Just over 42% of agents who answered Eye’s independent survey have already committed to OnTheMarket, the new Agents’ Mutual portal that launches next month.
However, almost 58% have not committed.
The potentially disruptive nature of Agents’ Mutual can be revealed in the results of our survey which closed at midnight and which we estimate represents at least 10% of the whole industry.
The question about commitment to OnTheMarket was answered by 1,094 estate and letting agency businesses representing in aggregate a very much larger number of branches.
While 461 of these businesses said they had already committed, 57.86% (633 agents) said they had not committed to OnTheMarket.
This figure of 633 includes 106 who have “not yet decided”.
Were these “floating voters” to decide to go with OnTheMarket, then we calculate the new portal could have up to 51.82% market share.
Based on 20,000 branches (the total agency market), that would mean that 10,364 branches would list with OnTheMarket – and, we assume, with one other portal – leaving 9,636 non-OnTheMarket branches as the remaining battleground.
Of course, we should put some caveats on this number. First, we need to bear in mind the 5,000 target that Agents’ Mutual has set itself by launch. Second, extrapolating the results of our survey across the industry does not take into account the large number of branches owned by the corporates, who are highly unlikely to move from Rightmove and Zoopla.
Comments (125)
Look, it's the only survey done so far, we can get wrapped up in the fact it's on Eye so it's full of pro OTM but the thing I (and I think many of us) like about this site is the banter, arguments, humour, fights and all round thrashing the granny out of the articles and regardless of views between all of us we get to the meat and potatoes of the subject. There are plenty of posters here that are far from pro OTM so let's accept it's as good a survey as any, let's also keep up the spirit of Eye and keep scrapping in the virtual world with people that we would probably get on famously with in the real world, isn't that the point of this site? – Jonnie
@russellquirk it doesn't include you chap, I have no doubt you are as odd and angry in real life as you are here / exactly like you are on here – Jonnie
Well said Jonnie
I just want to address an issue regarding EAT, love it or hate it, it stands on its advertising and marketing revenues, it has no main sponsor with deep pockets and the views of its journalists are most certainly their own.
That's fantastic to hear, so tell me why when I've just visited this site the sum total of comments on ALL the articles on the first page is SEVEN?
Simon I don't want to hurt your feelings but the EAT has made itself so irrelevant that I have no real feelings about it either way.
"…the views of its journalists are most certainly their own." Oh no doubt about that whatsoever, Mr Shinerock – it's taken you quite a while to FIND journalists with views that tick the required boxes on the EAT job description…
Simon & Nat in the same sentence, dude I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. OK so the contents a little cadaverous unless it’s AM centric but this aint about being another brick in the wall and yes, true love happens all the time so the thought of Ros wearing ponytails for AM has really got me in touch with that emotion but jeez, stats get lost in transposition so whilst integrity’s a great quality in a mistress remember we post anonymously and quit looking for a light to run to.
As I see it 42% of the people that responded to the survey had committed to OTM thats all we know, anything else is just speculation. Its going to take a while to rival the duopoly it's not going to be instant and I believe that is why people haven't committed one way or another. If you were a small agent with low overheads and getting lots of business through RM and Z why would you leave and potentially harm your business? You wouldn't. Small businesses cannot easily commit to new and untested, if it goes wrong they go bust.
The whole industry will have a bit of a shuffle around over the next couple of years but there will always be more than one big portal who cares which ones as long as I can join when the time is right for me and unfortunately that time is not now.
With 3 portals buyers will have to check 3 portals to get a full market view rather than 2 (I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not?)
What is in it for the homeowner or buyer where do they save from us advertising cheaper? do they get cheaper fees? has anyone who is saving on costs going to pass that saving on?
How can you pass on a cost saving of c£150-300pm per branch? You can't. Another point the press won't take long in picking up.
so why if £150-£300 is so very little are we all moaning about the cost of RM??
The cost saving to me is irrelevant. I am small, only a few months trading to be honest, but been in the industry for a lot longer.
Before RM & Zoopla, apps trudged the streets registering with all the agents in the area they wanted to buy in, maybe 7 or 8, more.
Surely checking 2 or more portals shouldn't be a problem as long as the public know of the portal, that is the challenge I see. I am committed to OTM and have jumped already. I am only on RM so the one other portal rule doesn’t affect me, but when OTM send me more leads in one month than RM, RM will be out the door.
There is uncertainty, will OTM come up with the goods? I sincerely hope so, if it fails, we could all be in the toilet whether you are in now or not. RM will be even stronger, even smugger and even less helpful.
"What is in it for the homeowner or buyer where do they save from us advertising cheaper?"….Why are some people obsessed about every penny saved has to be passed onto the customer????….Business is about so much more than this!
I think this was always going to be a provoking article from EYE but full credit to them for going ahead with it regardless.
…and a Merry OnTheMarket.com Portal Xmas to one & all! 🙂
Be ready for this one next stat'. Here's another sensational news release for you from PIE.
