What a load of old tosh from detractors of OnTheMarket.
I don’t mind when agents give a well-reasoned approach as to why they don’t want to have their own portal, but to state – as Richard Rawlings did – that the ‘one other portal only’ rule is responsible for the downturn of the housing market appears poorly argued and illogical.
The case presented was that people will look at Zoopla or Rightmove but rarely both – based on Nielsen research from three years ago.
The gist of the detractors’ argument is that because many agents have swapped from Zoopla to OnTheMarket, househunters aren’t looking at all three portals, so are missing out on Zoopla listings – and giving up on their housing dreams.
However, the entire argument rests on nothing more than a fundamental and wholly unsupported assumption that Rightmove and Zoopla continue to offer the same 75% coverage of available properties and that consumer search activity is split 50/50 between Rightmove and Zoopla. No evidence is provided that this unlikely proposition has ever been the case.
There are so many other flaws in the detractors’ argument: it does not mention socio-economic reasons, fears over pending Tax Credit changes, the impact of estate agents’ own websites, High Street presence, the rise of internet agents, marketing campaigns, spiralling property prices and dozens of other factors that influence people’s purchasing decisions.
The detractors also cited a reduction in portal traffic in August/September of 2015, a 29% reduction compared to the same period last year. Yet portal market leaders Rightmove say they had more than 1.4bn page views each month during this summer, smashing their 2014 records. That doesn’t sound to me like people have switched to looking at only OnTheMarket, are also now ignoring Zoopla and have been short-changed in the property stakes.
When referring to research, it is really important to understand how many were in the sample group, when it was undertaken, how many were just browsing, how many were intending to sell, how often did they go online, why didn’t they shop around, what marketing campaigns were being conducted by the two portals in question, did they view property ads in the local paper and in branch windows. Again, so many variables that can influence research and there are many more.
Research we have seen shows that the number of people searching for the term ‘Rightmove’ has remained fairly constant for the last three years, yet the number of people searching for the term ‘estate agents’ has fallen considerably, indicating, either a downward trend that started long before the introduction of OnTheMarket; or, that property portals have become the first port of call for many.
It certainly appears to be the case that searches for the term ‘Zoopla’ have fallen considerably while OnTheMarket’s search engine visibility continues to grow and Zoopla could well find they are squeezed as more and more agents come on board.
I totally understand that many agents are risk averse or prefer to wait in the wings to see how things pan out.
But OnTheMarket appears here to stay, is not going away, and is only going to get bigger and stronger. And that is, in my opinion, a fact.
Reading between the Countrywide lines
In announcing an 11% slump in operating profits for the first 9 months of the year compared to last year, did Countrywide blame OnTheMarket? Funnily enough, no.
It cited Stamp Duty reforms for constraining moves at the upper end of the market as one likely factor. Unsurprisingly, given the number of senior departures, financial analysts pointed to management weakness.
However, if I were a Countrywide estate agent I’d be more alarmed right now about what the group is planning to do about getting profits back on track. New CEO Alison Platt announced to investors on October 12 that the group is planning to ‘invest in or acquire’ a digital startup with tech and human capability – and stated they are ‘a long way down the line’ with this project.
Two days later, chief digital officer Alex Bailes provided further detail revealing at the PropTech conference that what customers really want is not online or traditional but ‘somewhere in between, in the hybrid space’. Six days later, it was announced he was leaving the business.
So what’s going on? Is the game plan to ditch the high street branches completely and offer end-to-end transactional support for customers via an online login, but with the added value of local estate agents on the road supported by a call centre?
Or is the idea to merely offer a cheaper alternative, so people can obtain the same service but choose to use their high street agent or the online version, if they prefer?
Because if that is the case, I am probably one of very few people who can speak from personal experience that it simply won’t work.
Many people will remember I invested millions of pounds in setting up a hybrid estate agency called iSold, partnered by Tesco. It was unprofitable and, ultimately, unworkable.
I really respect Countrywide and have built my own business on a similar model. Countrywide were once the most profitable and respected true estate agents in the UK.
My plea to them is please don’t mess things up. If you pitch yourself as a direct competitor with yourself, hoping to appeal to two ends of the market, it will be a disaster waiting to happen.
What do Countrywide’s estate agents think will happen to its customer base when they are offered a cheaper alternative for accessing the same service? Which one will become the poor relation?
