Online agent Adam Day of Hatched has thrown down the gauntlet to Agents’ Mutual.
He has also accused the NAEA of discriminating against some of its own members – and taken a swipe at high street agents.
He said: “I’ve actually been looking for properties myself recently, and having viewed three separate properties with three separate high street agents, my experience as a buyer has been dire to say the least.
“Shockingly, not a single agent has called or emailed me to ask for my feedback. It’s now a week since I viewed.
“It’s appalling: these property owners are paying thousands of pounds to estate agents that can’t even be bothered to call the viewer to see what they thought of the property.
“Frankly, I think it’s scandalous. And I suspect every home owner wishing to sell would think so too.”
Defending his business, he said that the exclusion of online agents such as his own from Agents’ Mutual’s portal, OnTheMarket, cannot be justified.
Day said: “Aren’t all estate agents ‘online’? Whether or not they have high street offices, they certainly all operate using the web.”
He also pointed to the anomaly by which Hatched belongs to the NAEA, which is backing OnTheMarket, saying that it was alienating some of its members.
Day said: “People call Hatched an online estate agent, but the description does not do us justice. It leads people to believe that we offer a less personal service or work solely behind our screens. That’s entirely untrue.”
He said he would prefer the term “21st century estate agents”.
Day said that he suspects the real reason that OnTheMarket will ban online agents is simply because they are cheap.
He said: “We have fully trained employees that visit and meet with clients at their properties, face to face. They measure up and take photos at every single property we market.
“We arrange the viewings, we get feedback, we negotiate to get the best price for the client and we see the sale through to the end.
“We just charge in a different way, which allows us to save clients around 80% compared to a ‘traditional’ estate agency.”
Day went on to claim that the exclusion of online agents from OnTheMarket, plus its one other portal rule, will hurt the new website.
He said vendors would still expect their properties to be on Rightmove and Zoopla, which would mean fewer instructions for those agents listing on OnTheMarket.
Day said: “For me, this is the beginning of the end for estate agency as we know it. It’s clearly a huge opportunity for agents who decide not to sign up to OnTheMarket because they can pull in more new listings and therefore increase their sales and margins.
“That includes us and other colleagues in 21st century estate agency who have been spurned by the Springett squad.
“The obligation of OnTheMarket agents to unsubscribe with either Rightmove or Zoopla will therefore work to make online estate agents stronger.
“Regardless of how many old school agents club together, or of the NAEA’s blatant disregard for alternative models, we’re not going anywhere.”
Comments (79)
Mr Day wouldn't get a job with me, my school children know more than him. What nonsense. What about the 40% and growing number of public not on the internet? What about all those unsold vendors on the internet today, hasn't helped them!!!!!
Bit confused by the headline not tying up with the content ,mind you "Applicant with an agenda whinges a bit" probably wouldn't attract 72 comments.
Let's hope Shinerock turning up here the other week coupled with this kind of barrel bottom story isn't the start of the trashy online agency trolling story regime that was employed at EAT last Autumn.
No-one cares about Adam Day, what he says or what he is up to especially in his private life- bleating on about how bad agents are. I guess the only consolation is that if he genuinely is looking to move he has either got to put up with looking to choose from 2% of the market offered by online Agents or he has the widen his search, swallow hard and admit to looking at property offered by agents who can blag an extortionate fee, offer a shocking service and yet still win 98% of business away from firms like his. That'll really stick in his craw!
P.S Mr Day when you say "We just charge in a different way, which allows us to save clients around 80% compared to a ‘traditional’ estate agency" you need to stick to one story, if you remember when you were trying to make the point that your business is financially viable (EAT story) you stated / boasted you managed to get your average fee up over £1000 which is not 80% of the average agency fee.
When Mr Day works himself up into a lather using words like 'shockingly', 'appalling' and 'scandalous', it is all too evident where he's coming from. When he says 'these property owners are paying thousands to estate agents that can't even be bothered to call the viewer [for feedback]', he conveniently forgets that traditional agents don't get paid until AFTER they have made a sale – unlike Mr Day.
march – of course it's all blow and no show from Day – he's a seasoned professional in the use of billshuttery. The problem is that WE know it for what it is – but he is relying on SOME of the public reading and digesting it – and that if and when they market their property they remember the name of the company. Let's face it – if he gets a dozen instructions out of it in a year they pay his gas bill – whether they sell their homes through his agency or not… it matters not one jot to him as they have paid regardless!