"OTM launches with huge numbers of unique visitors in only it's first week".
These unique visitors will be 90% agents, another 5% will be vendors of AM agents who have told their vendors to take a look at the site and the remaining 5% will be a few casuals who have found the site by chance or seen the limited TV/newspaper campaign who once having viewed the site will not bother returning as so few properties on there.
Another stat' for you after the first week the unique visitor numbers will slowly dwindle.
You're only kidding (sorry, I should say trying to convince yourselves) that this will work. Difficult to shout in text but GET REAL!!!
Oh yeah jmeapps, I see what you meant in your post earlier, you really aren't anti OTM are you!
What nonsense replies and it is only a handful constantly downplaying OTM which is not reflective of the EA and we all know they are not allowed on OTM as they are not estate agents. To answer one question, what does RM, Z or OTM do that is different …. basically nothing. The latter however returns control to the Estates Agents and anyone who says anything else either doesn't know what they are taking about or understand how OTM works and have another agenda. If you against OTM that is your option and we have heard you, so please go and play somewhere else. Getting very tedious and boring.
This line of "Returns control to the estate agents" I keep hearing and reading this. What is this control? other than a static price for a few years and no online agents, what else?!
SP, what do you think the long term strategy of RM and Z is? There care only a finite number of estate agents whom they can get to advertise with them so I believe that long term they wish to be able to be in a position where customers go to them before the estate agents and at that point they will be selling you back instructions. In all of the press over OTM, both companies have already tailored and promoted a end consumer based argument, in words they are already suggesting you shouldn't be thinking of yourself you should be with them because your customers want you to be. Or let me put it another way, according to them you are superfluous to the moving transaction and they are allowing you, for now, to still earn your living that way. Is that the kind of future you want to support, or do you believe that the stock of property advertised by agents should be controlled by agents?
Okay i think i get your thoughts here (correct me if i am wrong) basically "Returns control to agents" to you means you are investing in a portal that will not accept direct to market sellers and stop the portal selling you these instructions. Have i got that right (not being flippant)? Okay interesting point! and good to hear a more thought out response from somebody looking to join AM. Without trawling many previous posts are you dropping Z or RM and how strong is RM to your business?
Assuming your question was a genuine one, yes thats exactly what I mean. RM and Z's strategy has to be to control the market long term, that is the only way in which they can sustain income streams over a long term. That means getting your customer to them before you. Look at the features on Z, designed for agents? There are very few features on their that you should want buyers to see if you are acting for a seller, but Z don't care, their motives are not you. You can I guess either accept that contempt on the basis that right here today you get a few leads from them or you can take an opportunity to support something that makes that future less certain. I didn't ask for OTM, I didn't promote it early on, I have however decided that it had enough traction that there was a way out of an inevitable situation if I supported it. RM I would say is the dominant portal in my area so I will be coming off Z, they don't know that yet.
Yes was a genuine question and thank you for taking the time to answer it, Not an argument i have heard put like that before and an interesting one!
It returns control to the business owners of High Street Agencies who, over the last few years have had a lot of control taken away by the main 2 portals cutting agents margins by infinite fee increases year on year. If the status quo remained, where would RM and Z have stopped with their increases?
Wilko its this mind set i do not get or comprehend. Do you think AM will not be increasing fees in the future? certainly early days they will be "affordable" as was RM and Z who is to say AM will not increase the larger they get. If they hit portal of choice they need to stay there, Management will expect higher salaries, more staff overheads, more development overheads. Don't forget RM was around 15 odd years ago for a few pounds a month. do you expect AM to be similar price in 15 years?
OTM can't increase fees without the backing of the membership…..that's how a mutual works….If they become portal of choice they will have more income for the additional costs you specify.
Smile please…Wilko has covered it although I should also add that the annual running costs of a portal is around £30m-£35m. 10,000 agent branches will only need to pay an average of £291.66 per month to cover those costs.
I cannot see in any literature that has been provided or any rep i have spoken to that they give the assurance that we get a vote on price increases – Mutual Societies exsist similar to Building Societys but there members have no say on advertising budget, wages, development etc As for the average of £290 for an agent why is it more in other parts of the country? Sorry i do not subscribe to this one vote one agent it means nothing from what i can see. If i am wrong please do point me in the direction so i can "see the light"
Smile, Nationwide do get to vote on the running of Nationwide at their AGM. OTM members will not have to vote on high increases because the portal is not run for profit. If you are worried that Ian Springett and co could demand 10m a year for being successful, he would probably be voted out so it wouldn't happen…Why does the one agent one vote mean nothing to you? Do you not think this is fair?