Set us straight, Countrywide.
Reveal your intentions.
You don’t owe it to me, but you certainly owe it to your own branch network, who will undoubtedly want to understand what a hybrid approach will mean for them.
Comments (100)
Why do you give airtime to somebody who can’t even write properly? I mean who begins a sentence with “And” or a paragraph with “Because”. If they could tell fact from elbow that would be something but this is drivel which could have been done better by a 10-year old.
Because he has something to say.
And, because people clearly want to debate the subject.
Don’t confuse your personal jealousy of the attention with a sudden need to join the Grammar Police.
You’d fail the basic entry exam hands down were you to sit it.
“Many people will remember I invested millions of pounds in setting up a hybrid estate agency called iSold, partnered by Tesco. It was unprofitable and, ultimately, unworkable”
I wasn’t aware of that involvement in iSold, the bit at the end ‘ultimately unworkable’ does that mean it is closed down? It still appears to be live promoting big savings over traditional High Street Agencies.
Given just how much cash is blindly being poured into facsimile copies of iSold by every successful alpha male entrepreneur Dragon businessman guru is Agents Mutual missing a very valid opportunity to say this particular disruptor model doesn’t work? It was unprofitable and unworkable even at 3 times the cost of the latest attempts to disrupt the market and that was using valuation managers with local knowledge and was being run by a firm with a track record of success in agency.
If there is no mileage in a ‘disrupt the distruptors’ story at least turn iSold off and stop reinforcing the message that vendors can save thousands by using an online agent rather than a traditional agency.
Oh, dear.
It’s a good spot, Robert – even if it is perhaps one that Mr Smith would have preferred to be left forgotten.
Beggars belief that the site is still ‘live’ – even NAEA had sense enough to turn off PL and their heads were where the sun couldn’t be seen!
Strange – iSold still appear to be Members of TPOS…
Or perhaps not forgotten, just hibernating for the time being?
Makes you wonder…
‘the message’
” “MY OPINION IS FACT” – its probably the most David Brentesque comment I have ever heard…”
It would be – IF the quote was correct in the first place.
Mr Smith actually said
“And that is, in my opinion, a fact.”
VERY different.
What I can’t understand is that YOU EVEN QUOTE HIM VERBATIM – then bring your own crude b@stardisation of his words into play as if it be fact.
Sorry – but with that one comment you’ve let yourself be sucked down to the levels others inhabit.
Mr Smith’s vision of future events may not play out the way he ‘sees’ them – but nevertheless it is his opinion that it will – and in that respect there is no wrong done with what he said.
YOUR comment, on the other hand…
Don’t dumb down your own usually very good argument by resorting to twisting factual information to score points – it only ever results in own goals.
Paul Smith 1 : the message 0
To whom it may concern – thanks for the ‘Dislike’. I’m sure more will come.
It actually pained me to type the above comment – I don’t make a habit of siding with Mr Smith – not saying that I do on this occasion, either.
But he’s entitled to an opinion as much as the next person. Disagree with it; argue/debate/reason against it all you like.
Just do it right.
Nice to see PeeBee. Clients best interest at heart. Thats a like from me.
Mr Mealham
If you trace my comments back over some six or seven years both here and on the bog door down the other pub you will no doubt find that my most commonly used phrase has been “…in the best interests of the industry and its’ customers”.
I stand by that comment.
ABOVE, my old mate Harree states
“Drop the one portal rule… Instead, allow agents to advertise on any portal… but as a condition of membership insist that all EA’s upload to OTM 48 hours before any other portal.”
But I have a teensy-weensy problem with that, chum.
You see, back in December last year – 22nd to be exact – you said
“AM with it’s… early bird listings… is acting like a tin pot dictator.”
and
“How can it be in the clients best interests to 1) delay uploading to the UK’s no.1 portal for buyers… Take your OTM tinted blinkers off.”
I think you have to explain to your readers ‘why the 180?’, Harree.
Careful Peebee that’s Rainman recall! (credit Smile Please)
What I find ironic is how people are slowly latching on to ideas that have been promoted (and mocked) for the past 3+ years
Not ‘Rainman recall’ (credit: smile please), Robert – I need mechanical assistance. LOTS of it!
Thankfully I know a guy who has the very tool for the job – and lets people borrow it whenever they need it! ;o)
I think I quote Anchorman when I say “I don’t know what we’re YELLING about!!”
