Here is the OnTheMarket.com logo which is unveiled today.
It can now be seen on the Agents’ Mutual website and on a ‘Coming soon’ website (link below) which went live overnight.
Chief executive Ian Springett said that member agents will be given the ability to use the logo “very soon”.
For the pre-launch period, agents will be provided with logos incorporating a “coming January 2015” rider, which will fall away at launch time.
Member agents will also be given access to a full suite of logos for use from launch onwards, so that they can begin preparing their own marketing – in their offices, advertising, on agents’ own websites, on property particulars, etc.
These crucial co-branding details will be available from next week.
Springett also revealed that OnTheMarket will be the consumer/portal brand, while Agents’ Mutual will be retained as the agent/portal brand, and used in communications with agents.
Agents’ Mutual itself is being positioned as the “Home of OnTheMarket.com”.
When it comes to developing consumer campaigns, OnTheMarket.com will be the flagship brand and, effectively, the trading style of Agents’ Mutual Limited.
The new OnTheMarket logo is based around a map marker which has been designed to resonate with the property-seeking public as a symbol of their search.
The design also looks like a ‘bull’s eye’ suggesting a target.
The shape of the map marker becomes the initial O (for OnTheMarket) and it is this O which will act, where necessary, as a stand-alone symbol.
Springett said he is delighted with the design of the new logo which looks fresh, vibrant, relevant and mainstream.
He said: “The three colour design will help us achieve powerful differentiation from our competitors and serves to underline the ‘UK-ness of our primary offering.”
A quick, but useful, explanation of the logo is at the first link.
The second link takes you to the ‘Coming soon’ page for OnTheMarket.
http://marketing.agentsmutual.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/OTM-logo-show.html
Comments (306)
Hmmm… either I've been asleep for part of this discussion, or I've had a 'lightbulb' moment – not sure which but no doubt most will think it's the former…
Here goes nothing – light blue touch-paper… stand well back.
'Benay', in his suggestion that NAEA (and I would therefore have to add RICS) Membership be one of the most valid 'qualification' criteria for entry into a portal that has been heralded to death here as "the portal for the proffessional agent", has raised the opportunity for a very interesting discussion, which I would hope the Editor would wish to follow up on. Both the National Association of Estate Agents and the Association of Residential Letting Agents have given "exclusive backing" to Agents Mutual. What about their Members whose business model does not fit the criteria for membership of the OTM portal? Why are these professional bodies supporting an organisation that effectively segregates some of its' membership from advertising with others whilst allowing NON-Members the same opportunity. Considering their own dismal failure into the portal world, and the super-quick allegiance with AM which was reported last October, with the MD of NAEA stating "We fully recognise that our members have a free choice in their selection of portals, according to the needs of their own business model…
Agents’ Mutual’s proposal for a member firm-owned portal offers a credible alternative to the launch-build-float ‘all for profit’ portal alternatives currently available…
Furthermore, by attaching the membership logo to their online listings, this will enable consumers to clearly identify those firms from whom they can expect a comprehensive and professional property service.”
Reads to me very much like Mr Hayward didn't expect the barriers that have been put in place to some of his paying Membership.
Sorry, Ros – but I would strongly suggest this needs a follow-up – (and I would rather it was here on EYE than you-know-where… ;o) !!)
Funny that THIS point has been seemingly ignored by all…
Peebee said 'according to what I'm reading you see AM as protector of your livelihood – nothing more. You see AM as King Canute – holding back what you see is an inevitable tide of change'
Seems like he might be towing the official AM line there, perhaps now is an appropriate moment to remind you all that at the outset, Ian Springett described AM as a 'BET on the future of high street estate agents'
Why hello, Hound! You've been a bit quiet recently. I trust you don't mean that it is ME who is "towing the official AM line"? If you do – then wash your mouth out! ;o) Your reminder of Mr Springett's famous Ratner moment (well… one of them, anyway…) makes me wonder why he didn't enlist the servicers of our new friend 'easy Chris' as the marketing supremo for AM. After all, his forte is online gambling – why didn't they have a flutter on him – his services were obviously on the market… ;o)
"I'm not sure how anyone is causing disruption…"
With respect, allow me to enlighten. What about this one – which has been used to death wherever appropriate – "…don't worry about Danny…his our resident Zoopla rep mascarading as As an agent..". Or maybe "Le's be honest PeeBee for whatever reason you actually don't want AM to work, perhaps that reason will be outed one day…surely it's not your friendship with Ampersat/Mr May is it that you would put before the industry?" All ways of disrupting discussion – attempting to dissolve a poster's argument by suggesting they have an agenda. It just isn't acceptable, obviously, that SOME posters are simply not taken in by the uberhype spewed out by AM and its' Collective. And their opinions are worthless as a result.
For the record I openly admit to having an agenda Peebee. I want AM to work, I want AM to help control the duopoly ( I don’t think it will be a good at that as is hoped), I want to be fighting on the same side as AM and regarded as a friend not and enemy. I just don't think creating a new duopoly is the way to control subscription levels. There is a subtle but important difference between being critical of the methodology and being against the aims and objectives of the project. Creating and allowing competition to flourish, adding choice into any market is the most effective means to control costs. The second objective; controlling the competition, from experience that is something that will not be achieved on a national level. Competition control has to be achieved individual firms on a local basis.
You are clearly misinterpreting my comments, Peebee, I am not trying to stop or disrupt a conversation, merely expressing my opinions. Granted, I may not put them across as eloquently as others but nethertheless they are my opinions. And heres another…..I bet you've got a word document entitled the "Pebeeing doc" that shows all the juicy comments that you have saved from the likes of me, Wilko, Ric and all the rest of the 'AM collective', if so you really do need to get out more old boy…..Just my opinion PeeBee.
You don't need a memory or a document for detail when you've got Google, bookmarks or favourites Paul.
I am not sure how telling Peebee to get out more is going to help your cause and how else that can be interpreted if not as a cliche insult.
Back to the question Paul…. If membership of AM required a minimum standard of FNAEA would you still get in?
I wouldn't qualify, Benay. My current designation is xNAEA – and I was a mere ANAEA (now redesignated MNAEA) before throwing in the towel and thereby saving Ruth Lilley the onerous task of chasing me for my CPD sheet every year… ;o)
If membership of AM required a minimum standard of FNAEA would you still get in?…No I wouldn't get in as I am only MNAEA..
"…..I bet you've got a word document entitled the "Pebeeing doc" that shows all the juicy comments that you have saved from the likes of me, Wilko, Ric and all the rest of the 'AM collective'…" Nope – but it's by far the best suggestion you've put forward yet, Paul H! ;o)
I have my moments and you should PeeBee as it would save you hours of having to trawl through the EYE archives.
True… but it's amazing what previously-overlooked stonkers jump out at you when you go back through them all! ;o)
And EAT too Peebee!
Robert…"The same name pops up like little pot weed to disrupt proceedings". I'm not sure how anyone is causing disruption, you have had more than enough opportunity to put your points across. Perhaps my only crime is that I am not as articulate as your good self, although I'm sure this is not the first time that you've debated someone who's less intelligent then you.
Paul, my posts on here take a lot of hard work, we have covered why before. I am most definitely not smarter or more eloquent but I do try to post as if we are having a face to face discussion and I always treat others with respect even if their opinion or post point is not the same as my own.
In respect of me having the opportunity to post, I have been denied that simply because I am raising points that don't fit in with the popular view.