Nationwide members get very limited scope in voting for the direction they ultimately go. One agent one vote means nothing to me as it is a sound bite. I would be doubtful if any meaningful vote are put to members. They have the "Board" who deal with the running of the business / portal and the only votes in my opinion the only votes put to the members will be popular one sided choices they know they will get the vote they want. The rest will be marked up to "Day to day running" Every rep avoids this subject. As in I.S. getting 10 mill a year – as seen in MP's expenses there will be "Perks" in line with a chairmans role it does not bother me what he is paid or benefits he receives. What does bother me is the smoke and mirrors. I.S. is also VERY selective in interviews and seem to be very "staged" in questions. As i have voiced many times all AM have actually offered is a portal to list properties that will not be open to online agents. Other than that its all that has been offered!
Smile "As i have voiced many times all AM have actually offered is a portal to list properties that will not be open to online agents"…….Yes, that is what they offered……and I, like approx. 4,500 other branches decided it was what we wanted. I fully understand that for some they want to see it up and running before they may be interested but I find it difficult to understand how anyone could be confused by any part of it? It's a much simpler proposition than the current Rightmove offerings.
Property Industry Eye is a breeding ground for OTM fanboys (you know who you are 😉 so these numbers are irrelevant.
I have a question for both sides that, despite months and hundreds of posts, I have yet to see addressed directly. Realistically, what will your business do if (God forbid) your convictions–either for or against–turn out to be incorrect? If you are strongly of the opinion that OTM will fail, as many on here seem to be, how much traction will it need to gather before you admit you are wrong and join up? Likewise, for those militant supporters on here, how long will it take in terms of poor site usage/lead generation/etc. before you throw in the towel, and (purely mechanically) how does one go about throwing in the towel if the site does in fact turn out to be a complete waste of time and money, given the 5-year commitment and exclusivity clause? Would be really interested to hear thoughts from both sides.
ukpropmaster – good question. As long as AM continues with the one other portal rule I would only join if OTM's site visit numbers compared or exceeded those of Z. HOWEVER … my concern is that once OTM launches the vitriol that may break out locally between EA's on and off OTM may go beyond normal competitive barriers. If OTM succeeds AM agents may want to 'punish' other EA's by lobbying that they be denied membership. Before anyone says "well join now" I won't be bullied into that position. I've said before that AM's one other portal rule could kick off a civil war between EA's from Jan 28th and if that happens it will harm our profession for sure. I can just see non AM agents being interviewed on TV and in the press denouncing OTM … in fact, I can't see it not happening.
The "One other portal" rule is a cop-out by OTM. It's an insurance policy in-case their market research turns out to be wrong. Either way they still get paid because they have all these contracts in their hands binding people to pay them. Effectively they can gamble with someone else's (a lot of other peoples money) and have NO exposure themselves what so ever. It''s a win win for them, if they manage to gain the traction and traffic needed then they make money, if they don't then they don't lose money because it was never their to begin with. Not only that but they will cripple quite a few smaller agencies that really don't have large marketing budgets to be throwing at a site that does nothing for them. Perhaps people should think about this?
For me to "Get off the fence" and sign up, the public know about it and expect to be on it and THEY are talking about it and asking will they be displayed on it. When that is a regular occurance and dropping Z will have more benefit than damage I will sign.
“The "One other portal" rule is a cop-out by OTM. It's an insurance policy in-case their market research turns out to be wrong.”…What market research are you referring to? “Either way they still get paid because they have all these contracts in their hands binding people to pay them”….Who gets paid? “Effectively they can gamble with someone else's (a lot of other peoples money) and have NO exposure themselves what so ever.”…Who exactly is gambling with other peoples money?….“It''s a win win for them,” A win/win for who?… “Not only that but they will cripple quite a few smaller agencies that really don't have large marketing budgets to be throwing at a site that does nothing for them.”…Who cripples the smaller agencies?
ukpropmaster: you asked a question here is my view. I wouldn't describe myself as militant, I do however believe OTM to be a sensible move for those agents who believe that the current incombant do not have their best interests in their agenda. If OTM doesn't work then I am still committed to it for 5 years. I accepted that financial commitment when I signed,I don't however believe that in my area at least, that there is any need for me to be advertising on two portals in the end (as I have said in doing so with OTM I am making a strategy decision). Ultimately I will be returning to advertising on just one portal, I am hoping that one is OTM.
Got it thank you for actually answering the question 😉
Am I the only one that REALLY wishes this thing would just launch already so that we could just see how it plays out instead of this constant speculation and back-and-forth useless banter?
……………No, you're not alone. Some people are getting very cross about it, seems to be led by the lad at emove along with a funny old bunch of posters that have decided they need zoopla to survive and have decided to exercise their right not to join but are still talking about it a lot, we will all see after the launch – Jonnie
Who is saying they need Zoopla to survive? Another distortion of views designed to belittle non AM EA's. As I see it the simple fact is non AM EA's don't want to drop a tried, tested and proven national brand name (Z) for the untried, untested, unknown OTM. Doesn't mean we can't survive without Z at all. Quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Alright, calm down fella. Loads of people have posted on here recently that very point and its been discussed in depth, we will assume you don't think you need to be on Zoopla then? – anyway, back to my main point……..if you are so fixed on http://www.onthemarket.com being a flop why are you getting all puffed up about it, you don't want to be on it, you don't have to be on it and assuming you own / control your business then its a decision you have made and control so you should be delighted you have your way and your competition are going to be lacking something you have…………unless its not your call and your boss has decided for you and you're a 'closet OTM' lover? – Jonnie
Calm down fella? Another facetious remark from someone who clearly thinks he is the wise guy. And as for getting 'puffed up' errr… no. I'm just expressing views on an issue I find interesting. And I'll continue doing that. Understand Jonnie?