Oi Message do you know you have given me more attention and more dedicated posts in this one thread that every single story on EAT today.
Gentlemen,
OTm is a cheaper solution to Zoopla and Rightmove, FACT
Is it more or less effective at selling houses. In this market it,s irrelevant!
Does it promote the Brand of your Business, probably not as much so instructions may not be as forthcoming….possibly! 71% of our inquiries come from our own website, so money spent on staff in handling them outweighs Rightmove, The problem is thick people running large corporate business not having confidence to trust and motivate staff to run a people business.
Is it cheaper? How?
Not now its not, maybe in the future.
If its all about cost I might as well give Purple Bricks a call to sell my house ?
My Question To Mr Smith who is clearly a very astute business man, is quite simply this having put all his weight and money behind OTM / AM why did the spicer haart group pull away from Zoopla and not rightmove? or indeed both? if his new plaything was going to deliver salvation to the industry.
As Any military man will tell you when fighting a war you do not attack the presumed weakest link.
in a coup you take out the leader and the rest will fall by the wayside, by the misguided efforts to destabilize the balance of power in the portal world all Mr Smith and his fellow OTM / AM backers have done is make the very powerhouse they despise even stronger and more powerful.
Which lets be honest hasn’t really helped any of us.
“It certainly appears to be the case that searches for the term ‘Zoopla’ have fallen considerably while OnTheMarket’s search engine visibility continues to grow and Zoopla could well find they are squeezed as more and more agents come on board.”
Did you actually look at the statistics when you wrote this? Go to Google Trends and enter “rightmove”, “zoopla” and “onthemarket”.
OnTheMarket reaches a high point of 2% of searches compared to Rightmove at the start of the year (when they launched), which then drops off suddenly and has stuck at 0% since. Zoopla has dropped off slightly but not ‘considerably’.
If you are going to make an argument, please first check your facts.
Rivero….. in between photos in hailstorms & sun!….. OTM….WAS??!? an opportunity? …… OTM is evolving and those that gawp at the portal roadside will NEVER be part of that evolution….. hence they have to keep swallowing those “find your happy” pills!
I sat there in November/December 2013 at a presentation in Scotland from OTM and I chose to commit….. and Mr Ian Springett was clear that it was not about toppling Rightmove Year 1, 2 etc…… it was about OTM….. and he/we were clear that Rightmove would benefit for a period of time, especially if the compliant Zoopla fell, which it has.
However to say OTM itself has strengthened Rightmove?….. No, sorry, the lack of strength and commitment by estate agency bystanders is what has strengthened Rightmove…… we appear to be an industry of sheep…. gullible! cleverly herded by Rightmove! ….. dividing and conquering!
Pre OTM we did nothing and took an annual kicking and accepted our industry being directed by Rightmove….. Zoopla made no difference ever!….. so, the bystanders suggestion is just to keep standing and gawping?!….. really! ….. really!!!
Those that wish to preserve the Terminal Decline of our industry by Rightmove are the ones that have strengthened Rightmove…… be in NO doubt about that! …… the OTM Membership have opted to try and drive our industry for the long term rather than be sheperded by Rightmove who have in so many ways become the Blightmove of our industry!
GPL, whilst I enjoy your posts…I’m not sure we need to read them twice 😉
Right from the start AM directors and their supporters made one of the biggest mistakes in business … they designed something purely to suit their own needs and not the needs or wants of the consumer.
Where is the market research that supported a want or need for another major property portal? Where is the market research that supported a want or need for a major property portal without valuation, sold prices or advertising etc? Where is the market research that supported a want or need to search through three property portals to find all of the available property for sale?
There wasn’t, and isn’t, any independent market research that suggests anything of the kind.
And it’s hardly surprising … there is no consumer cost to using a portal so there is no price point differential or cost saving benefit. Whether valuation tools are accurate or not consumers like using them and couldn’t give a monkey’s if such information gives many agents apoplexy. If you asked consumers if they would rather cut to the quick and view every property in their chosen range on one portal or if they would rather search through three … I’ll bet a pound to a penny 80%+ would answer one.
So … why was OTM launched??
Not because of a want or need by consumers … but totally and entirely to suit EA’s in their war against RM and Z.
And that is why OTM was doomed to failure before it was even launched.