SO… now that I'm back online and at least for now being able to post… Jeez – if I wasn't confused before, I sure am now, following wilko's last offerings. Above, he states "And just for the record again….I have never felt fees are the important difference ever….just service levels.". Yet, referring back to an article on 4 July entitled "‘We’d be crucified without the portals’ says top agent", the following statements were made – " What I DO have a problem with is RM and ZPG constantly moving the goalposts to allow online listers to simply sell a listing to a seller, often for less than £100-all in….."; "Have a look at them…all the home pages say that RM and z are their partners and most offer £50- £200 all in!!!"; "You know if a seller in your area puts their property on at the right price with an online agent that lists on RM/z that enough enquiries will be generated for that house to sell. That seller can get that service for less than £100 quid-all in. Yes you can bleat on about how we accompany viewings, have an office, have experience….but hey….customers don't seem to care! Online agency is the fastest growing property industry sector by an absolute mile. I've been studying them and punters are going to them in droves."… and then THIS one from 'Online agent considers legal challenge over Agents’ Mutual ban' in June, in response to a 'hybrid' Agent defending his place in the industry – "I'm sure you have given, and will continue to give great service. I guess that it is in the interest of those that offer high street branches to try and create a separate portal to protect their interests….You have to remember that RM and ZOOPLA have given a platform for people to sell properties online which has created the home estate agent and the move by some to serviced offices…It is a fool that doesn't think that the industry will go online completely…..no, not now or in the near future, but definately in the future at sometime. Just as home / online and serviced agents have prided themselves on how they can use the same portals as the high street agents to sell property for a fraction of the cost of high street agents, the High Street agents have to fight back with their own exclusive portal to further their aims and beliefs." Sorry wilko – according to what I'm reading you see AM as protector of your livelihood – nothing more. You see AM as King Canute – holding back what you see is an inevitable tide of change. It can't and won't. You blindly extol the wondrous virtues of the Emperor's New Clothes. Sorry, wilko et al – if the King is naked on 1/1/15, then you will all get laughed at… and it will be those you seem to 'hate' most – the main portals and excluded agents – who will be laughing loudest.
Sorry to disappoint you after all your research but I think you will find that those fee quotes related to service for fee not "FEES". And that gripe goes for ANY online AGENT advertising on ANY portal….as I don't believe they offer a full agency service for £69-£349 They shouldn't be allowed on RM or Z. In replying with Benays comment we were discussing definition of an agent, which is not defined by fees but by service in my book. Sorry you wasted your time.
You know it's funny, wilko – but I don't think my time was wasted at all…
Cor blimey…I'd not checked this post for a few days and didn't realise you guys were still at it. Based on the following I declare Wilko the winner….." I don't recall AM/OTM ever having rules based on sex discrimination and these sorts of desperate "rules is rules" analogies are completely different and a blatant misuse of important women's discrimination issues."
With respect Paul please don't interrupt a discussion with your petulant schoolboy allegiance.
It is my opinion that you can claim sole responsibility for robbing Property Industry Eye of its potential for B2B discussion.
It is immature social media banter such as yours that discourages readers from posting.
Give it up Benay, I am not saying you are wrong but when one poster reinforces another without realising the first has read your posts and read them with a pre-implied understanding of what is being said you are not going to get anywhere. When Peebee gives up on a thread it’s an indication it has run its course.
You are probably right Robert but this discussion wasn't harming anyone and I was getting around to making the point to Wilko that FNAEA would have been a much more objective test of membership to Agents Mutual than simply plonking a picture frame with the photo of a property in the Living room window, as Wilko has suggested.
I wonder how many of the professional firms in AM would still be regarded as professional if they had to pre qualify with a minimum experience and examination entry of being FNAEA. How about you Paul, are you, could you be a Fellow?
Why do I open on a Saturday? Hint, Hint Wilko I am not an 'online' agent, you haven't read my posts carefully enough.
That would limit the membership a bit Benay! I have been trying to rejoin NAEA for over 12 months. Because ISVA no longer exist NAEA do not recognise the fact I have studied and passed college based examinations which at the time were considered degree equivalent by RICS. The shameful thing is that despite multiple telephone requests and emails to Arbon House I have been waiting 4 months for any sort of contact from them- shocking! NFoPP managed to clear out a lot of us old Fellows and seem to be favouring modern NVQ qualifications in preference to experience. I have to say I don’t understand it at all, especially given the TV ad is back to pushing NAEA and ARLA with no mention of NFoPP.
Unfortunately for the readership, Robert, I have definitely not given up – merely a couple of days' enforced absence! Normal service is now being resumed… ;o)
Hello Peebee I would love to be able to chat on here with you but it seems to me that folk are determined to paint you and I as Bill and Ben simply because we share a similar outlook on the industry. The determination to support the cause at all cost has meant there has been no real business level discussion on this subject and whenever anyone has tried the same name pops up like 'Little pot weed' to preside over/ disrupt the discussion.
Sorry if this sounds a bit facetious Wilko But really? displaying a few properties in ones front window or garden you would tick all the boxes!
Sorry but I fairly much know the Blue book inside out and can remember the White forerunner; Practice notes for Estate Agents. I am fairly certain no-where does it mention if all else fails stick a window display in your front room or garden and one will magically become trustworthy and professional. I am having a hard time thinking this is the official viewpoint. If it is, Hey Ho! Nod, Smile (but not in a mocking way) back up slowly towards the door, then RUN.
I don't know why you take this so personally. I know you understand the reasoning behind otm banning online agents assisted by the points I have made. If I was in charge at otm then I would look at applications from agents like yourself and consider them on their merits. However it is a new venture and surely you realise the line has to be drawn somewhere to start off with in relation to online agents who don't (unlike yourself )serve a local patch ? And I don't see women being allowed into a golf club having any bearing on this discussion…..that was, is and always will be sexist and discriminative. I don't recall AM/OTM ever having rules based on sex discrimination and these sorts of desperate "rules is rules" analogies are completely different and a blatant misuse of important women's discrimination issues.
Afternoon Wilko, I am not taking it personally, this is a B2B discussion site.
I wasn't aware there was a scale of discrimination, in my book discrimination for whatever reason is wrong. In the case of AM's blanket and total objection to online Agents on the grounds of service is as nuts as saying women golfers should not be allowed on the grass. That isn't women's discrimination issue, that is just quoting a rule that has no logical grounding. Would you be happier if I suggested it is as mad as not being able to order a BigMac at breakfast time or having to follow the whole 90 minute (no traffic) route around IKEA.
A while back Hound mentioned the obvious sensible solution to defeating Passive intermediary/ call centre agents by offering a hybrid solution where an agent gets paid to shove stuff on the internet for a fee. It is going to be very difficult for any AM agent to offer such a hybrid service if someone doesn’t clarify this daft rule pretty soon. The upshot is that any AM member will, for 5 years, be excluded from offering the one pricing model that can ever practically defeat the passive intermediaries saying they offer an Agency service bit then dip out of any of the onerous regulations on Agents.
Too much Hoorah & nostalgia and not enough thought and detail for my liking.
Sorry for the double post Wilko the layout of replies hid the original.
You are side stepping the point being made Wilko, that is a PaulH tactic. I certainly think you are capable of answering the point with a bit more than changing the analogy mid subject.
Robert has mentioned an online agent who simply owns her territory by all accounts and it winning instructions away from the officed agents in the area. Being so fervent a supporter of AM and one who posts and makes sense can you explain a logical reason why such an agent should not be allowed into the club?