No. Completely agree….
Same names, same opposing comments and not reflective of the UK industry. Getting very boring.
or you could say "Same names, same blindly supporting comments and not reflective of the UK industry. Getting very boring." It cuts both ways!
It would also be fascinating if the publishers would let us know what % of their advertising revenue to date has come from Agents Mutual.
What sort of comment is that TTEOTW!?! You have chosen to read and subscribe to THEIR publication, they didn't force you to, you are not at school and don't have a choice as to what you read. If you don't agree with the viewpoints on it or the articles contained within then don't read it, its really that simple isn't it.
You know people are worried when the discussion moves on to journalistic impartiality and polling methodolgy.
Paul H – If somebody told you the world was flat you would believe them if it saved you a quid! – What is wrong asking for impartiality from a news channel? – You questioning that means you know that there is a bias one way or another!
What is not impartial about the following right at the very top of the piece…"Just over 42% of agents who answered Eye’s independent survey have already committed to OnTheMarket, the new Agents’ Mutual portal that launches next month."….Key words being "who answered". EYE asked as many people to complete the poll and I saw it advertised some 8/9 times on twitter with many other 'non AM' people retweeting it and asking other people to complete it. And no I do not think there is any bias.
Paul come on honestly! over the last god knows how many months and numerous stories you do not think there is a pro slant on AM stories? – You have just lost any credibility I gave you (not that you will be bothered as you are so blinkered in your views and outlook).
"over the last god knows how many months and numerous stories you do not think there is a pro slant"….No, although what I am seeing is EYE getting the exclusivity on the AM news and perhaps this is because for whatever reason Ian Springett does not wish to relay information to another site. Perhaps you are seeing it that way because the other site is not publishing any stories whatsoever about Zoopla and Rightmove similar to what EYE is. Personally I see EYE as pro full service high street traditional estate agency.
You see "EYE as pro full service high street traditional estate agency" when they give plenty of column inches to online agents, hmmmm okay Paul
This is a publication that claims to the bastion of responsible reporting in the property industry. They have let themselves down badly.
Smile please…"when they give plenty of column inches to online agents"…Yeah that's right, EYE has given many column inches to the subject.
I have a really great idea…… go to http://www.onthemarket.com on the 26th January 2015 and all will be revealed…..well not quite all, the corps and online only agents wont be, but you get what I mean. #otm26.1.15
This pompous publication's slavish promotion of Agents Mutual and OnTheMarket, to the virtual exclusion of any other property portal, alongside its claims of responsible reporting has really been exposed with this frankly ridiculous headline gleaned from a self-interested survey of a fraction of property professionals.
I will never take anything this rag says seriously again.
Why read it then? Don't. Read RM or Zoop's In House Newsletters… you get those… don't you?…. of course you do!
And there we have the typically childish retort, devoid of all reasoned debate, that an anti-AM response provokes from the pro AM bigots.
In answer to your childish, 'let's throw our toys out of the pram' reaction, I don't read RM or ZPG newsletters and am firmly against the duopoly.
I can hardly type for laughing at just how angry you are!
Hmm. And where is your reasoned debate on the matter under discussion? All I am reading is classic deflection tactics using childish ridicule.
I am not angry but I will admit to being desperately disappointed at what I see as the polarisation of opinion into two publications, both as bad as each other, both of whom are supposed to impartially reporting all the thoughts and views of a vast and creative industry.
Where is your reasoned debate? all I am reading from you is petulant hissy fit. You can't blame Ros and Nick for the posts and in fairness they have reported the bad AM stories (All online agents are parasites and the one about matey selling his house) alongside the good.
You name me one publication TTEOTW that doesn't reflect some editorial viewpoint bias. My after in law reads the Daily Mirror, I don't agree with his views or theirs, so you know what, I don't read the paper! You can say what you like about whether OTM will work but the one thing no one can argue with, its hardly anti agent!!
@Thin Edge of Wedge?…..calm down dear… school playtime bell due shortly! Get your conkers out and we'll play! lol
@Thin Edge of Wedge… dip them in vinegar they say! lol
I Will Try To Ignore The Bad Use Of Capital Letters and just ask what you thought the self interest for EYE is in asking its readership for a heads up on how much they are paying the portals? p.s. Do you go to anger management classes? I hear they can prove very effective.
I also refer you back to Ms Renshaw's attention grabbing headline, devoid of any qualification.