I made exactly the same points before OTM was launched and I suggested a way that would have vastly increased membership, vastly increased the financial war chest and in turn immediately have created a compelling USP and a real want and need for consumers to visit, and that was …
Drop the one portal rule as it was obviously divisive and would inevitably deter the majority of agents from joining, split the ranks of our profession into two camps and lead to infighting and bitterness. And it has.
Instead, allow agents to advertise on any portal, charge a £150 a month membership for OTM, but as a condition of membership insist that all EA’s upload to OTM 48 hours before any other portal.
This would have allowed a ‘one message’ advertising campaign along the lines of ‘want to find your new place … go to the new place that advertises new properties for sale 48 hours before any other property place in the UK’.
This tactic would have given consumers a reason to visit, pulled the rug from under RM and Z, showed both that WE have the properties and the power, and got all us working as one to towards what we all want … our own dominant portal, more control and lower fees.
We all wanted to fight a war against RM and Z … but AM chose the wrong battleground entirely and even worse went to war with blunt weapons and with only 1 in 4 soldiers at best fighting with them.
By doing so AM has shot themselves in the foot and it will be a long time, if ever, before EA’s support another attempt to rake on the duopoly.
“Right from the start AM directors and their supporters made one of the biggest mistakes in business … they designed something purely to suit their own needs and not the needs or wants of the consumer.”
I don;t think anyone on here can disagree with that statement.
The issue is why did they go ahead with OTM when they could have just used the fact that they could have gone ahead with OTM as a deterrent to use against RM and Z to fix or reduce fees? The deterrent would have possibly been far more effective than actually pressing the button. But I suppose with the egos involved, everyone wanted to press the button and the resulting outcome is what is being played out.
I’m portal agnostic and believe that OTM have a place going forward – but more likely to work well as a niche portal for high end properties than a general market portal.
I can Ben, by its very definition Agency is a job that dictates the customer not the consumer is paramount to Agents.
“I don;t think anyone on here can disagree with that statement.”
Think again, Mr Redway.
I sincerely hope that the portal was NOT designed for ‘consumers’.
I do not work for, or with, ‘consumers’.
Anyone using that overworked buzz-word for PEOPLE has lost sight of the job – IF they ever had faintest sight of it in the first place, which, for what it’s worth, I sincerely doubt.
I was referring to the first part of that paragraph;
“Right from the start AM directors and their supporters made one of the biggest mistakes in business … they designed something purely to suit their own needs”
Come on – there can be no doubt this is the case.
Ben I have spent 20 year designing and tweaking software to the needs of agent customers, just because agents are building something for themselves they shouldn’t be precluded from doing the same.
You won’t tell me what qualifications you have, I can’t find you have any presence on the internet, just answer me this, had you started school by 1994?
What a crass comment from one of the most up their own backside EA’s on this blog.
If that’s where I am, Harree – I will only say that it’s a far better place than wherever you’re at.
Ben…..I’ll disagree with your statement on many levels….. however excuse me just now whilst I finish taking these property details.. then I may get back to you and your niche nonsense!
On many levels?
Reminds me of that joke – Crime in multi-storey car parks … !
That is wrong on so many different levels. So it seems are much of the industry!
In what way(s) are so many of us ‘wrong’, Mr Redway?
Haree….. doomed to failure?!…… yes, our industry is if it accepts only Rightmove as the way forward! Shame on you!
Roll up Roll up!….. the OTM Detractors are in Town?!
Remind me…… you’re all whining away because…?
Oh….. that’s right!…… damned OnTheMarket.com is still here!
It’s irritating isn’t it….. when another portal comes into town but won’t play with you!
Get over it….. take it, get over it…. move on!
I’ll launch WhingyWhineyPortal and you can all sign up!
It’s Friday 13th….. careful about what you whinge about!
Now….. forgive me, I have some houses to take on!
I ‘whine’ because the OTM project was an opportunity missed due to being ill conceived and poorly executed. The result is that it has achieved the precise opposite of its supposed intentions. As an industry we are more vulnerable now than we have ever been to the whims of RM. I take my hat off to agents that are now able to grow their revenue without being ‘members’ of RM, and for those (presumably very few) I suppose OTM is working, but for most of us (whether OTM members or not) it has potentially harmed our businesses.
A great summary. One without agenda and prejudice
Missed or simply delayed until such time as the objections of non members are addressed and the concerns of members acknowledged?