What is the difference between an online agent who owns her territory and an online agent?…I'm sorry but I don't understand.
re- read using the word commands or dominates in place of owns. That particular online agent is better than the best traditional agent on the same niche area and property type
Sorry, but if I am understanding correctly this still constitutes being an online agent? Assuming I've got that right why would certain online agents (however fantastic they may be) be allowed on a site that has banned online agents? It's a bit like a really professional, good agent wanting to use the RICS logo on their literature…Even though they may follow the rics strict codes of conduct, if they don't employ qualified surveyors they can't be members of the RICS. People may disagree with it and some non rics agents are probably miles better than some that are members but if the public want to search for an agent that is rics then there shouldn't be any non rics members on it.
Wilko I am not being obtuse but please explain the rationale behind it. There is clear evidence that an agent is not defined but their Window display or their properties. The 350 ish Online agents that are reckoned to exist by Rightmove do what exactly to tarnish the reputation of the industry? If you say fees then I have evidence to show the local AM Gold members are one of the worse culprits locally for cut price commission deals and who indulge in some of the most appalling mal-practice I have ever had to compete against. Sorry Wilko just repeating "them’s the rules" is as valid as claiming women can't join St Andrews.
For clarity– that is local to me.
I thought my RICS example made my point clear. Online agents have been refused access to advertise on otm because In my mind the customers who want to be able to go to a branch (either because they feel more comfortable, or even if they feel secure in the fact that they can visit a branch if they are not happy with the service) will be better represented with otm. There are many reasons why the public will want to buy and sell with a recognised high street agent with a branch…..that is proved by the fact that online agency is only 2% penetration. OTM will be a site that they can confidently use without finding they will end up buying or selling through a call centre miles away from their location. From what you say, you are the best and most able agent on your patch. You can either see people locally, or they can go to your home office I presume?. It seems to me that if you display a few properties in your front window/garden you would tick all the boxes. And just for the record again….I have never felt fees are the important difference ever….just service levels.
What is the difference between an online agent that owns her own territory and an online agent?
sorry for the dble post…don't know why that happened.
Think yourself lucky… most of mine don't even get submitted thanks to your cunning plan… ;o)
wilko – re your post above which I responded to some but not all of its' content. I said I'd delve further, which I did – but Benay's picking up and running with the most salient of these, and my ickle huff over the posting issues put it on the back burner. But it wouldn't be considered playing the game if I didn't do my bit, would it – so here goes… "Rightmove acquired(or put out of business) 100's of portals in the early days when it received backing from Hambro Countrywide and Halifax in the early days, and Zooplas' rise to partner them in the duopoly has been based on buying other websites and/or putting them out of business. Do you think that those who liked to look at any of the old sites found it hard to change their browsing habits?" Erm… form what I remember they didn't have to – clicks on the 'old' website names were simply redirected to the new hosts…
Now to the REAL meaty bit… "It was always said that if you were looking in London then Primelocation was your site….how inconvenient for the users when all the riff raff properties throughout the country were put on there a la its merger with ZPG contaminating the "London upper market" that it traditionally served. What I am trying to say …..yet again…is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that there may be room for (albeit initially a niche) market which the public want in their property browsing." wilko – WHICH MARKET – "niche" or otherwise – are you referring to here that OTM will provide the public? IF, as is intimated, you believe that it will cut out "the riff-raff" element then believe me, boyo, YOU HAVE BACKED THE WRONG HORSE. Maybe every Agent in your locale who will be on OTM has a register crammed with squillion-quid mansionettes – but here where the market is REAL, the repo's and dodgy areas are sold for 'old money' prices and those Agents whose books are littered with them will all be dirtying the product with their very presence. I'm talking SUB TEN GRAND, wilko. Could you even contemplate achieving anywhere as low as that PER ROOM in any property you currently market – never mind an entire property? These are your Gold Member brethren 'oop North you are cheapening. The "riff-raff" property you refer to is their bread and butter in some cases – or at least the jam on top in others.
"…some of the public will only want to buy from recognised professional high street agents rather than those online (in the same way London buyers browsed Primelocation for their upper London property)?" Do you REALLY for one nanosecond, believe that such an argument was worth the effort that went in to typing it? Is THAT not more of 'a Ratner' than the previous point that Benay took you so cleanly to task over (still unanswered, I note…)? Let's look at your "recognised professional High Street agents" in a wee bit more detail. Back in August, on the "Savills advert uses ‘real-life’ testimonial – from one of its own staff" article, you made the statement "…..All the local agents should make a nice laminate of the ad and put it in their presentation pack to point out to would be vendors how dishonest the agent has been. Savills should no better…they spend enough time telling people how professional they are and "better" than other agents." Sorry – these guys are 'founding fathers' of the AM venture, are they not; one of the lynchpins of the whole movement? Maybe all their local competitors should do more to distance themselves from such "dishonest" practice – and not advertise their properties on OTM or risk being tarred with the same brush. Seems like a plan to me… Or let me come closer to my own back yard. An Agent 'oop here who is a Gold Member has on their website a "Switch Agent" section – which includes a template for a termination letter! Sorry – 'professional'? WHERE? Come on, wilko – I ain't making it up – this can't be the only Agent in the land puling stunts like that one… or worse – and active within your little perfect bubble of professionalism within our industry (sorry – for "professionalism" read "AM 'qualifying' and paying Members"…).
Lastly – "So please stop trying to second guess what the public want… as NONE OF US will know until next year…." Erm… sorry but isn't that EXACTLY what YOU are doing? Actually no – that's not correct… you aren't guessing "what the public WANT" – you're DICTATING WHAT THEY GET.
"…a new shiny property website that will show "exclusive property" "hidden gems" "special properties" marketed by some of the best known and successful professional agents countrywide." The only part of that which hasn't yet been comprehensively blown out of the water by the arguments of me and others which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge is the "shiny new website" bit – which unless you have been privy to what no-one else has seen, is purely a leap of faith on your part that the Emperor's new clothes will actually be made of fabric and not thin air.
"Those that have OTM in their market appraisal bag will have something different to offer sellers ….ONLY THEN will we be able to see exactly what the public want." Yup – but for those sellers that DON'T want "something different" you are potentially handing their properties to your competition – a point that I have made countless times.