Mr Day – true to form, you stick your head above the parapet for the sake of publicity. I can almost set my watch by the timings of your, and Mr Quirk's offerings. Okay – I'm ignoring 99% of the MDT behind your release – I've smashed it into atoms many times previously and it's getting frankly boring. You have a beef with, allegedly, THREE Agencies who you claim haven't followed you up on viewings and that is, you say, "scandalous". I wouldn't actually go THAT far – but in fairness, it's not good either. Unfortunately, the "Agents" you refer to are neither named nor invited to the table to put forward their own version of events. So – we'll never know – will we… unless of course one or more of them are reading this and prepared to come on and comment. Alternatively, of course, you COULD give the information to Ros and, as with all investigative journalists I am sure she would relish the opportunity of putting together a follow-up story or two on this subject. Now – that WOULD be interesting…
But to you this is all about service standards – as of course it SHOULD be. I have always said – if Agent 'X' can do a better or identical job to 'PeeBee & Co', cheaper, and with the same or better result – then a vendor would be foolish to instruct us. It simply doesn't compute – does it?
So – in the article you apparently state "We have fully trained employees that visit and meet with clients at their properties, face to face. They measure up and take photos at every single property we market."
Champion. That being the case, please allow me to put to you the following REAL SCENARIO. I live within 5 miles of Newcastle upon Tyne City centre. Without naming names:
1. HOW CLOSE to my location does your employee live?
2. HOW CLOSE to my location does your employee work?
3. WHAT AREA does your employee cover?
4. WHAT EXPERIENCE does your employee have in selling property in MY location?
5. WHAT TRAINING has THAT employee received – who by, and when?
I look forward to your response, Mr Day.
Funny, innit – that the usually 'talkative' Adam Day has failed to show his face here despite the comments he is attracting.
Cat's got his tongue – or simply he has finally learned when NOT to stick his head above the parapet…
Good Morning, I feel I should leave a comment on this particular matter. Before going back and forth bashing each other for levels of service and commitment's and price, no-one actually knows what each agent professes to do. The do not know exactly what goes on behind closed doors. The consumers (sellers) will ultimately decide which way they would like to turn over the next few years. What I feel you should all do, is ensure that levels of service stay higher. The longer there are poor agents on the market (online or traditional) the longer the great ones will shine. I'm a little concerned over the OTM portal myself, I am a HYBRID. I'm online, with a lovely office that my clients may visit, but it is not on a high street, but then I know the area like the back of my hand, I grew up here and will only deal locally where I know the area and can offer the best advice and knowledge to my buyers, on top of this I do feel my standards of marketing are different and offer an alternative to our traditional, 'radiator and light switch agents'. As one traditional agent said to me, 'we would prefer to ensure the standard of agents on the portal and not their business models as the grounds for application and approval' however this is not the case. I think their case should have been to actually have a compliance standard that was mystery shopped. It however not a bad thing, there will be 3 portals and that is okay. The quality agents will win the quality instructions if they are doing a good job. Please remember that this portal also has now to rely on it's agents wasting a lot of time in each valuation to sing it's praises, it will take awhile but I think it will work. I just wish everyone the best , afterall we are all trying to stand out in a very very crowded market, but each individual is different and wants something different. It's not a one size fits all anymore. Just know that if you provide a high level of service you can indeed sleep at night and so will your customers. It is a little too stereo typical to say that either one or the other is bad, There are different levels of service and quality on both sides. Wishing you all a very successful 2014
'VMOVE' – I agree with much of what you say. I have NEVER had a problem with a particular 'model' of Agency – if it works for the seller, then it works full stop – what I HAVE had many previous issues with is the claims that various individuals make to put their case forward. I have also said ad nauseum that there is a niche that EVERY Agency type is cut out for – 'Traditional' being one of those niches (or the main 'room' that the niches project from, dependant on how you view the scenario). Interesting that according to what you read – and see – AM is supposedly creating a 'kinship' of Agencies, both across the land and also more locally. Been there – seen it before – usually lasts about a fortnight until someone breaks rank and undercuts/oversells their brethren to get a few more properties on their books.
Still – the coming months represent a forthcoming division of the market like never seen before in my opinion – and one where I see the 'losers' being the public. And THAT saddens me greatly, as the public are who we work for.
I'd rather wish upon everyone a successful 2015 – seeing as that is when the property world is due to spin at a different speed and attitude…
Look forward to your continued postings – you bring a balance that isn't seen often. ;o)
Some people have asked on hear how us traditional Estate Agents will get a higher price than an online Agent – I live in a small coastal retirement town where one in seven of my owners (and much the same applicants) do not own a computer, can Mr Day or any of his supporters tell me how they can justify trying to sell a bungalow in my town when he is not advertising to 15% of the local buyers?
Do you have electricity yet? 🙂
I've heard of it! It is one of the advantages of living in a town where most of the population are over 60, Hatched etc are easy pickings.
However there are some disadvantages but they don't relate to work!
"Day said: “People call Hatched an online estate agent, but the description does not do us justice. It leads people to believe that we offer a less personal service or work solely behind our screens… He said he would prefer the term “21st century estate agents”."
I've raised this very point many times before. WHY, then, is his website full of terminology such as "Online Estate Agents, Hatched – What's it all about?", "As one of the original, and still one of the largest online estate agents in the UK…", "We are the only online estate agents in the UK to…", "Unlike other online agents, we…"
I would suggest you makes your mind up, Mr Day. ARE YOU, OR AREN'T YOU, an ONLINE Estate Agent?