I would say ‘missed’ is more likely, not many opportunities can be delayed without being missed..but I’m all ears if this were to happen. I’m sure you don’t need me to point out though that momentum is critical in most businesses and a false start is never a good thing.
Rivero….. in between photos in hailstorms & sun!….. OTM….WAS??!? an opportunity? …… OTM is evolving and those that gawp at the portal roadside will NEVER be part of that evolution….. hence they have to keep swallowing those “find your happy” pills!
I sat there in November/December 2013 at a presentation in Scotland from OTM and I chose to commit….. and Mr Ian Springett was clear that it was not about toppling Rightmove Year 1, 2 etc…… it was about OTM….. and he/we were clear that Rightmove would benefit for a period of time, especially if the compliant Zoopla fell, which it has.
However to say OTM itself has strengthened Rightmove?….. No, sorry, the lack of strength and commitment by estate agency bystanders is what has strengthened Rightmove…… we appear to be an industry of sheep…. gullible! cleverly herded by Rightmove! ….. dividing and conquering!
Pre OTM we did nothing and took an annual kicking and accepted our industry being directed by Rightmove….. Zoopla made no difference ever!….. so, the bystanders suggestion is just to keep standing and gawping?!….. really! ….. really!!!
Those that wish to preserve the Terminal Decline of our industry by Rightmove are the ones that have strengthened Rightmove…… be in NO doubt about that! …… the OTM Membership have opted to try and drive our industry for the long term rather than be sheperded by Rightmove who have in so many ways become the Blightmove of our industry!
danny has rabbited on about Rightmove laughing at me, at us…… I’m sure they are because they still can’t believe they haven’t been found out yet!
smile please talks about paying £2000 per branch to Rightmove if that’s what it takes?!
Dear G@d……?!
GPL i know you have taken over from Paul H as the most die hard fan, but even you must see membership has stalled.
If OTM is not attracting new members its not growing.
I am sure it will be here for next 4 years but even you must be surprised with the lack of new members in almost a year?
Why the dislikes?
Genuinely confused! – Are people thinking membership is growing?
In what way is OTM ‘evolving’? At best I would say it is stagnating. In fact, in the area in which we operate it’s inventory has declined since launch.
The failure (in my opinion) of OTM should not be laid at the door of those companies unconvinced by AM’s product. After all, presumably you wouldn’t blame the demise of any other business on the customers which choose not to buy it’s product or service would you?
This is at the heart of the problem, OTM needed to be able to stand on its own two feet in the market…it needed to appeal to both the paying customer and the using public. It has not, in any meaningful way, appealed to either. Expecting agents to act in some sort of blind solidarity is plain naive.
The generalisations prevalent in the piece are outrageous! I would like to address all of the holes in Mr Smith’s article but I genuinely do not have enough time go through them all…needless to say when I read ‘But OnTheMarket appears here to stay, is not going away, and is only going to get bigger and stronger. And that is, in my opinion, a fact.’ I realised that it would be a waste of energy.
OTM will have to do something different in the future. If not they will simply fail to gain traction and will settle in at Number 3.
Some agents will drift back and forth between the duopoly and OTM to give it a go. They’ll realise that OTM didn’t really work that well for the money, but hey, business still came in as usual because most people DO look at RM/Z when searching/Instructing.
On that basis, they’ll drop OTM and save a few quid by NOT going back to using two portals. Meaning one portal gets even further ahead in both market share and public perception.
This is not a bad summary. Currently Rightmove are surging ahead. If OTM achieves its goal of number 2 portal based on listings then I predict that RM will surge further ahead in the early part of 2016 with more agents buying products and rates being increased.
The only way that I see an end to the current situation is if a 2nd portal can start to offer some serious competition to RM, this means that agents need to make a decision to either back OTM or back Zoopla. But as you have said, many agents have now figured out that they don’t need two portals, so its highly likely that if agents do leave OTM they won’t go to Zoopla anyway and will probably prefer to spend more money with RM.
So based on that summary OTM has failed entirely?
OTM has only failed if you think that it was going to achieve it’s goal to be a viable alternative to RM in 1 year. I don’t think that was ever going to be the case.
Out of interest (and I think I asked this back in the days when you were far more vehement in your support – but I’ve forgotten what you said)…what would you see as realistic success for OTM? Given you have stated that ‘many agents have now figured out that they don’t need two portals’, and given nearly all are with RM…with many considering increasing spend with them, how do you foresee that success being achieved?