"Four in ten agents already committed to OnTheMarket".
"Eye survey results show 58% of industry not committed".
Responsible reporting? Utter bilge.
Please stop, it's beginning to hurt!
@thin end,,,,Could I respectfully ask your views on the reporting on the other industry paper "estate agent today"…..assuming you have read it. Thanks, in advance.
Their reporting is unbiased, they have a 'Views" section for "views" one in which the great Mr Springett has been asked to participate but declined. I think its interesting that AM reps have been used to promote PIE, now that is interesting
I must agree here. Would a politician be able to get away with such a high-handed approach if he refused to speak to newspapers of a different persuasion and banned people affiliated to a particular publication from attending any meetings or from reporting on his spoken words? History tends to show that people who are only willing to preach to the converted either lack confidence or have something to hide.
Freedom of the press to report, warts and all, any story it chooses to cover is what defines journalism. It is largely down to Mr Springett that this debate has become so polarised and heated. What a shame.
Simon: You have zero clue about anything so go back to your terrible EAT magazine and stop trying to think of new ideas to steal for your own gain.
Simon, someone who has been revealed as a board member of a rival publication and has a business that tries to sell property through the internet, remote of the town they are based in, thus therefore precluded from OTM, really should be a little more honest about their own motivation for comment!!
@thin end again…also Simon …you said of EAT ".." I must agree here." (in response to Simon Shinerocks claim that they are unbiased but have a "views" section)…. I don't understand your analogy….A politician would be well advised to speak to all newspapers, but is NOT able to state his/her own opinion as they have to tow the party line….Just because the biased reporting on EAT is in their "views" section it doesn't necessarily mean they are balanced and unbiased in their reporting ? All press publications put a spin on certain stories…..surely you are not so naive to believe otherwise?
Wilko/RealAgent et al, my views are not unbiased, my reasoning is, try to understand the difference. RealAgent for the record, I have a high St Agency that meets all the OTM criteria and a separate investment buyers agency business that does not. I am not a board member of Angels but i do have a declared investment interest.
Simon…"I have a high St Agency that meets all the OTM criteria" Oh,……Why didn't you say earlier?…..That means you ARE able to advertise on OTM. Just call them or send them an e mail, it's very straightforward. Welcome Aboard!
"I am not a board member of Angels but i do have a declared investment interest."
No you aren't. BUT YOU WERE, from July to December 2013, weren't you?
And what about now? Are you stating that you have NO links with the Angels board other that your declared "investment interest"?
Honestly! So just over 1000 highly committed and motivated AM agents fill in your survey, you find out only 42% have already committed and you trumpet this as positive news.
I will give you another interpretation, well over half of all the committed AM agents have probably filled in your survey and an insignificant proportion, maybe 6% of the main market has done so.
As you know, not everyone votes in an election, for example for MEP's, of course in democratic elections, not voting means that the decision on who represents you is taken by others, so if there is only a 30% turnout, 30% of voters have all the power.
This is not so when it comes to AM, in this case an abstention is a 'no' by default. In this light lets look at the 'turnout' for your survey, you estimate 10% of the market has voted, which means 90% have not voted and of the 90% who have not voted, the vast majority will be doing nothing.
Based on this and even allowing for a further 10% of the market being engaged with this concept and 42% of them also choosing AM, things look grim for the idea.
You estimate that 461 business's who filled in your survey have already committed, so lets call that 1000 firms in all. Based on this information, my guess is that not only will AM fail to reach the 5000 branch target, based on your survey I don't think they will make 4000 either.
Applying your figures to my own private top secret alogrithm based on reductionism, I estimate that AM will launch with between 2312-2876 branches.
Of course I have to add the caveat that I have not had the opportunity to examine the scientific rigour of your collection methods, I would also have preferred to see a peer reviewed study prior to publication 🙂 Irony!
@SimonShinerock… i've directed your comment at my hot air balloon and it has not only filled up nicely… i am in fact now floating high across the UK with my OnTheMarket.com Logo for all to see! Thank You 🙂
And of course YOU were AT LEAST ONE of the 'No's to the left' who filled in the survey, Mr Shinerock – I'm positive I could hear your demented chuckles when you pressed 'Submit'… and I'm 250 miles away!
Yup, that was me 🙂
I just stopped laughing and revised my lower estimate down to 1897
Err don't sit with Russell at the back Simon it isn't good for you to be squinting at the blackboard. 1115 Agents replied which from the stats represents between 3 and 5000 branches that is about 25% of the industry covered.
42% of those that replied are committed to AM 58% aren't. Now I am sure you are confident that what you typed makes for a great read but you are simply showing up that yes you can gob off with confidence but educationally you are a bit ….. challenged! Have some respect for those associated with you and think before you type!