Oh – and to those that have a problem with my style of quoting others in order to make a point, and not to offer an opinion in the doing… this is yet another example which will no doubt wazz you off.
No doubt there'll be more. Mr Day gives me lots of ammunition.
Being controversial, I do not mind too much what Adam Days thoughts or opinions are they most likely are bias. What I do worry is that we do not as High Street agents have a voice as prominent. Where are the likes of a Grenville Turner, David Plumtree or a respected independent agent banging the drum and getting headlines for High Street agents helping stop the rise of the internet agent?
The problem is we can say how unprofessional Mr Day is but yet again as with emoove, upad purplebricks and such like he is raising the profile of online agents. All we do as a collective is moan about it on a forum. As an industry we need to make headlines in the press and media!
sablade, seem to have run out of spaces to 'reply'
Not getting away from the point at all, which is the exclusion of agents who have a different charging model from On the Market.
Every business has it's overheads, that have to be built into its costs, but the point is that we expect our clients to pay for all our abortive costs, all the good (and expensive) things you highlight that you provide as part of your service, but I'll ask the question again as you're going round avoiding it, who pays for all those expensive services on the properties you market but don't sell? (and don't tell me you sell everything you list, as I won't believe you!) All I'm saying is perhaps we are the 'monkeys' operating on a no sale no fee basis, and just maybe those who's charging structure means they earn out of every property they list have got it right, and by doing that, are able to offer a much cheaper fee to the consumer.
Provided they are an honest and ethical firm their chosen fee structure is no reason to exclude them from On the Market, after all, as I pointed out earlier, they have been happy to jump into bed with Spicerhaart, so that suggests they want the money!
Great brochures… https://www.hatched.co.uk/docs/9572_property_brochure.pdf
Are you having a laugh?
Oh myy – you just killed your argument and made yourself look rather unprofessional with this brochure. Sorry…but it really is pants my friend.
Yes, wardy – sablade is. It's called sarcasm, if I remember – lowest form of wit (so my 'fans' have told me over the years – but WAY the funniest! ;o)
OOPS – attached to the wrong post!
But, JAM01 – same comment pretty much applies. ;o)
Yeah I realised that after seeing some of the other posts
Don't worry hatched have every UK town covered!
We have regional consultants & offices covering the whole of England & Wales.
Birmingham
Exeter
Hitchin
Manchester
Maidstone
Reading
Sheffield
To get the best price in the shortest time selling you need the following:
A local experienced valuer who knows every house on every street
A local agent with a big database of buyers
A local agent with a good window display
A local agent who gives out free printed details
A local agent who produces top photos and top details
A local agent who advertises in all the local press
A local agent who personally carries out every viewing
A local agent who gives 'next day' feedback
A local agent who wants repeat business
A local agent who advertises on the top websites
A local agent may charge an extra £3k fee but will always get at least double that on the sale price for the vendor.
You get what you pay for – if you want a cheap online only agent then don't expect good service but expect a cheap fee and a sale at a much lower price.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a high street agent will achieve a better price than an online agent.
And I would strongly dispute that with a no sale no fee high street agent you get what you pay for, see my comment above, and remember that your fees are costed to include all the abortive work you do for other people.
Most buyers are local, the more local exposure = more viewings, more viewings = more offers. Pick the best offer – simples.
The internet is full of cheap online box shifting warehouses working from home.
When onthemarket gathers momentum it will be the #1 portal and thank god private or online sellers are banned from it!
I cannot wait for them to start and I will drop rm and zoopla like a stone.
Online agents will come and go – you get what you pay for!
The agents will take back power.
Most buyers are local, can't disagree with you on that one, but the vast majority still start their property search on the internet!
You keep repeating 'you get what you pay for' so indulge me for a moment, have you some way of making sure that your succesful sellers only pay for what you do for them, or do they contribute to your abortive costs?
Let me run a scenario by you for your thoughts, your car breaks down, and you take it to the garage. When you go to collect it, they tell you that they've had a car in that week that despite spending money on parts and their labour, they've been unable to fix, so they didn't think it was fair to charge the owner of that car, and have added some of the cost of the parts to your bill, oh and by the way, because you've got a merc, we're going to charge you more than another client who only has a ford focus. Would you go back to that garage? But you expect your clients to be happy to accept that sort of charging from you.
OK this is getting away from the whole point but, who pays for the garage to open on the days without customers? Who pays for free quotes on your home? Who pays for travel agent's brochures? The customer always pays a bit more for the other punters who may not do a deal. Then your argument based on a percentage – if you earn more money why should you pay more to the government? Do you use the roads or police more? You pays your money and takes your choice pay peanuts get monkeys. We don't charge extra for all our advertising/premier photography/floorplans/brochures/magazine advertising/accompanied viewings. Do you? We charge a fee based to results. If a seller wants to change our fee to up front or based on results – we can do that. If a seller wants to break it down and pay for every staple – we can do that. If a seller wants us to do next to nothing, shove an advert online and sit back – yup you've guessed that – we can do that.