I think success for OTM would be achieved if they are able to make RM reduce/stop raising fees. I have no idea how OTM will achieve this, i’m just a mere estate agent like you.
I had hoped, along with many others, that Zooplas merger with the Digital Property Group would have made RM rein in their fees but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Perhaps what could change this and persuade agents to go back to Zoopla is if they make an announcement that they intend to drive down fees or even cap fees for 5 years and gain market share back from RM, although, this will go against their previous statement they made to the city which was that they intend to raise fees in line with RM.
I will be interested to know how you think Zoopla can win back the agents that are committed to OnTheMarket, thus putting a stop to RM’s dominance, as it does appear that a huge majority will stay with OTM for the full 5 year contract?
I don’t expect they will. I expect Zoopla and OTM market share to remain largely as it is now (at best), which I said at the beginning of all this would happen…a weakened number 2 and a largely irrelevant number 3.
Dear Paul,
thanks for asking about our business . Well ,exciting new over here at CW HQ, having looked at your business numbers and stock levels we’ve decided that OTM seems to have been a success for you <snigger> we have signed a non binding letter of intent and fully intend to jump across <chortle> you just stay where you are we will see you real soon <mmmmpphhhhrrrr> keep up the great work
regards
Alison
Dear oh dear……
So many people who haven’t put their underwear on straight this morning….
WOW
Rattled a few cages!
Most of the haters are out in force before 9am!
I rarely agree with Paul Smith but think he makes some excellent points. Well done in coming out and taking a stand.
The CW comment is in my opinion very important and i have said before any decent staff members should be looking around now rather than waiting for the axe to fall!
More pro OTM opinion, not fact, screamed from the rooftops by PIE
And why is Mr Smith not prefacing his article with a declaration of interest, or PIE doing so on his behalf?
I believe he is a director of AM?
Do all staff of all AM members preface their client facing meetings with a declaration of (self) interest in order ensure they are providing the consumer with the full facts, i.e. working in their client’s best interest, before taking their instructions? Surely only then could they comply with the Estate Agents Act?
Mr Goldthorpe
Could you please tell me how your portal is populated?
You are displaying the properties of several OTM Agents in my area (North-East) – do they know you are doing this?
PeeBee – If the agents allow their properties there, then AM should not ban Andrews portal.
If they do – it simply adds another CMA anti-competitive attack to the file.
If they do target Andrew – then being restrained and targeted he should write to:
cartelshotline@cma.gsi.gov.uk
and general.enquiries@cma.gsi.gov.uk
Mr Mealham
I am enquiring how this ‘portal’ gets its stock.
Surely Agents should have control over their stock?
Or do you agree with, for example, ‘scraping’ of property without the copyright holder’s permission?
Are you on a retainer to CMA?
Peebee – NO not on a retainer 🙂
Valid question. I’ll let Andrew answer his way. But if it helps data can come in various ways from agents software feeds, manually or via authorised scrapes like XML2U which data platforms sometimes have to use as not all softwares feed data to all places.
Scraping can be a very useful tool. But rightly as you point out when the agent consents.
PeeBee the agents using our Veco™ software choose which portal to populate property by property and this will be the same for the majority of popular software providers. In which case agents do have control over their stock and where it appears.
NOT if it is being scraped without permission, they don’t.
Still waiting, Mr Goldthorpe.
Any particular reasons you’re not supplying an answer?
Or are you just “too busy”? It’s the excuse we’re most used to hearing…
Paul’s point that iSold did not work is definitely, in my opinion, a fact. But it failed not because the concept of a lower cost alternative did not work (see Expedia, Confused.com, Amazon in the alternative) but because iSold itself was extremely poorly executed. Spicer haart didn’t have a clue how to run an online/hybrid business (let’s not get hung up on the labels, they are irrelevant).
And that, all wrapped up in a convenient little nutshell, is why incumbent agency businesses cannot prosper by tinkering with the future but can only compete with the progress that is being made by the ‘new sector’ if they buy in that expertise.
Are you able to name 3 passive intermediary, internet listing, central office area rep businesses that have and can demonstrate the expertise to make a profit and have money in the bank due to income not investment or crowd funding?
It’s fine Robert, I’ve heard that the tv and internet advertising channels are very picky about where someone cash comes from when it comes to booking large consumer advertising campaigns , I’ve heard they won’t take any money raised from crowd funding sources from Paul Smith …
No, he can’t Robert. And nor can I.