Benjay, with respect, my reply was off the cuff and tongue in cheek, nevertheless I did stats at Uni and Im pretty good at approximation, this survey is very very bad news for AM, I'm sure that deep down even their hardiest supporters must relise that. I don't really have a secret alorithm by the way, I sold it to Goldman in the 90ies 🙂
"I did stats at Uni" me too 34, 24, 34!
It isn't bad for AM. Out of 95 other property portals, none of the others have got their costs covered for 5 years.
I think we went to the same college! 🙂
god, you are the dullest boy of the moment, I bet you are a right laugh at dinner parties – Jonnie
Well I'm slightly at odds of how to reply. On the one hand I have a massive distaste for SimonShinerock and how he conducts his businesses but on the other hand I find myself agreeing with some of his points about this EYE and how it does tend to favour the more flattering AM/OTM posts
Do you also have a beef with the Grauniad pumping out leftist tosh to intelligent malcontent whingers or the Dail Mail being the in house magazine of UKIP/ EDL?
There is nothing at all wrong with Nick and Ros being supporters of traditional Agency and doing what they can to support a cause dear to them. If you want a truly independant news channel for Online Agents, Passive intermediaries and all the other minority property sales groups go and start it. Then with un bridaled editoral independance you can publish what you like to who you like. PIE must be doing something right as even Mr Shinerock has to come here to have his say.
Benay i think in the majority EYE does very well and portal person obviously has an point to push as works for a portal! but would you not like to see an unbiased reporting of AM? to see a true reflection of the market and for the so called 1000's of subscribers who may feel intimidated to voice their opinion and have a true reflection? – would that not be beneficial to all?…..
The reason I come here is that I have won the main debate and i'm now working on the die hards
Thanks for the support but what exactly do you find so distasteful about the way I conduct my business?
Zoopla are getting desperate, their new street posters say 'Is your agent on Zoopla?' The agents pay Zoopla and they are trying to get the agents' clients to pressurise them. Zoopla you are biting the hand that feeds.
Herb they have used that strapline for a few years now, as for why are all agents scared to leave Z & RM well there will always be an agent out there ready to spend their advertising budget on another portal to offer something their competition does not. Fear of that means other agents stay on the portals as they would quickly loose market share.
If all agents join onthemarket and leave rm/zoopla our costs will be lower.
The public will all go over to the new site.
All agents get a vote so costs will remain low.
Why are so many agents scared to do this?
Herb. The public will go where they feel comfortable, on a website/app they feel comfortable using. There are many free portals that house the majority of properties that RM/Z list yet they're not used and have no traffic which is in part due to bad user experience / speed etc. OTM will have to get this right else people simply won't use their site which in turn makes the whole exercise moot. Sweeping statements like "the public will use" are simply wrong and point out the general lack of understanding of how the internet of things works by the property industry in general (no offence) :).
With respect PP, people don't give a monkey's about how the web works, just whether or not it gives them the info they need. Do find out about the paper pulping industry before deciding which newspaper to read?
The other portals haven't been a success because they're simply scraping content from the existing portals and, as such, offer nothing new. Whether you like it or not, from January the only way the public will get 100% of it's property fix is by going to OTM. Without, they will not be seeing the full picture and this is what will drive it's awareness/usage.
Because they have common-sense
This is really bad news. Bearing in mind the agents that are committed to AM are the vast majority of those that comment on here and there have only been 1100 responses with only 42% of those showing commitment means that under 500 agents are interested. This is not good news for AM and leaves me feeling very negative about the new portal and any chance it has of succeeding!
I will be honest when agents state that they feel there are zoopla and RM plants on the site I do chuckle with their paranoia. However I have large reservations on AM but come on jmeapps01 give credit where it is due. They have a good solid base to start from to say its really bad news or leaves you feeling negative is a bit much. Still to be see what happens over the next 12 / 18 months but I don't think AM could really have hoped for much better. Just listen to some of the AM devotees on the site when they have not even launched a product 😉
I'm sorry jmeapps01 are you trying to pose on here as someone who has not constantly posted against OTM?!?!
RA I have never been against it. It's just that I am a realist and those that seem to be getting overexcited about AM are those few that keep posting on this site. The reality is that very few are truly supporting it, bar a couple all the agents in my area (52 firms) are waiting to see. In truth those that support AM will get a torrid time going forward by agents telling the public not to go with an agent that cannot expose their property to the market fully. Now you and I may know that good agency is not about portals but the public are more fickle and will go with what they know and what they are told. Please don't say its all about how you market yourself, we have an excellent market share but we also have some decent competition who will use every trick in the book to gain that next instruction from us and we're not about to hand them a perfect tool to do this with.
Remember it took Zoopla a good 5 years and tens of millions of pounds to get a foothold and start to become a household name and now they still only have a 21% market share. The public will decide in who they instruct and if you think you will never lose an instruction because of it you are deluded, or maybe you're the only agent in your town!!!
This I agree with totally!