Nothing like an article about Online agents to get everyone going! I still fail to understand why, if online agents are no threat, everyone rises to the bait!
We all fall into the same trap describing online as 'budget' agents, I'm quite certain from the length of time that Hatched have been around that Adam has costed his buisness model well, it's just a different way of charging.
Perhaps we need to go back to basics and remember what an estate agent does, we don't sell houses, but we provide a service to people who want to sell their house. The difference between online and high street is that the online agents charge the seller for what they do just for them, whereas with the conventional high street model, and success based fees, that successful seller will be picking up the heavy cost of failures. Perhaps the up front fees, and adding in a bit for extras is actually a fairer model for the consumer, and of course with a percentage based fee, we all know that we don't actually spend more on marketing property valued at £200,000 than we do on one valued at £300,000, but we'll charge the seller of the higher valued property another grand for the privilage.
Like Adam, I'm puzzled by the decision not to allow online agents to join 'on the market' and worth reminding everyone that in Mr Springett's opinion, On the market is, quote, a 'BET on the future of high street agents' not a confidence inspiring statement! I personally find it quite revealing that they will not allow online or budget (call them what you will) agents to sign up, but have happily leapt into bed with Paul Smith, shows me that it's all about money and little else!
I was going to comment: Why on earth is the man of the "21st century" viewing properties with old fashioned, "overpriced high street agents"? But having just looked on his website it appears he only has 598 properties for sale across the entire country; and just 27 for rent. The consumer has spoken!
Thought I had better have a look at Hatched.co.uk website, after you have paid for EPC, board, floor plan, premium listing etc, the fee isn't far off what most agents are charging at the moment anyway but they include these 'extras' in their fee. This is then classed as miss qouting fees surely?
Using the word 'scandalous' to describe an estate agent(s) who did not call him after the viewing is a bit OTT. As long as you record any feedback from viewings and pass this to the client within a reasonable time it does not matter when the feedback was actually collected – before, during or after the viewing? You may find that the viewer had so much to say about the property during the viewing that you don't feel there is a need to call them after?
No one is surprised you didn't receive a good service!!!
I wonder why ??
Once again, reading this "debate" prompts the usual feelings of baffled incredulity, not unmixed with wry amusement. Two questions spring to mind: first, if "traditional" agents are genuinely convinced that merely having a high street office guarantees a level of professionalism and quality service that online agents can only ever dream of – or that the afore-mentioned professionalism and quality service are so much more attractive to the public than "mere" low fees – then why, oh why are they so afraid of their budget brethren that they won't allow them to join their cosy new club? Secondly, what on earth do the likes of Phoenix and Ric imagine the general public would think if they could read this blatantly self-serving, anti-competitive stuff? Agents who have the temerity to refuse to join local cartels and instead choose to charge lower fees are castigated as "sharks." Or they should be allowed on OTM as long as they charge a nice comfy 1%… Unbelievable!
I'm having the same sort of service at the moment with regards to lack of phoning for feedback. Do sellers and their traditional agents no want feedback on the property? I know this is what i would expect!
What's the matter, Mt EmoovPRguy – can't get one of your own ******** articles printed so thought you'd saddle up on this one?
I think it is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that you and Day – working for "Agencies" that proclaim to be "the future of Estate Agency", clearly haven't been able to list a decent enough register to even view YOUR OWN properties!
Speaks volumes – and a great warning for the rest of the homebuying public not to bother even browsing, I would suggest.
If low cost base on line agency is so good, why have so many failed including those that offered a FREE service and one run by Tesco? It seems some on here are fixated with Zoopla & RM – but that is just a tiny element of what we do. Getting someone who wishes to view a property is the starting point. What we do after this is what sets a good agent apart from a bad one.
Adam Day is begining to sound like an angry, bitter man.
"Aren't all EA's online"? Yes Mr Day we are otherwise we would still be in the 20th century. The big difference is we pay RENTS, RATES, UTILITY BILLS etc etc to present ourselves to our clients who want to have the opportunity to meet us face to face (terribly old fashioned concept don't you think?). We don't operate out of a back room somewhere. We incur substantial costs you don't have PLUS we pay to be online. Not surprising really is it that you are able to offer a cheap (in all senses) as chips service……As an old fashioned service-is-key potential vendor/landlord I wouldn't use YOU if YOU paid ME.
marcH:
So we as consumers of your service should be punished because of your ignorance and inability to save costs and pass them on to us?