Russell Quirk…you say thet imove was poorly executed, and that is why it failed.
Emoov, similarly, are currently making huge operational losses funded by investors…..how is your model working when it doesn’t make a profit?
No Doubt like PurplePri*ks he is looking to float before even making money. Take the pay off and then who cares!
I am amazed at the stupidity of some investors.
Breakfast reading will never be the same again now I’ve found eye.
This one though takes the biscuit (weatabix)
Is this guy having a ‘wobble’ or what?
Badly written and seems to be lashing out in several directions.
Lets look at the facts – so eye how about getting some facts together once and for all on the real portal traffic from all the main sources rather then just what OTM, Z or RM decide to show us.
Does Paul as (1) a director of AM (not OTM) and (2) the CEO of Spicerhaart, get his negs and managers on valuations to declare an interest in AM/ thus supporting OTM – OVER other portals that may get sellers and landlords more interest/ viewings etc etc.
If clients looking to sell or let are given stat facts that could affect who see’s their property and then decide to support the AM agents want to knock out other higher rank portals. Then so be it.
Knowing sellers and landlords, their want, I think is to gain best interest in their property and their pocket rather than the agencies own goals.
The Estate Agents Act 1979 is there to insure agents act in clients best interest (not the agents, or directors of AM/OTM).
Are managers, negs and staff pushing something of a less, noty being forced to do so? by their directors calling the shots.
Mr Mealham could you please put some numbers on this so that we can get some idea of the scale of your complaint. How many agents are members of INEA? How many have ceased listing with INEA as a result of the OTM ‘one other portal’ rule?
@ AgencyInsider
Im sorry, I can’t give away full intel as evidence has been passed to the CMA and NTSEAT.
But for sure it was more than 5-6 agents who initially came forward and others have verbally indicated approaches to us which has caused us to stand up to AM + OTM’s anti-competitive attack that we are seeing as cartel like action.
Agents (Hg St and online only) and others have come forward in support.
The Estate Agents Act 1979, is still used as a bench mark as to agent definition. Of recent HMRC, used it’s agency wording to define who they saw as a estate agent. No where in the 79 wording does it say that agents MUST be in a Hg St to trade.
Our voicing concern isn’t over just INEA being on AM’***** list, but more to the point, who can trade as an agent and giving them the ability to use all best tools to achieve best for clients. NOT restrain choice parts of the industry.
Amusing. I wasn’t being rude. Above should have read – AM’s h1t list. PIE’s sentence checker as obviously looked at the string 🙂 following AM. …..
Trevor you say 5-6 agents, which is it? do you want 2 miuites to have a recount can’t be too hard?
You also say this combined with verbal conversation caused you to stand up to AM + OTM. Be honest since launch you have been “poking the bear”
Smile – we verbally heard a few months in that INEA was being targeted, but we didnt then have anything in writing. At the start we were open. But on asking if we were on their target list, they failed several times to respond.
At this point we felt they were being anti-competitive, and unfair to agents and agents consumers.
Of recent a Andrew Love has been writing from AM to INEA agents saying they must remove their listings from our MLS B2B platform.
When 5-6 agents came forward of recent, there was enough concern that a AM rep had been stupid enough to put this in writing.
As for poking the bear. Its been more to the point of highlighting anti-competitive behaviour that AM has ignored or been complacent about. I’d say their agent warnings to leave us and other portals started long before we stood up and poked back.
‘I can’t give away full intel as evidence has been passed to the CMA and NTSEAT’
With respect, Mr Mealham, that reply is a cop out and unless you are prepared to answer the questions I posed with factual information your credibility and standing in this matter must be treated with circumspection by anyone reading your comments.
@ AgencyInsider:
When 5-6 agents came forward of recent, (having been written too) there was enough concern. Others have since shown concern and come forward in support.
Actually Trevor, why not be totally transparent any come out with why OTM are upset.
Is it possibly because one of your selling points with the INEA is that you could list the property on OTM and RM but you could link up with an agent in another town and then also get the property shown on say Zoopla and be on all three websites?
We know you like manipulating words and rules as has come out with vocal display regarding cartels.
@ Smile – INEA’s tech side is basically a post box (idx/information data exchange) that allows agents to cross share their main agency listings with cobroker agents on gaining vendor consent.