I have only been on Z for a year, I lost no business before I joined it and did so simply because firstly they were offering it very cheaply as I had subscribed to Vizzi. In the years prior to that I think my managers reported maybe twice a client had asked about Zoopla. We lost no business before it and I don't expect to lose any after so no I wouldn't say I was deluded. Nor am I in a small town or area. I would say however if things are so tight in the area you are in that you think you will lose an instruction to a competitor who says they are on Z as well then perhaps you are not as good as you like to think you are. When I went on valuations or even on the few I do now, I rarely mention/ed half of what we "offer/ed" my clients however always bought ME! In OTM I have decided that I wish to support a portal that has the estate agents that advertise it in mind, not a scheme to develop a custom base that ultimately seeks to by pass it. Any agent that has a future in this business I am confident will see that also.
Think about your opening statement here and then relate it to OTM. If you're doing so well why are you trying to save a few pounds here or there. Yes we pay the big portals a lot of money for a service and we get a good service. RM and Z pay for themselves many times over. Maybe you ought to think about how you market your property online. Good quality photos and quickly getting to the point helps!
Let me know if you need any more tips;-)
jmeapps. I think if you bothered to read the other posts I have made on here I think you'll discover exactly why I am supporting OTM. Thanks for the offer but its generally people who are so absorbed with trying to overcome their own inadequacies, that they feel the need to parade anonymously on a site, about how good they are.
Whatever way one wants to interpret the results it is clear that OnTheMarket.com is going to make an impact, despite Duopoly claims that it won't… and that is from a standing start. In my geographical area I know there are 16 estate agency companies and 11 will be advertising with OnTheMarket.com from 26/01/2015… of the remaining 5 companies 3 are corporates who interestingly have a falling market share, the other 2 are independents who are considering their costs in respect if carrying 2 portals in the hope of moving completely over to OnTheMarket.com So, a near 75% foothold from a standing start?! tells me there are interesting times ahead!
For a portal that has not even gone live yet, OTM certainly seems to be gaining traction and there is no shortage of interest about it on this site, it now makes me skeptical about how thorough city analysts are when giving advice to shareholders particularly in respect to the current Duopoly.
I'm wondering exactly what 'committed' means here? A binding contractual obligation? Or just a letter of intent? There's a world of difference.
You've lost me Russell, is your grasp of English so low that you don't genuinely understand the use of the word committed in the context of that sentence or are you simply trying to raise whatever troll you can out of the story?
Agent's Mutual has enough cash and agent commitment to pay its way for the next 5 years. Instead of making yourself look like a Big Bass drum player who can't keep up with the band. Stop Banging and wait till you have caught up- Nothing you can say now will do you any favours so best you shut up until you have seen what they have come up with.
Come on Russell…..you really are making yourself look a bit silly now, in my opinion. Like I, and many others have said before, you will be far better off if you leave this alone and concentrate on your own business. I know you really wanted to go on OTM, but at the moment that isn't possible. Do you not think you can succeed without being on OTM?
With respect- With Eye being the promoted by AM reps as the site of choice it isn't credible to make any claim based on the responses to your survey. If you ask the By Eck Pigeon Fanciers club, Britain's most popular pet? You'd not be surprised if the answer came back as pigeons. 42% is only correct if Ian Springett is confirming that 8400 branches out of 20000 have committed.
Shelter make up stas to suit their own ends, please have some respect for your readership and keep independently to known facts not hocus pocus number manipulations. If Ian’s numbers are now 8400 branches well done to him and AM.
What on earth does that comment mean "promoted by AM reps"?! I look at both of the industry "sites" but this is the ONLY one that covers the topical news items as they happen and has contributions from leading industry figures. I would say ANYTHING this publication produces is likely to be extremely representative of the industry. If you choose not to accept that, well the words bury, head and sand spring to mind.
If you have been here for a bit you will remember the discussions back in June when the Agents Mutual reps were telling Agents at the gatherings that EYE was the site that was supporting AM, it came off the back of Simon Shinerock and Nat Daniels at EAT being very anti AM.
"Promoted by AM reps" means exactly what it says. If you haven't been to a meeting where the rep has told Agents to support AM on EYE don't claim it hasn't happened and don't post schmoozy tosh in the hope of a few likes.
I have been to a number of meetings recently with AM reps and Ive not heard one yet tell me to read EYE. Frankly I find the insinuation that I am somehow here as a result of following some sort of pied piper, patronising in the extreme and the comment about commenting for likes, frankly pathetic. I make it a point to be actively involved in my industry, I attend numerous meetings throughout the year and I would say that the statistics are fairly reflective of estate agents in many of those. One thing however is obvious, whilst there are still understandably and unquestionably a number of undecided agents there indecision was more apathy than anything else. I don't think Ive heard anyone yet say its a bad thing for the industry anywhere except surprisingly on here, the alleged pro AM site! PeeBee, you and I agree on many things with the exception of OTM perhaps, but like any polling, the active pro's and the active no's are always the ones to respond and lets be frank here, despite the bias of the site (Ive never denied that one) there are a lot more people posting on here with something to lose than something to gain. I myself didn't bother to vote so thats one more you can add to the pro's! ……Oh is that canvassing likes again!?!