Blimey…really touched a nerve with my last post it would seem. Seriously can you not see that I was using an analogy that some London buyers were happy with Primelocation until it became another Rightmove(zpg) because prior to it having all property on on it SERVED THEIR NEED. In referring to "riff raff property" I was suggesting that this may have been the mindset of the buyers who used Primelocation when it ceased to serve their needs. These comments were soley in response to Pee Bees continuing obsession that the public want only RM and Z and that "no one has asked the public" what they want. My primelocation analogy was used because I don't believe that Pee Bee gave a stuff about the public or any other of the 100s of portal sites that were swallowed or put out of business by the duopoly. Sites that some sections of the public were clearly happy and comfortable to use . In short the public had no choices in any decisions leading up to the duopoly so why now , all of of a sudden, do you think that they should be asked what they want? AM is a nationwide portal and any one posting who thinks that I was referring to property outside of being somehow less important needs to see a doctor to remove the potato from their shoulder. And for the record, my company doesn't trade anywhere near London and sells is some of the most deprived areas in the country, way below the national house price average. Just because there isn't a lot of money in the house prices, and hence lower commissions, does not mean that all property on with us won't be advertised on both rm and otm in 2015…..If….as EVERYONE says RM and Z show all of market then my sellers will be on 1 all of market site and 1 site that doesn't include online agents (the latter for those buyers who maybe don't feel comfortable dealing with a company that doesn't have a high st branch whilst buying their most expensive purchase- and believe me those people DO exist…..which is probably why online agents have only seized 2 % of the entire market)
Sorry to disappoint, wilko – but you can't even begin to find my nerves, never mind actually touch them. Funny that your "analogy" was interpreted in exactly the same way by at least two other posters (clearly indicating its' lack of suitability for the purpose you intended…), yet you don't respond to them in the same way. One squirt kills all known germs DEAD, maybe? Or is it just that I'm wrapped tightly around YOUR nerves that you need to scratch at me like a demented flea-riddled kitty? ;o)
"These comments were soley in response to Pee Bees continuing obsession that the public want only RM and Z and that "no one has asked the public" what they want." I have no such obsession. I have NEVER stated that the public want ONLY those two portals. Show me a single instance where I have. I have simply stated that the public HAVE those two portals; they will continue to HAVE those two portals – but AM (and by virtue their Members) are FORCING change on the public, not giving them free choice, over OTM. The public will choose, I have no doubt.
By the way, I really like your explanation of your listing property on OTM as it is 'entirely for the benefit of those that don't want to deal with yacky, tacky online Agents…' – unfortunately it's a pile of ******* which has taken you six months to come up with as an excuse for simply aiming to save money by dumping expensive portals in favour of a cheaper one. One down; one to go, isn't that the plan? What happens THEN to your "If….as EVERYONE says RM and Z show all of market then my sellers will be on 1 all of market site and 1 site that doesn't include online agents"?
I've said many times that my reasons have changed with regard to AM. You read my posts and you know that initially I joined my branches because I wanted to try and join other agents in trying to take back control of our stock and prevent RM and Z continuing to increase their fees to a point where they became un affordable as an advertising medium. When the main portals started to "partner up" with the online fraternity….and OTM didn't that then became an even bigger consideration than the cost/stock issues. As the industry is now clearly split into two very different service offerings I believe it is good that one site will not have onliners as it is important for the consumer. I've never said that onliners shouldn't exist but I do have a massive issue in them stating "we do the same as High St agents for £69 " Because they don't and it misleads the public.Perhaps the onliners may do a mutual portal for their offering without allowing high street agencies on. All on market may then perhaps be on RM? "'jump ship' to OTM if they don't ABSOLUTELTY HAVE to. MY POINT is 'why should they'? Hence the perceived requirement to 'enforce' change on them" ….Why should they have changed from other sites they were happy to use before RM and Z swallowed them up? And I could go on with many other comments that you make about the public being nice and happy on the duopoly before those bullies from otm come along and ruin it. Still you prefer to play silly word dissection games (as usual) instead of actually commenting on why you feel the public shouldn't be portal disrupted when they have been throughout the lead up and rise to the duopoly we have at present.
"I've never said that onliners shouldn't exist but I do have a massive issue in them stating "we do the same as High St agents for £69 "" I can't disagree with that in the slightest – and have posted dozens of times to that effect. But their claims are no more than those of X, Y and Z down any High Street, wilko – all claiming to be the best Agent in town and digging the knife in the backs of their competitors… they are simply getting the MDT published in the hope and belief that some of the brown nitrogenous sticks some of the time. So far, it has got them a massive ZERO percent gain on where they were three years ago, according to the research published a week or so ago. I would like to believe that 98% of people aren't that gullible – so far those figures appear about spot on. ;o)
You are side stepping the point being made Wilko, that is a PaulH tactic. I certainly think you are capable of answering the point with a bit more than changing the analogy mid subject.
Robert has mentioned an online agent who simply owns her territory by all accounts and it winning instructions away from the officed agents in the area. Being so fervent a supporter of AM and one who posts and makes sense can you explain a logical reason why such an agent should not be allowed into the club?
I am not sure if that is an apology, a climb down or a justification for what you typed Wilko. You certainly intimated straight after your RIF Raf bit that AM was going to be a bit elitist when you posted "What I am trying to say …..yet again…is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that there may be room for (albeit initially a niche) market which the public want in their property browsing"
There is no analogy in that bit so you have me confused.
Neither an apology or climb down….just an explaination for those who didn't understand the analogy….your quote of mine above about initially a niche market is in relation to those that feel more comfortable buying a property from a firm where,if they wish, they can go to an office and speak face to face with someone,before or during any transaction, rather than a call centre 100's of miles away.
Please can I enquire about this hang up with online agents? Are you able to define what an online Agent is and what they do that has every single agent without an office tarred with the same brush?
There are 100s of online firms now, all with different business models…some better than others. They will define themselves as online estate agents a most of the time so you would have to see their service description for individual analysis of what they do. I struggle to see where they claim (in most of their straplines) that they do exactly the same as a high street agent for a fraction of the cost. This is simply untrue, and could be proved wrong in most if not all instances.
Evening Wilko. Extrapolating RM figures there are 344 online Agents. I have spent the summer talking to agents and researching. What becomes obvious is that the internet morphs all agents together. It simply is not possible to distinguish an Online Agent from a traditional one on many web sites or portals. If I am looking and tuned into the difference how is Joe and Jane Public expected to know or care?
I gave an example earlier in this thread of an agent who has abandoned her town centre office and is continuing to trade at the very highest level without them. If I were allowed to post freely without being accused of flogging stuff I would be posting that Online agents have greater fixed costs like for like than traditional agents. The reason? cheap online agents have self destructing fee structures.
I think AM should review the blanket opposition to Agents without offices (Jane Taylor is a credit to the industry and given chance would be a credit to AM) and I think there should be clarification of who is friend and who is foe.
I'm sure some money lenders that work from home within the rules are wonderful at what they do….if I was borrowing money though, i(like most of the public) would have a perception that a high st bank is safer. Fact is , and my point, is that some of the public (for whatever reasons-right or wrong) will feel happier dealing with an agent with an office rather than a front room, or garage and a land line rather than a mobile. It is all to do with perception. If on the market stocks property exclusively for high st full service agents then the section of the public that want that will prefer to use that site. Those that aren't bothered either way will use rm . Our properties will be on both so we should pick up both sections of the public.
wilko… I sort of love the analogy above. The fact that it has zero relevance in the real world we inhabit is in part immaterial – for you it works, and you are obviously committed and you know I admire that commitment. But let's look at both the analogy and the real world and see where the holes appear. In your analogy, people are BORROWING FROM, whereas in our real world they are BUYING THROUGH. In the analogy, you omit the reason that these 'back street' lenders exist – they service those that the regular channels refuse to deal with. Also, back in the day, wilko, 'The Provvy Man' was a respected pillar of the community. He was a friendly face and easy to deal with, whereas the 'Big, Bad Bank Manager' had the opposite rep with many working class folks. They had higher rates than were available from the banks – but at the end of the day the terms were made to be easy and if you needed it and wouldn't be considered 'worthy' of a loan from 'the establishment', then the die was cast. Funny thing is that a proportion of those who made up the business of the 'Provvy' WOULD have been able to go to any High Street source and be accepted – they simply didn't bother to try. BUT… and this is the axis of the debate… we are not now referring to borrowing habits over the decades. We are referring to whether someone would potentially NOT buy their next home if it were not being marketed by an Agent who listed it on OTM. I'm going to say yes – there is the potential for that to be the case. Unless, of course, you bu99er up your own argument and buy a pad through an 'onlinie' simply for the reasons that 99.9999999% of reasonable people make their decisions – WHERE it is; WHAT it is and HOW MUCH it is – and not 'WHO' IS MARKETING IT. Sorry, wilko – but if THAT argument held water, there wouldn't be a tenth of the Agents trading that currently are… would there?
