED to drop at least 1 main portal and join AM to actively separate yourself from the increasing ammount of companies that call would be vendors from a call centre stating "we put you on the same sites as real/high street agents." Professional Agents that continue to advertise on the main two portals will now be, in my view, assisting these listers and giving innacurate creedence to their claims.
How is it possible to have a conversation away from the public gaze? I am genuinely not at odds with you guys but have a slightly different experience to a lot of Agents. That experience gives me the opportunity of a different perspective. I know who I want to talk to but hidden behind the anonymity of a moniker it is impossible to make direct contact through linked in etc. This is a great forum but not the place for the sort of discussion that needs to happen
My genuine fear about AM is that the market might well be against its success due to interest rate rises and uncertainty about the general election which in January 2015 will only be 5 months away. We all know full well that the Christmas lull doesn't recover till the Daffodils are blooming and the Christmas credit card bill is under control so I can well imagine the advertising budget being spent before the market really gets going in June next year assuming that the interest rate rises that I suspect are behind the Stock market indifference over some stonking results by Foxtons haven't strangled the market.
PaulH keeps putting great arguments forward for AM so one has to suspect him to be AM staff or a gold member, he is certainly working hard to overcome the objections and fears I and others have expressed on this and several other comment streams.
Despite repeated requests no-one has yet clearly explained the thinking behind the one other portal rule, no-one has explained how it is going to work and what is going to be gained. Even if 50% of agents pulled off one or other portal my experience of the public is that they will merely think the absent firms have gone out of business or can no longer afford the advertising bill. Its alright us knowing the master plan but there are apparently 22,000,000 individual enquiries who have to be educated each month along with 16,000 not big or influential agents who aren’t convinced either.
I've signed up as a gold member Ampersat and therefore clearly have a vested interest in AM. For me the reason for the one other portal rule is so that AM enter the market in a position of strength – AM have made it abundantly clear that they aim to be the number 1 portal and drive traffic from the duopoly, the one other portal rule helps to ensure this happens.
I understand your thoughts and why you struggle to understand the drop a portal rule. Like I said, my initial reason for my network joining AM was to save costs. Yet in only a few months my reason has changed. The 1 portal rule doesn't worry me at all now, and I am just keen to be on a site with like minded professional agents who, if you looked at the member list, are very much the professional market leaders in the areas they trade, and who have a large share of the instructions in those areas.
This article that has lead to these comments is another in a long list about sub service providers who aim to replace professional agency overnight with a listing only proposition….to be frank, as that carries on, aparently un policed by the portals, nothing would please me more than having the opportunity in the future of dropping both of them and aligning myself with those offering a more professional service.
The same has happened with online solicitors…their service is, on the whole, sub standard, and customers don't mind paying alot more for a traditional high street solicitor (it theyre good!)
And I'll third that 🙂
I'll second that Paul H.
To be honest I don't have a problem with charges that any agent – sales or lettings make, as long as they have a minimum professional service standard.
Loads of agents (Haart now inc.) have jumped on the sale by tender method which, whilst I don't agree with at all, means that they are charging £0 to sellers to sell their property. Can't see the portals throwing the likes of Haart or Arun off! This is why Agents Mutual now have not only to achieve a low Portal cost for members but pride itself in being the home of the proffessional agent.
"This is why Agents Mutual now have not only to achieve a low Portal cost for members but pride itself in being the home of the proffessional agent."
Being the home of the professional agent is going to be AM's niche for me Wilko. It will not be seen as a portal for high end property as Primelocation was originally, but will be for traditional full service agencies.
Currently Rightmove and Zoopla are doing everything possible to make traditional agents consider AM as the viable alternative.
Thanks Paul. The question is how much do they pay for 50 properties?
In London, an agent may typically have 20 sales instruction and fewer lettings properties at any one time – that costs about £800 per branch. Is the on-line agents fee comparable?
This is a very good question, it will be interesting to know precisely how much these online agents are being charged by RM and Z. Also for companies such as Purple bricks, are they being charge per area rep or per property, would be good to know!
The core cost ammount for listings is £550-£650 per month per branch depending on numbers and branding. Online agents just pay the core cost x 1 but that increases at increments depending on numbers listed. I checked with RM about 2 months ago.
Interesting, cheers Wilko! It should be a level playing field for all especially if these online agents want to have "local property experts" covering the same areas as a high street/traditional agent is covering.
All Labour will do is force bonafide Letting Agents who charge reasonable fees for their services out of business. It is a simple equation, by not charging Tenant fees, agents will have to increase what they charge Landlords to stay in business and numerous Landlords will decide to do things themselves. We already know that when Landlords do things themselves they do not comply with half of the legislation that exists. The result of Labour's action is that we will see more rogue Landords and Tenant's getting "ripped off" in other ways!
@Eric, online agents pay per 50 properties, this counts as 1 membership, so there is not alot of profit to be made.
Most of our landlord clients have opted for our full management service. Those that are on let only happily pay us renewal commission each year because they like knowing that we are here with support at any time should they have a problem. I don't think these online portals can be much of a threat to our business when they are offering no more than 'find a tenant'. And of course, formal referencing on its own is only half the vetting process. The rest comes from knowledge and experience and the need to meet the tenant.
I think there is another issue here. We pay Rightmove per office which has a specific effective geographic area as with all High Street Agents. I recall once I had two offices in the same road and was told I had to pay more money as it wasn't one site. Ok, so they agreed to relax this as they were only four doors apart.
On-line agents need only have one office. If they paid by post code or area, would their business model be so cost effective? Just a thought.
Nevertheless, if portals are relaxing rules and allowing such listings. then the big winner may be Agents Mutual.
Well I know who I'm voting for!
In my experience, online letting agents still rely on local agencies to carry out viewings, walk in etc.
If however, they do not understand the cost in running an high street office vs online agency, I fear, neither one is doing the other any favours. A tenant find in North vs South, is very different. Look at cost for high street premises alone and how it impact bottom line? The challenge is for online and physical business to work together. As for labour- 3 year fixed tenancy. Think again. Peoples circumstances change. In theory it works, but in practise- not so sure. I have a portfolio with great tenants. Quite a few on HB. The relationship works because of mutual respect for each other. This dynamic works better than any law or political orientation or agency. Maybe working with people, needs a fresh and realistic approach and not just "the bottom line"?
Can someone tell me how Lebern can be defined as a bona fide letting agent by Rightmove and Zoopla. How are these firms allowed to list in the first place?
I note the part about labours pledge at the next election…this could prove quite significant should they get in as they also plan to have minimum 3 year tenancies with the vendor only able to take back possession if they wish to sell or move back in.
Another unworkable gimmick by Labour!