And that's not costs in rent etc, this is costs on massive portals and with your expensive cars and dodgy suits…
Wake up
I have no problem whatever with online agents – they represent modern business thinking, consumer choice and are unquestionably here to stay. I also however have no problem with an Agents Mutual policy that retains the right to represent and promote whomsoever they choose. If Agents Mutual have created a platform that excludes online agents (in order to actively assist agents that operate a more traditional model) that is entirely a decision for them. Nobody wants to live in a 100% online business environment and that being the case a degree of creative protection/exclusion/resistance is both necessary and fair.
What would happen if, say a small, independent group of High Street Agents signed up and advertised on OTM. 6 Months later the MD decides to close all but 1 of the offices but still cover all the areas of the closed offices "virtually" and starts charging £495 up front or half % commission. Surely OTM wouldn't be able to throw them off as they would still have a high st office. As has been said here….you can't judge a high st agent against an online just on commission charges. It will be very difficult to police in the future.
I am sure a small alteration to a T&C's could be inserted.. That said, AM does not stop its agents charging £495 upfront now! Fee like you say is not the debate then………… The satellite office scenario is….and simply coverage restrictions from your working office could be put in. Be it a county, 20 miles surrounding or something….. it could be done and the POLICE of this would be me and every other agent on OTM for the right reason.
Do you think it would be possible to put area restrictions on an an agent?…Say the agent was in the County of Derbyshire and had 6 offices throughout the county. And then closed 5 and had 1 to cover the whole county? Likewise Haart (and they already have piloted the "superoffice") close 90% of their branches but keep the areas covered by those branches "virtually" then would OTM throw them off, especially bearing in mind Haart will be the biggest stock supplier to OTM. Sorry to drag on about this issue but if, in 3-5 years online has grown as much as some suggest then these scenarios will definitely become a reality and OTM will have to address them. I can almost see some having a competition as to whether their online agency can sneak onto OTM by fulfilling their t's and c's when they are issued.
No I think it will be very difficult to restrict on area. I would suspect though the agents in the same county as you offer as an example would be none to bothered about that agent, who will potentially be much weaker as a competitor for shutting so many offices. I've had agents in my area try this and they have failed, we picked up what they lost, although they had very little in the first place, which I suspect is why saving money was such an issue for them……..I just think strong agents will not care about the odd agent having satellite office set up….. but what I get is AM not allowing the obvious "Anti High Street" online agents joining and good on em……….What will be will be…..
"In less than 3 years Online only agents will dominate the market. It's happened to so many other industries already"
I have heard this since 1995. Tesco, Sainsbury etc now have more 'shops' than ever. I will buy a laptop with an express spec on line because I know what I am getting, but I wouldn't buy a joint of beef. Some things need more interaction than a remote service can provide. I have always said, we are online agents who happen to have offices too. In fact, has an online agent managed better search rankings than most of the local traditional agents? Not often. They can't even lead the market in the cyberworld in which they profess to be experts.
I don't understand why Adam feels it necessary to find fault with everyone. Lets hope he succeeds – if not he will look jolly silly.
Eric.
Tesco's etc have adapted and lets be honest they had to with the advent of the widespread internet. Without online shopping these supermarkets will survive and that's not because they're dinosaurs it's because people actually ENJOY browsing and touching the tangible objects that make up a supermarket. This is not the same as searching for a property on your phone / tablet / laptop led in bed after a hard days work (consumer based) or saving a few quid when selling your house via an online agent.
On your point of rankings in search engines. Rightmove and Zoopla and possibly Agents mutual (remains to be seen) only dominate the rankings for two reasons. There is ZERO competition, the IT and SEO strategies of most agencies is appalling and I mean it's REALLY REALLY BAD… The large portals ONLY dominate because there is ZERO competition in those areas. The minute an agent pulls their finger out and optimizes for their local area / clientele then the domination will stop period. It's a well known fact that search engines rank local websites higher when geo targeting searches because it's generally more relevant to display that information to the consumer, this is a tried and proven fact that's not escapable. The question is why do the advertising strategies of "traditional" agents simply rely on Rightmove and Zoopla to advertise their stock and don't do more to exploit their own I.T power
PortalPerson – The question is why do the advertising strategies of "traditional" agents simply rely on Rightmove and Zoopla to advertise their stock and don't do more to exploit their own I.T power……………………………that is exactly what most on here would like to do…..so your either VERY new to this site and the age old debate or you have completely missed the point of OTM……..It is to take back control and have the one stop shop property (eventually) which people do like (you perhaps as a home hunter) but being able to STOP RM and Z increasing fees every year…..and eventually bring the cost of said one stop shop down. We have to work on this though…..as the onliners you have defended are exactly what you are seemingly against now…..they ONLY reply on RM & Z……
Ric.
I know the age old debate and it's lost on me, I could care less about fees your lot pays to the big portals. If you think that in 3-5 years AM will be different than the other big two then you're sadly mistaken. They will get power and greed hungry and raise the prices to what I am sure they will think is fair but ultimately it won't be fair for some or most agents.