Another point to question. You state "Our properties will be on both so we should pick up both sections of the public." But – for how long on both? Am I wrong in believing that you are one of those that can't wait to ALSO drop the second of the 'duopoly' portals at the earliest opportunity? And WHY make such a song and dance about OTM being the site to differentiate you from those that populate RM/Z – then state you'll still be on the other site anyway? With respect, I have to suggest that those few words scuppered your entire argument.
The question all agents need to ask is… (pretend for a moment you are a say, a buyer like me). I want to buy a house, do I look at Zoopla or RM, with all those properties and abundance or information and features, trusted and useful to me… the buyer, or use OnTheMarket? Think I'll stick to Zoopla / RM thanks!
With respect, if you are a genuine 1st time buyer then the property portals should only really give you a guide to who sells what, for what, in your target area. After that you ought to be relying on the agents the search throws up to take your enquiry seriously and attempt to find you a home.
Having your enquiry taken seriously means going in with a little more respect and a little less attitude than you have projected in that post. Somehow I suspect you to be HPC/GR on here to get a rise out of agents, if not I apologise and suggest you get on first name terms with the Agent who wins the FTB instructions on a regular basis and get your phone number on their mobile.
Robert – I'm with you all the way on this – t'interweb should NOT the place you 'find' your next property, simply a source where you can access information. But, could this not be a typical response from SOME prospective buyers… a 'new breed'… those that spend their lives online, ebaying this and amazoning that? They never leave the comfort of their settees – after all, if it's available online why bother doing anything else… These are the generation who apparently care not for the 'feel' of something – if it has 3.5 stars or above, receives a few half-decent reviews (not one, of course, posted from the company that make, sell or supply the commodity…) and the price fits the pocket they'll buy it blindly believing that if it doesn't do what it says on the tin then stick it up on Gumtree and the next one along will buy it with equal abandon. For those – then the response from '1stTimeBuyer' should serve as a warning to us all.
I am not sure FTB is what he/she claims to be. This is the sort of enquiry the other negs could steal from me while I made the tea.
Robert I'm not totally convinced myself either – BUT… I'm interested in his/her logic for a number of reasons. Whether or not of course this individual would enter into the lengthy (and generally intelligent and reasoned…) debates that I and others had with the HPC stalwarts rantnrave & Sibley's… over their situations remains to be seen – but I for one would welcome this… or the return of the Two Musketeers for further duelling opportunities! ;o)
Hi @1stTimeBuyer – a fair point but ill ask you this, if you are set on a particular area / estate / type of property and you drive past the kind of house or flat you're looking for with a sold sign outside and you didn't know about it as it wasn't on RM or Zoopla (the only 2 you are going to search on) how would you feel? – also do you use social media? – many agents are now tweeting property, often in summary form before they can be listed on the portals………….would you follow an agent on Twitter for access to this info? – Jonnie
How many vendors would knowingly instruct an agent who isn't on RM or Zoopla? There aren't many in my neck of the woods.
Hi Rivero. Interesting question – to which I would first suggest that the million-dollar word is "OR". That being said – I was out seeing a lovely couple at the end of last week who are in their late 80's, who don't give a chuff about this 'internet' thing that my competitors rambled on and on about as the only way property sells these days – and instructed me because I gave them more of my time than the three other agents put together. Best guess is that there are SOME who it won't make tuppence worth of difference to. But the general consensus is you've got to be in it to win it, innit? ;o)
Same old faces, same old posts, same old points! Ros can you please run 1 AM story a week so all this frustration and tension doesn't build up? Trying to catch up & scroll through 244 posts on an Ipad is a nightmare! it's far too easy to hit the adverts and get taken frustratingly off track. I don’t want to work for PIE, not interested in TPO and as for allowing ARPM anywhere near the rent pot…. Nuff said. Please stick the ad’s on the other side away from the scroll bar.
Good to see new posters making sense on both sides of the discussion. Love the way Wilko has let the cat out of the bag about 'riff raff'.
That post got me thinking – for every Million quid palace sold, 40 hovels (using implied Wilko jargon) have to be sold at £150,000 to get the average price down to its reported level. Seems to me there isn't enough commission in the 1:40 £1 million sales to pay for the fancy rif raf free site. Like it or not the 'Rif Raf' will have to be there to pay for it. Cheers for the heads up Wilko! It would be interesting to wonder how Primelocation would be fairing now after 8 years of recession if it hadn't been bought by the Daily Mail.
Well done Wilko I think you just shoved a whole load of agents off the fence & back where they belong.
Hold on PeeBee, I said I liked it, didn't say I agreed to it.
I didn't say you agreed to it either! In fact, I'd be extremely worried what had happened to the Paul H I 'know' so well if you did… ;o)
"You seem to be saying that the consumer should not be asked to change from using Rightmove and Zoopla for another web portal." WHAT???? Paul H – with the greatest of respect, can you not read? Actually, I know the answer to that – of course you can – but your M.O. is to carefully select WHAT you want OTHERS to read – and fill in the blanks accordingly with your own words. The problem with your attempting to do that is in your consistency – or more accurately the total lack of it. You physically quote me stating that, in my opinion. the public should not be MADE to change – then you make a half-ar$ed attempt to invalidate the same comment in the next sentence by rewording what I say to intimate I don't even want to ASK people to look at XYZ instead of the ABC that they are accustomed to. Face fact – you, I – and most definitely AM – know darned well that, given the choice, an indeterminable percentage of the public won't 'jump ship' to OTM if they don't ABSOLUTELTY HAVE to. MY POINT is 'why should they'? Hence the perceived requirement to 'enforce' change on them. The stark reality is that unless OTM offers the public something that they can get NOWHERE ELSE, then its chance of 'success' (for 'success' – read any chance of you sh@fting the other portals and keeping a bit more of every fee in your pocket) is diminished greatly. "…where is it set in stone that the British paying public must use those two websites?" It isn't – I never said it was; I never said it should be. The public have this thing called "free will". They can exercise "the right" to do something known as "choosing" what they want to do; where they want to do it, when they want and who they want to do it with (as long as it's all legal – or they don't get caught…) Oh – but certain Estate Agents want to restrict their choice – to dictate WHERE people search for property. But… here is the killer – NOT ALL PROPERTY WILL BE THERE…
and never will it be, unless as well as 'killing off' the other portals as per your cunning plan, you also succeed in 'killing off' EVERY OTHER AGENT whose business model does not fall within the criteria of AM.
So – by definition – its chances are diminished from Day #1, because in the vast majority of instances they can STILL use their existing search facilities to access the information. Oh – and those existing sources of information will STILL have MORE CONTENT, from MORE SOURCES, giving them MORE CHOICE. At WHAT POINT does any of this start to make a single jot of sense to you and others in The Collective and actually bring about realisation that what I have been saying all along – which others like Rivero, On the Fence, Danny and Benay to name but a few are now echoing – is a VERY REAL problem for the AM venture? Actually – don't bother responding to that one – unfortunately I already know the answer. Just do the usual as per – fingers in ears… chant "la la la la I can't hear you" (credits to Danny…) and at the end of it remind yourselves that we are all *the same person *chuffing idiots *competitor portal reps *liars *disgruntled online Agents who can't join the party (*delete where applicable or combine two or more as required…).