Where agents advertise is between agents. The basis of main/sub agency is that sub agents can offer listings they wouldn’t have had and earn from commission sharing.
Whilst main agents can achieve greater exposure from more outlets = more punters through their sellers and landlords doors.
‘Sub Agency’ is mentioned in various legislation and guidance places by government bodies, thus must be seen as a lawful and viable consumer solution.
So smile, if a property was! on more than 1-2 portals and newspapers, more agents windows/websites, back of buses etc. Wouldnt the main agent be exposing a clients property to a bigger buyer audience? = consumer beneficial, not consumer restrained.
The main detraction is AM/OTM’s own directors restraints and anti competitive rules imposed by a few AND NOT listening to a true 1 agent 1 vote way forward. As such agent members not asked to vote on direction can NOT be held responsible for the lynch mob orders of the few.
Under the title “lies, damn lies and statistics” you’ve written a piece containing the paragraph
It certainly appears to be the case that searches for the term ‘Zoopla’ have fallen considerably while OnTheMarket’s search engine visibility continues to grow and Zoopla could well find they are squeezed as more and more agents come on board.
Has on the market grown it’s search engine visibility to jump from 25th place to 24th. Bearing in mind 70% of traffic flows through google , try 10 search terms in your local area . Look like OTM growing and Zoopla failing ? Did they make the front page even ? It’s a nice thing to say Paul but when you actually do the real world test it looks very much like Rightmove and zoopla fight for 1st and 2nd whilst OTM is battling property pigeon around page 4 ….
“And that is, in my opinion, a fact.” Nope.
That is your opinion and by definition not a fact.
The more important of the two issues is the Countrywide thing – that will have a serious effect on our bottom lines.
I’ve got to the point now where the RM / Z / OTM debate is just watching people being rude to each other arguing the same points again and again. Personally I think we should all just let the OTM team just get on with it – either abject failure or roaring triumph is in their future.
I couldn’t agree with AC more the sentiments above are spot on
I agree as well!
A number of INEA agents have been targeted and written to by Agents Mutual / OnTheMarket saying that agents must uphold the duo’s ‘one other portal‘ rule and take their listings from our MLS/B2B platform. Unfair, as INEA is just 10% portal and 90% other things.INEA has reported this attack as ‘anti-competitive‘ to the CMA and NTSEAT the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team.
INEA does not hold any agents responsible, but we are pointing the finger at the 9 Agents Mutual directors and the 2 On The Market directors. The duo, are shown as separate entities at Companies House. Thus one upholding the restraints of the other can best be described as cartel-like actions.
What happened to the one agent, one vote rule? The agents we spoke to said that when they joined Agents Mutual they were not told that INEA was on the target ban list. Also that since joining, they had not been asked to vote to ban various platforms and portals away from not being on either Rightmove or Zoopla. Agents told us that had leaving INEA been the case when joining AM/OTM, that they would not have joined AM/OTM and as such would not be leaving INEA now.
Eh? What?
Paul, the ‘Detractors’, as you put it are 75% of the estate agency industry, all city analysts, pretty much all property market commentators (at least those who are not sponsored by Agents Mutual), and pretty much anyone who has the thing explained to them (“They’ve done what?!”.
OTM has 10% of Zoopla’s audience and 5% of Rightmove’s, it has stagnated in terms of new members and its audience is shrinking.
It has an antiquated rule – which smells very rotten – which for 5 years tells its members they must limit the marketing of their member’s properties, regardless of what innovation or opportunity emerges in the portal space in that time.
It is increasingly looking like a plaything of the top end agents with double page spreads in Countrylife, sponsorship of the same title’s property website, an international section which is rumoured to have taken over all web development, plush Central London offices, a VERY well paid CEO, whopping great adverts in broadsheet newspapers and a TV advert with soundtrack laid down by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (which I assume came with lifetime membership for the board?!).
Why should someone criticise Agents Mutual?
– it is clearly a project favouring and aimed at the top end of the market
– It is failing to gain audience despite the millions spent on market.
– It offers nothing unique to consumers. It is merely a subset of Rightmove listings but without any of the useful info/features
– It members are leaving – not yet in droves – but agents simply aren’t signing up. Its only a matter of time before that changes
‘Detractors’ isn’t really a fair moniker – I think ‘Realist’ is a fairer description.