AM will first and foremost need a budget that can smash 10+ years of heavy RightMove advertising and the entrenched scope of Zoopla's network that spans national news papers and multiple other portals – it's simply not going to happen on less than £50 Million in advertising over 3-5 years and some serious work to un-hitch zoopla from all the other portals they have been buying up over the years. All agents are naive if they rely on any form of paid advertising for their business in terms of a portal. The ONLY way AM will ever work is for ALl agents to pull stock from BOTH portals (RM & Z) and put it all on AM. In time RM & Z will lose their traffic and it will naturally go elsewhere. Agents WILL NEVER DO THIS because they ONLY think of the next quid not the next few years…
You don't sound as if you understand AM at all unfortunately. Do you think Adam Day the chap you started your defence post of would be so upset about exclusion, do you think Z would be offering 2, 3 and 4 year low cost fix deals, do you think RM would be trying so hard to appear to be helping the agents all of a sudden. Do you think the 3000 sign up (and growing) will not promote this like no other site before and do you think the shareholders of AM will vote for increase after increase in future years…… do you know who the shareholders are?
"I know the age old debate and it's lost on me…"
Not the ONLY thing that's lost on you, I would suggest. The void where common sense would normally inhabit is wide enough to be able to turn an oil-tanker.
Adam, Perhaps the fact that the agents local to your office have not called you for feedback, shows how highly they regard your opinion.
Do you ever consider that by marketing the downfalls of your competitors, you serve only to raise the awareness of another, more established, larger, successful and tried and tested route to market?
The majority of "old fashioned" high street agents do not in fact have an issue with online agencies, but take exception to the nature of your aggressive marketing, that does not portray the industry in a good light.
I cant wait to see an advert from you that sells the benefits of your business, rather than force feeding the consumer with propaganda about why established agents are so bad.
I have never won an instruction by telling a vendor how bad my competitors are, I merely give them the details of my service and let the educated consumer make a choice.
Consumers that buy on price will always look for a better price. Established agents that sell based on service, will benefit from better continuity amongst their clients, and grow a far more stable and loyal client base. The age old saying "we're not the cheapest but wee are the best"
PropertyManagement:
Since when is it a bad practice to advertise the fact you're cheaper than your competitor? …. Especially considering it's the truth in most cases?
The main gripe with traditional agencies is that you want your cake and eat it. You take massive offense if somebody doesn't feel your price is right for them yet you feel upset when you don't get a discount on services you buy from elsewhere. Agents are known throughout the country as tight-fisted money grabbing sharks – this has been like this for many years and cannot be blamed on the recent advertising tactics of a relatively new business model (online only).
There is no issue with marketing a service as cheaper, you have to ask why he has to advertise it as cheaper. Is the only benefit to his service is the price?? Plus if you have read all of Day's posts they go far and beyond saying that they are simply just cheaper than their competition, he actively seeks to belittle the competition's services. "they are worse because …" Rather than "we are better because …"
Why should we as consumers care about the reasons why a service is cheaper. As a consumer I want to get the best value for money service that I can. I have a price in my head of how much it should cost to sell my property – to find out that it's 2 or 3 times this cost makes me question why it's more expensive and as a consumer I don't know the property industry as well as agents do.
If I were to offer to sell you something that cost £5 in Tescos for £20 would you even bother asking why I'm 4 times higher in price? – I know I wouldn't because on the face of it they achieve the same goal…
Agents don't tend to look at things from a consumers Point Of View and then wonder why they lose business or get a bad name.
"Why should we as consumers care about the reasons why a service is cheaper."
REALLY?? Okay – you have five companies quoting you within a stonesthrow either side of, say, six grand to sell your home. Then company 'X' comes in with a £595 pay-now, pay nothing more fee, claiming that the result you get will be the same as any of the other five. That's ONE TENTH of the price of the rest. And you WOULDN'T want to know what the catch was?
Jeez – beggars belief that such lack of common sense exists.
WHY ON EARTH does NAEA and ARLA allow this joker in??
Day says: “Shockingly, not a single agent has called or emailed me to ask for my feedback. It’s now a week since I viewed.
* Are you really surprised
Its also clear that he's not able to act as a main agent and sub out to other agents as his fees are too low. as such he is UNABLE to guarantee his clients see all buyers out there and as such is likely to cost clients £1,000's
In nearly 30 years in the game Ive learnt that agents who sell on being budget normally lack negotiation skills to get their clients the best price.
The new INEA portal goes live mid August and agents budget agents will be turned away. We don't want them and to be honest the consumer would be far better off without them.
NAEA/ARLA you should boot such budget agents out.
"WHY ON EARTH does NAEA and ARLA allow this joker in??" Because, quite simply, he passed the examination, and has presumably not done anything that would give them reason to terminate his Membership. Why, Mr Mealham, should NAEA/ARLA/RICS not allow their Members to run or work within a "budget" Agency model?