That is a big post Peebee, one of several in this massive thread which really wasn't justified by the story subject ( Tangent- I am getting the old fashion 'Dippy Duck' toys and am thinking of commissioning 16,000 to be made in China, so they can sit in member Agent's windows dipping into the market or pecking on featured properties. Much better than just a sticker; punters and their kids will stop and notice them, perhaps one for Eric Woodhams to consider?)
This thread hasn't really been about just the logo it has become an excuse to post on the whole subject of Agents Mutual (as well as a reflection on PIE itself). I think/hope this tread allows a sea change to take place where proper B2B is allowed to happen. GPL and Rivero have both made good points and I personally think it is time for AM to review its aims and objectives as well as addressing the valid objections, that if not addressed properly, will prevent targets being met.
With the best will in the world 20% membership is not going to topple Rightmove or Zoopla, if property sales where being made to a fresh market the strategy might work but the attempt to take one of them down and all of the other rhetoric is akin to DuckDuckgo replacing Google. {A search engine that does not track browsing and send spooky targeted adverts}
The one other portal rule did not work first time round and is unlikely to have the desired effect second time. Here in North Devon we have agents who favour Rightmove and agents who favour Zoopla, many only advertise on one or the other according to their preference so supporting agents Mutual is an additional and not small expense. Even if they sign up to AM the duopoly is only affected if there is a no other portal rule.
There are a couple of big and consistent objections that I am hearing time and time again, rather than me raise them and take the flack I would encourage there to be more informed and dignified discussion as been attempted in this popular and well read thread. Let’s have more GPL & Rivero level posting.
Re Pee Bees long post…I have tried to refrain from getting too heavily involved with this thread and really only commented on the logo (cue your first research on the thread to check that is right … ok give or take, I maybe made 1 or 2 other comments)..
It seems to me that your most recent long comment relates again to your obsession with the public being asked "what they like" and how AM will disrupt the publics' ease of property browsing. I don't disagree with that completely but the short and colourful history of the property website business has been awash with changes since it's inception. Rightmove acquired(or put out of business) 100's of portals in the early days when it received backing from Hambro Countrywide and Halifax in the early days, and Zooplas' rise to partner them in the duopoly has been based on buying other websites and/or putting them out of business. Do you think that those who liked to look at any of the old sites found it hard to change their browsing habits? It was always said that if you were looking in London then Primelocation was your site….how inconvenient for the users when all the riff raff properties throughout the country were put on there a la its merger with ZPG contaminating the "London upper market" that it traditionally served. What I am trying to say …..yet again…is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that there may be room for (albeit initially a niche) market which the public want in their property browsing. Is it so inconceivable that, bearing in mind onlinies are banned from otm, that some of the public will only want to buy from recognised professional high street agents rather than those online (in the same way London buyers browsed Primelocation for their upper London property)?….after all – it is the biggest purchase of most peoples lives and some may be uncomfortable with dealing with an online agent for a purchase(and you must agree bearing in mind some of the valid comments you have made about the apparent service levels of some of these companies.) So please stop trying to second guess what the public want, and what they will be naffed off with, as NONE OF US will know until next year….For me, in the same way the public took to Zoopla when it was new, they will be fascinated ( I don't think the public can help themselves-me included) with a new shiny property website that will show "exclusive property" "hidden gems" "special properties" marketed by some of the best known and successful professional agents countrywide. Those that have OTM in their market appraisal bag will have something different to offer sellers ….ONLY THEN will we be able to see exactly what the public want.
"Re Pee Bees long post…I have tried to refrain from getting too heavily involved with this thread and really only commented on the logo"…You are clearly far wiser than me Wilko mate:-)
wilko – sorry in advance for 'caps' (Ros can we PLEASE have a bold text facility…) – and I'll try not to 'swear'. Thank you for the considered and somewhat balanced response to my "long" offering – which, by the way, was only 21% 'shorter' than mine… ;o) Am I 'obsessed' with the public's part in all this – darned right I am, as it is THEM whom I, you – and the whole of the industry – owe a living to. I say it until I am blue in the face but I am certain that not one of you actually believe me in the slightest – I DO NOT want AM to fail. I want to be on there – or anywhere for that matter – if and when I see it offers a competitive advantage for both my company and its' clients – and gets results. Maybe my 'problem' here is that I simply lack the foresight – or the cojones to act on that foresight. Maybe I'm in denial that it CAN 'work'. I assure you in repsonse to those three possibilities that I don't; they're plenty big enough; and I'm not. In fact, I freely admit knowing fine well that OTM CAN 'work' – probably a whole pile more likely than it NOT 'working'. But there is also a real possibility that the arguments I have been banging up on these threads now for over a year wilko are now being echoed by others who have previously been silent. You have to admit that I am not as unique as previously assumed (…I was actually beginning to believe it myself…) – and neither are those 'new' posters unique. There is a rich layer of potential (and I'm talking strictly about potential that actually fits the current qualifying criteria) that currently AM have so far failed to tap into – and it is the likes of that 'layer' who will continue to effectively diminish the possibility of the AM venture succeeding as they cannot or will not strengthen it. I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that "some may be uncomfortable with dealing with an online agent for a purchase" – BUT… if they want a property and it is ONLY available via an online Agent, then a team of wild horses ain't gonna stop them buying it (or have the principles of customer choice, availability and demand changed since I last woke up?). It is THAT which MIGHT drive SOME sellers into the arms of the very 'threat' you mention and away from those Agents who, in our mutual opinion, can and will do a better job for the owner. I'll keep this one short. That's your main points covered – I'll probably bore you later with my take on the others… ;o)
Interesting post Wilko! in making a point at Peebee you have given clarity to the whole game plan; OTM is a replacement for Primelocation, free of the inconvenience of all the riff raff properties (and agents who deal with them?) throughout the country.
If you want to build Concorde great get on an build it but do not pretend to be building a Jumbo jet where the economy class masses are paying to help get the thing off the ground. There might be enough elite agents to build an elite property site for elite customers but what you have just posted will help a lot of Agents work out what is actually going on. You are selling 5 year, no refund, season tickets to travel on a plane that doesn't have any economy seating.
For Paul H if you are selling Docklands Penthouses or Country homes with a few acres and a Cotswold Chippings drive you have bought the right ticket, if you are selling flats in Tower Hamlets or ex local authority semis with an allotment and a driveway of lay-by surplus (NITN*) surface dressing you might be waiting a long time for your flight to be called.
*Nicked in the Night
I liked your post PeeBee and now you have 3 likes!
How ironic – I certainly didn't 'Like' having to post it!
"How ironic – I certainly didn't 'Like' having to post it!"…Indeed, perhaps you should have let Rob post it for you.
I speak my own words, Paul H – and don't expect anyone else to speak them for me. I'm unique – remember? Luckily for you and the rest of the world, there's only one PeeBee. (well, actually, there's thousands according to the internet – but only one posting here…)
LOL – I've just been a saddo and verified the above statement. Thought you'd chuckle at the fact that Google page 1 results bring up a company called 'peebeeindia' – that supplies endoscopes! That explains why I'm a complete P.i.t.A, dunnit…! ;o)
Paul H – seeing as your post from yesterday is now firmly stuck in the middle of a very long thread, let's bring it back to the front of the queue in order to address points you make.