The trouble is you are now insulting all those who did come to Eye as a result of finding out about the site from a rep. Have a trawl through the archive and you can spot their first posts after the meetings across the country. All posting enthusiastically about AM stories and nothing else.
What is interesing is that you are dismissing Agents' concerns over the financial and long term contractual commitment to AM as apathy.
RealAgent – I can't (and wouldn't…) speak for Tike Nick on his (gender assumed…) take on the situation – however I can draw from my own experiences and have to agree with him on the issue of AM actively promoting readership of EYE. I attended a meeting in June and not only did the Rep ask attendees to do so, but it was also written into the Powerpoint presentation! Now whether that was an isolated case for my area or not I guess we will never know for certain – but I doubt it. As far as the 'Likes' thing goes – well… my only take on that is when someone feels the need to 'Like' their own comment (and we all know who do it…) it's all a bit sad, in my opinion. I don't vote my own popularity up. I'm actually quite surprised when ANYONE gives me 'a thumbs up' on most matters (but thanks for them anyway, folks!) – but I would LOVE to see how many 'thumbs down' I or other certain other posters would attract if that facility were introduced! ;o)
Anyways… this thread has allowed "The Great AM Debate" to continue and I find it fascinating that the two camps are still so deeply entrenched – in fact I would say they are now digging in even deeper. I reiterate that I am NOT and never have been anti-AM. The last thing I want is to be at loggerheads with my colleagues in industry over a matter such as this – but unfortunately that is EXACTLY how things are being made to be, dependent on which camp your foot is in. Mine are in both – but more in one than another. But regardless of where they end up, I will always try to remain objective as I do not believe for one minute that even the staunchest supporter or opposer honestly believes that it is a 100% black and/or white situation.
RealAgent – with respect, Tike Nick DOES have a point. AM itself, in its presentations, asked its Members to sign up to EYE. Of course they want a heavy pro-AM readership here – if not only to balance out the extremely anti-AM bias on 'the other' industry site. To be frank, it's the 57.86% you want to worry about… in a survey where over 1000 responded, you would expect the 'pro' camp to have the lion's share of the votes. If the 'No's to the left' can muster var nigh sixty per cent of the votes I suggest there's a problem WAY bigger any stats will show.
Real Agent I echo what others have said. This site / news channel is pro AM you can see it just from the reporting. For me at least it is a shame as I would like a non biased view so we get a better understanding and feel for AM other than disciples on here or the aggressive anti brigade on the other site (one of many reasons I don't often read their site). impartial, factual journalism would very much be welcome in the stories at least….
All you posters, both for and against AM / OTM, there is no cause to have a go at EYE for reporting these stats. They appear to only have printed the results of their own survey factually and no-one has any reason to doubt the facts. Furthermore, these results seem to back the current position regarding overall support for OTM up as far as I can see. Let’s just look again at their story: 1094 agency businesses replied of which 461 (42%) are committed to OTM already. However, we might presume that a majority of EYE readers are committed supporters of OTM – it might be as many as 75% of all EYE readers are pro-OTM so we have to make some adjustment to the figures to get a more accurate percentage split across the country. I did the following calculation: 461 (agents committed to OTM) / 75% = 615 (adjusted for 75% bias on EYE). 633 (undecided or against OTM) / 25% = 2532 (adjusted for 25% bias on EYE). If the estimate of bias is correct, the probable national ratio of ‘committed agents’ to ‘undecided or firmly against OTM agents’ is 615:2532 = 24% committed and 66% undecided or against. Using an estimated total number of branches nationwide of 20,000, this would mean 4800 committed, and 15200 undecided or against. Isn’t this more or less where we are? In this case, if just 15% of the 15200 ‘undecided or against’ category decide to support OTM in 2015 there could be another 2280 branches joining the new portal, making 7080 in all, or 35% of the total market. This is less than EYE suggest could be the case (they calculate up to 51% market share could be achieved) but they have not adjusted for their readership bias. However, if OTM manage to grab even 30% of the available stock in their first six months then the launch will have been an unqualified success and many other currently undecided agencies will be queuing up to join. All just my hypothetical musings, of course. I now await the inevitable tirade of criticism but if anybody wants to demonstrate that I am completely barking here, I will be happy to retract…..
The reason no-one has so far replied to your post is because its impossible to decipher, unless you use 'wishful thinking' instead of arithmatic ,then it makes perfect sense. You are welcome to try and explain your figures/gain support but I really advise against doing so
Today's lesson, Mr Shinerock: One two is two; two twos are four; three twos are six; four twos are eight. Tomorrow, we will take it to the next step, but ONLY IF you've managed to grasp the above, that is… ;o)
Yes, well…. Having read this again I admit it's pretty unintelligible so sorry about that. I just rambled on without checking if it made any sense but at least I understand what I was trying to say….