"Its also clear that he's not able to act as a main agent and sub out to other agents as his fees are too low." Erm…. SO? MY fees are way higher than Mr Day's – BUT I DON'T "sub out". Neither, I suspect, do many of the other readers and contributors to this site. I simply don't see any relevance whatsoever in that throwaway comment, Mr Mealham. In fact, in my opinion it completely rubbishes whatever argument you WERE hoping to make stick with your post.
Pee Bee every time you place a property on RM or Zoopla you are subbing out. A sub agent takes a main agents listings and advertises them in return for introducing viewers. As such if you place listings in a portal then you are subbing out. Why not sub other agents? And pay sub comms rather than keep paying sub-scriptions
"…every time you place a property on RM or Zoopla you are subbing out."
Oh I REALLY don't think so, Mr Mealham! That be the case, then every time you place a newspaper advert, you "sub out". The BOARD MAN is a "sub Agent" – next you'll claim that the electric company are subbing to us all by providing the power for our computers!
Back to my initial question to your ill-thought post:
Why, Mr Mealham, should NAEA/ARLA/RICS not allow their Members to run or work within a "budget" Agency model?
Just very funny from start to finish…. it tells me how strong he thinks OTM will be…………….. …… and then if it would make you Hatched the 21st century (AKA Online) agent stronger, why an earth not JUST promote the idea of the other agents going on and encourage the RM or Z drop without even mentioning how unfair the whole situation is………I think you sound as if you would dearly love to be with the AM collective….nothing more nothing less….. (would love to know why not signing up for OTM will win you more instructions!)……So we have a few of the onliners trying to defend RM and Z now……wow AM is having the desired effect me thinks.
'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw…' Be careful ranting about what us old fogey traditional agents do or don't do. I have some experiences with the Hatched organisation that I wouldn't dream of airing here (being an old fashioned professional)!
If you do such a good job Adam, and I'm not disputing that you do, why so cheap ?
Let me put it another way, if someone offered me a Rolex watch for 50 quid, I'd laugh at them.
20 % is cheaper, and surely cheap enough to win on price.
I suspect the proper high street agents are too busy negotiating offers from serious buyers to waste their time talking to a clearly unmotivated buyer. You obviously gave sufficient feedback on the viewing for the experienced high street agents to understand you were not interested. Lesson learned for the cheap and cheerful online agents Adam. I think everyone is getting so fed up of your complaints and harking on about your cheap fees we just chuckle now. Pay peanuts and you will get a monkey to do the job!
If we are so "old school", why so concerned about what we do (or allegedly don't) and not being on a portal, that he claims not to need?
Spot on comments Mr Day
For far to long have "high street" agents ****** and moaned about their implied right to ONLY sell houses.
These dinosaurs deserve everything they get, if they're not willing to move into the 21st century and save money on advertising that they can then pass on to their clients then they don't deserve the business.
Selling houses is not just about paying to put the property on RightMove or Zoopla.
Adapt or die I think the phrase is. It's pretty childish to spit your dummy out because you can't compete with a better digital business model.
High street agents deserve everything they get including their bad names, bad reputation and hopefully eventually bankruptcy, perhaps they they will learn to first grow up then change.
Comment of the week PortalPerson – "Selling houses is not just about paying to put the property on RightMove or Zoopla" who were you defending in your post again?
I think OTM should allow 'online' agents to advertise but only those charging a minimum of 1%. there is now way a business can survive charging a few hundred pounds – I struggle charging thousands! 🙂 lets allow the quality online agents on who charge a decent fee and give a decent service. someone selling a house in Plymouth from a Manchester call centre isn't going to give the service or make money in the long run – IT WONT HAPPEN! Therefore OTM right to keep the cheap as chips brigade away from the site as it wants to set standards…..
surreyagent.
Why should any portal dictate or be able to dictate anyone's fees?
If they said traditional agents can only advertise if they drop their fees to 0.5% you lot would all be ******* and moaning about it.
Hi Surreyagent……………………..Problem is; some AM agents will be charging less! So potentially and then I would agree, it is unfair to set their (the online agents) minimum fee level. Who would police this anyway? It would never work, I've had agreements with local agents on fee levels to find (as you would expect) no-one stuck to the agreement! too many sharks out there………….. There is a place for both online and High Street and in this instance as online agents choose not to have a High Street Office and charge Less, we have chosen to support a website which will "compete" against some of the online arguments…. ie We are on this great new site, they are not! You can't have it all…… ADAPT or DIE as PortalPerson says, so why not open a few offices Onliners……! we are making movements in the digital world, they well Adam Day is just moaning "its not fair"
Ric.
In less than 3 years Online only agents will dominate the market. It's happened to so many other industries already – property is the last because it's so behind the times in terms of technology. What will AM / OTM do then … We both know they will reverse their choice to not let online only agents on else they will go out of business.
If you think that online only models are not here to stay then you should really think about changing professions.