"He seems to be against AM because he feels that the consumer will have to change the way they buy property and will therefore require re education on how to do so." Not at all – and you know that to be an incorrect 'reason'. I state that the "disruption" that AM wishes – nay intends – to cause the market is not in the best interests of "the consumer", who simply in my opinion (and in the opinions of many, I would add…) should not be MADE to change their internet habits because it potentially suits the pockets of the Agents.
"The disruption of having to type in a different name into a web browser will cause shock waves comparable to a tsunami (apparently)." It won't be met with cheers, that's for certain. But that's okay – no problem – because the properties are STILL GOING TO BE DISPLAYED IN ONE OF THE SAME PLACES THAT THEY WERE BEFORE the "disruption" took place… thereby defeating the object. Another point that I have made until blue in the face…
"Subsequently he will do whatever he can to pick apart every single minute detail in a desperate attempt to find something wrong with the proposition as well as disrupt the AM train as much as he possibly can with." LOL – you give me far too much credit, Paul H. I am but one minute tooth, on a tiny cog, happily whirring away somewhere within a MASSIVE machine that we call the property industry. Every machine can work just as effectively if the occasional tooth is removed – and this particular machine has back-up after back-up to cover pretty much any eventuality. If I WANTED to "disrupt the AM train" in the way you suggest – I'd be doing far more about it than handbagging it out with you, wilko et al hour after hour. I have said countless times that I DO NOT WANT IT TO FAIL – yet you ignore that and instead paint a picture of me as the villain once again. Well – if having concerns that the AM proposition is NOT in the best interests of the industry or its' customers, that NO-ONE has yet come close to addressing satisfactorily, actually DOES make me a villain – then I am guilty as charged, M'Lud. "P.S. His not even seen the latest Memorandum apparently!" NO "apparently" about it. I am NOT registered with the AM site, therefore I have no access. I suppose, in fairness, that I COULD have seen it if someone cared to share it with me – but that has not happened as I have no interest in seeing it. I get my 'fill' of AM propaganda right here from you and the rest of The Collective – and rightly or wrongly I take what I see posted 'as read' that it is from AM Towers and verified information. YOU LOT are MY "Memorandums" – I need look no further for AM information. 'Rivero', on the other hand, apparently has the audacity to dare to challenge what he sees written by you all, based upon conflicting information he claims to be in possession of – and his honesty and integrity is called into question as a direct result (been there, Rivero… got the T-shirt…still haven't gone away – as is fairly obviously wished by many). And now, from various nooks, crannies and corners, others with similar concerns to mine stick their heads out into what is very heavy 'friendly fire'. I have, through this ongoing process, begun to wonder why anyone would actually elect to join a Collective of individuals who utilise methods of addressing the concerns and 'objections' of others like those displayed on the 'pages' of EYE. I have an unending passion for the industry I inhabit. Just as well, really…
"I state that the "disruption" that AM wishes – nay intends – to cause the market is not in the best interests of "the consumer", who simply in my opinion (and in the opinions of many, I would add…) should not be MADE to change their internet habits"….And here is the bit I do not get PeeBee….this really does not make any sense. You seem to be saying that the consumer should not be asked to change from using Rightmove and Zoopla for another web portal. Please explain to me WHY, where is it set in stone that the British paying public must use those two websites?
Hi Paul. Just one small fact I wanted to add to this thread – I have been a genuine and enthusiastic house hunter this past four months and I quickly discovered that neither RM nor Z have a monopoly on all the property which is available, even now. This meant that I had to look at both portals to make sure I got the widest choice. Now, once you have logged the address into your browser, or even better downloaded the app, there is absolutely no inconvenience in looking at the both of them and very little time lost in doing so. If AM can come up with a half decent web-site, which of course I expect them to, then house buyers and sellers will not find it in any way difficult or inconvenient to look at three instead of two, or two instead of two for that matter, so anyone who argues that the introduction of another portal is making life hard for the property owning public is, frankly, bonkers.
Surely some of my detractors must have enquired over the last couple of days about the number of gold members…even if only to discredit my information (FYI Paul H- by discredit I mean with actual information not slander)?
"Surely some of my detractors must have enquired over the last couple of days about the number of gold members…even if only to discredit my information"…You say you are in receipt of an email telling you everything and sent to you by an AM BDC, so why not simply forward it to the editor of this publication or any other publication, I'm sure that if the story is true then she will enquire with AM as to why they are giving the impression that there are 3500 contracted gold members when in fact you believe there are less than 2300. Is there something you wish to hide by the editor finding out who you are?!
"..AM as to why they are giving the impression that there are 3500 contracted gold members" I haven't seen any evidence of that myself. The only example I've seen of anyone stating 3500 gold members is you. Please direct me to any information from AM which states 3500 gold members?
"Please direct me to any information from AM which states 3500 gold members?" This all came about due to you claiming that there are only 2249 gold members, you made the claim, you substantiate it?
As I've said previously…if Ros confirms she will protect both mine and the BDC's identity + sets the record straight on here I will forward the email to her.
I have no problems vouching for Ros Renshaw's integrity.
I respect that Robert, however I don't know you from Adam. Is it EYE policy for Ros not to engage in the comment section?
I appreciate that Rivero. Very rarely does Ros comment and never on subjects where there is as much passion as on here.
The easy way to spot me from Adam; he insists on wearing a fig leaf, I prefer a tie.
lol…well at least I know for future reference, although the fig leaf would certainly be a marked point of difference from the 'typical estate agent'. I fear then that this will not be resolved, which is frustrating. But if Ros can't confirm to me her discretion (and for that matter set the record straight on here) then I can't really prove my possession of said information. I was hoping Ros would recognise the not insignificant importance of the correct figures in this whole debate and make her own investigations…but I guess 'Paul H calls Rivero a liar but he isn't' isn't a compelling enough headline. Although 'AM proponents vastly overestimate gold membership numbers' or 'AM gold membership sign-ups hit dramatic slowdown etc etc..' might be met with some interest you would think.
She is already between a rock and a hard place. Keeping editorial independence when AM are an advertiser is the thinnest of tightropes but she manages that well.
Fair point and I don't want to put her in a difficult position. Well I guess readers will just have to decide if either I'm a liar or Paul H has received inaccurate information/made wild assumptions. So just for the record here are the figures given to me in an email on 11th August 2014 by a BCD employed by AM: Gold 1 =1824, Gold 2 =415 and Silver=1192. Believe it or don't people. You may of course think it doesn't matter what the figures are, however I would argue that there is a significant difference between 3900 and 2239 committed member offices and if the guy on here shouting the loudest is that far off the mark I would advise great caution when reading his comments on the subject at all. It has been a pleasure (mostly)…whatever happens it will be interesting finding out. Regards, Rivero
I think you have earned enough respect and credibility in two days for me to have no reason to question your integrity.
You are right about the actual national numbers almost being of no consequence. Numbers are required on a local basis so agents can make a decision based on local fact.
I have spoken to the principals of 4 firms local to me, each is reporting a different combination of sign ups and branch count. I suspect like me you are genuinely not trying to cause trouble but are simply after clarity. One thing that might be worth clarifying is whether the branch count includes single firm, same office but specialist divisions who advertise separately. I know of firms who have their residential stock listed separately from the posh homes department and those subdivisions show separately on the existing property websites. That effectively double counts the branch stats on some websites. Is a six branch agency showing as 6 branches or 12 and if 12 have they paid double bubble on the relevant sign up fees?