PortalPerson here's a thought, you're right! 3 years time and ONLINE is the only way. I close my 5 offices and retain my managers and I have an overnight business model with more stock than any other online agent locally, I then spread my new business model all over the country…… OR I am a shareholder in changed business model of "OTMOnline Agency" with experts all over the country and the only Agency to be on OTM and RM (will Z let me back on, you bet ya! The shareholders will insist they do!) You talk as if High Street Agents do not have computers……Agent will win this battle, otherwise Tesco, eBay, Teplio, Google even Z would have won already….Agents can offer Online only NOW!!! a 2 tier service…… oh please we all have a back up plan….!
surreyagent – "OTM right to keep the cheap as chips brigade away from the site as it wants to set standards….."
PLEASE talk me through that comment – slowly… carefully… and in a way that the answer doesn't make me want to either upchuck or laugh uncontrollably. In particular, exactly WHAT "standards" are AM wanting to set on the site – and how are they going about it?
If it wasn't obvious I was defending Mr Day's comments regarding no viewing callback which implies that the high street agent(s) think it's fine to just advertise on Portals for their fee because they're somehow the ONLY people entitled to sell houses.
Not sure how that's not obvious but each to their own 😉
PortalPerson – ermmm so Mr Day's findings with these agents are indeed the full and final facts in your mind to why he is ranting……….. Did Mr Day leave details with the agents? Did he leave the appointment in a fashion worthy of a chase phone call? Did he record and prove this is what happened? Or could he have just taken a cheap shot? who knows and who cares!…………My point to you is…..you said "Selling houses is not just about paying to put the property on RightMove or Zoopla" …………………..so……WHAT does an online agent do in addition which IS more than a High Street agent…..try and imagine a High Street agent will call Mr Day back (otherwise I fear this one will go nowhere and humour me that he could have a reason to bad mouth a High Street Agent!). My confusion if I am still being unclear is "you say putting a property online is not enough! is that not EXACTLY what an online agent does….. and WITHOUT question rely on that portal being live and accessible? If the web went down tomorrow, what would Adam do for his clients?
Haha, you're arguing semantics.
If the internet went down tomorrow people won't be worrying about selling their houses.
I feel like I must point out the obvious part you're missing when you quote me…
Selling houses is about interaction back and forth with the seller and the buyer – things that the traditional agents didn't feel were worth it in his case… was that through lack of resources?… was through not caring about the seller or the buyer …. we will never know – partly because Mr Day has an agenda and partly because the agents have an agenda.
My partner and I are selling our house and looking for a new house at present and I can say without certainty that I am really not happy with the way "traditional" agents have dealt with it thus far.
"If the internet went down tomorrow people won't be worrying about selling their houses." Please expand on this sentence. As written, it means nothing whatsoever in whatever context I try to figure where you are coming from. Or am I "missing the obvious part" when I quote you?
Hi PortalPerson (firstly I would like you to ensure I'm not arguing, debating with a smile, I believe like you clearly do)…………….so is your issue with all traditional agents or just one? have you spoke to the Branch managers, business owners, aired your concern your problems as a house hunter, given them a chance to understand. I run what I think is a very good agency, "award winning" but I judge it more on 24 years of trading and still a number one choice locally with what is genuinely a very well respected company brand and name……..**however** I still get "complaints" usually someone who missed out on a house, or felt we were preferring another buyer over them, never a real meaty complaint, more a grievance ………or perhaps just "it's not fair" so I, if I was one of the business owners of the agents in you're area I would love to hear your problem……… please feel free if you want, to let me know the area you are looking (away from this site) I personally will contact my fellow High Street Agencies in these areas and talk with them, so they understand what "bad service" can cause if indeed there is good cause for concern, I would want this call if it were my business and founded………………… perhaps share what your problem with them is?
Ric.
I don't want to waste even more time pointing out flaws in their business. They choose to be this way for a reason and with that comes the consequences.
Here is an example. One "traditional" agent we found (after a lot of online searching [something like page 5 in Google]). Their website was so slow to load, the contact form didn't work and to be honest it was a bad experience. I immediately thought to myself that if this agency doesn't care about their website then they probably don't care about our business or selling our home. This is what I imagine goes through the heads of agency owners who "must" have a gleaming shop front – to us website is the same as a shop front.
We emailed them to point out the flaws and why they wouldn't get our business and we were told to "f*** off and go elsewhere then" …. is that professional?
PortalPerson: No! not professional at all. I cannot defend anyone against giving such a reply to your "concern" simply awful!…… On a side note…..can I ask do you work in IT yourself? web design perhaps? I only ask as I have never heard a complaint like that before……. Refreshing to know you search Google to find agents (and stay on there until you get to page 5!!) and then look for property that way…… I personally do not think any decent agent will be judged on service or their customer care charter by his/her website. I've seen some pretty snazzy websites with some pretty sh1tty service and some pretty basic websites with some pretty impressive service…..How you deal with a complaint, grievance or feedback is key….you spoke to a moron it appears, but (forgive me) you did T them up for the insult didn't you or did you just let rip at him as you have today?