I emphasise "fast buck virtual estate agents".
If you provide a genuinely comparable service and can acheive as successful a result as a Local Agent then I have absolutely no quibble with that whatsover.
Many online/virtual agents base their pitch for business on the "same service/cheaper price" line. In reality that is most often not the case.
As a Solicitor /Estate Agent in Scotland we deal directly with some online/virtual agents and their service is nothing short of appalling!
They are NOT an estate agent…. they are a "Listing Service"!
If you can provide real estate agency service via online only and NEVER compromise your clients property sale to achieve a sale then I can warmly accept that we both approach our business with the same ethos of acting purely in our clients best interests, that after all is what they are paying for.
And Yes, I do agree that the online shop window is the biggest marketing tool that we have, however it is purely a shop window, the portal doesn't sell houses it simply displays them.
I may be old fashioned in my belief that a Real Estate Agent matters, however if the portal is King then listing houses should be free, sale prices will likely fall and house sales are just similar to car sales, just a thing being sold…. and the chancers that make silly offers will succeed and many homeowners will lose.
I won't roll over for pseudo estate agents however there is clearly space for online estate agency only, so gather up and launch a website to promote real online estate agents and give the clients a clear choice. Easyproperty says it all, I hope your online business remains above the Fast Buck Online Only Agents.
Your business seems to do well as does mine so it seems we are doing the right thing.
A very brief post for now as today is busy sales & instruction day.
I'm pleased to be able to express my views and experience however I am equally pleased to see others air their views which are often contrary to each other.
The fact that there are "supporters", "banter" and some "gamesmanship" is part of debate and life, football, cricket, politics etc.
I still maintain each can make their own decision, I did, I joined AM, I left Zoop and I hope to leave Rmove… because that's what I believe is or will be right for my business… but time will tell. I pay attention to the competition however I am not dictated by their actions… competition is part of our business so let's see how things develop.
For sure AM have caused a reaction from the other portals and without AM we would plod along the same path leading me to eventually sell my children (if I had any), house, car etc to pay the ever rising fees! As importantly I do champion Real Estate Agents and their is nothing wrong with wanting to be part of a web portal that offers that prospect… or has real estate agency surrendered to the world of virtual agents…
I know this, I want. Real Estate Agent to sell my property… am I against online/virtual agents?… absolutely!… fast buck virtual estate agents… however, the public can and will choose who they want and their choice is still available to them. I can go to John Lewis, Waitrose, M&S, Aldi, Argos etc…. there is nothing out there to stop me choosing where to look.
Likewise for estate agency.
Please can I draw you attention to an online Agent in this part of the world as a demonstration that you should not tar all online/virtual agents and fast buck virtual estate agents with the same stinky brush. Google property in Croyde and then find (or make up) a single justified derogatory comment for the agent who hereabouts commands the very highest level of respect from the public, vendors, applicants and competitor Agents. It is not possible to intelligently discriminate against an agent because they no longer have a traditional shop front but there is good reason to control those who bring the business into disrepute. I bet a few readers on here would gladly swap their register, shop front & stance on Online agency for a register and reputation like Jane's.
I have said it before, Estate Agency is a people business not a portal business and the spoils will go to those who understand that!
Robert – I have to completely agree with you on that front. You take me back to 'another place' pre-EYE, not too long ago, where a regular contributor was a chap called Chris, who ran a hybrid model (although he didn't call it that…) from his own home in Peterborough, part of which he had converted into what was quite a swish looking 'office'. He seemed to have his patch well sewn up, as does your lady – and his business was built on doing what he said he would do on the tin. I can point to many 'traditional' Agents whose model is based upon disappointing a higher percentage of their sellers than the percentage they actually succeed for. Corporates get tarred with that brush – but if we are honest a great majority of 'independents' work to the 'numbers game' principle also. I will argue all day (no pun intended) with the Messrs Day, Quirk, and easyPropertys of this world when they continually spout off how much they claim they can 'save' my customers UNTIL they actually do it. If I had a 'Peterborough Chris' on my patch – I would welcome the competition and, who knows, potentially learn from the experience.
And therein lies the problem, there is a big difference between passive intermediary services, those simply facilitating vendors to list on RM and Zoopla. Agents Mutual isn't going to affect them at all; they are working for vendors who have already decided not to use full service agents. From that view point lumping Jane, Chris and all the other area specialist, no office, agents in with portal listing facilitators is policy that makes no sense.
It has been established that AM is not going to save any agent anything but the hope is that it will control future rises in portal costs. I get that, but the clumsy upshot of that is the AM one other policy is producing a stifling impact on anyone who wants the opportunity of innovating and improving technology and marketing process for the property industry, thus reducing sector competition and ensuring prices remain un-necessarily artificially high. One has to wonder what Mr Cable and his mates at Business Innovation & skills think of what in days gone by would have been regarded as restrictive practice.
GPL May I please take you up on something? In your last post you have said "…I for one am happy to join AM, leave Zoopla (as it is insignificant in my area)…". So why, may I ask, have you not left Zoopla long before now? You must have been happy to pay them, month in: month out for the amount of 'insignificance' they supplied to your firm?
I must admit I found that puzzling myself.
Fair question…
Our firm was a collective member of Zoopla, in effect the cost was zero, so they were jettisoned as their portal was not the success here in Scotland that it is inside the M25.
It's interesting speaking to Agents south of the border (Scottish Border… the one with No Passport Control yet!…. and hopefully it remains that way! lol) when asked which agent they would jettison the feedback I get is more towards terminating Zoopla, whilst outwith there is a tendency towards terminating Rightmove…… granted a small sample in the sense that I haven't gone door to door asking and it has only come up in conversation.
The reality, as we all know, is that many agents can't service the costs of all the portals and being at this "crossroads" many will make a choice of whether to stay or go.
I understand some of the concerns raised here about AM however I also know some of the concerns re Rmove, Zoop etc and very often there is a balance struck between your business direction, business costs, portal performance – not being uniform across the UK etc.
I wouldn't hide the fact that I do support the idea of estate agents having more control over their online shop window via AM
because I certainly have no influence with Rmove or Zoop… time & time again I have found the service from Rightmove appalling… and although it is there to serve the consumer it is also there to serve me… and it doesn't… my firm pays the bill each month.
… and when I say "Control" I simply mean ensuring that I receive "Customer Service" that meets my expectations as I/my firm pay for their service. At times I have to be honest and say it has felt "anti-Scottish" however that is a whole other debate and not for this forum as some Scots can easily be identified as anti-English….. an aside was the genuine warmth that the English Team received in Scotland (and Wales, Ireland) at the Commonwealth Games from the Scottish Audience…. sincerely a good thing to witness!
Anyway, it seems I think I am being paid by the typed word here…
Remembering that although the online shop windows serve the public… they must serve the agent as well… why shouldn't they?… I don't expect to pay an estate agent, receive poor service and just put up with it? It is clear to me that the arrival of AM has caused Rmove to review on they treat this estate agent… without AM I was destined to just sit there and receive poor service because I grew tired of pushing for service and not receiving it! In reality I suffered poor service to ensure that my clients received online exposure… I know why I take Virgin Trains because the service is good, toilets clean, staff civil, trains mostly on time etc… or opt for the poor provider just because they have a bigger market share?
So, I'll leave the debate to move on… and promise to "try" and do a 1 line answer in a future post or reply! lol
GPL – you make some exceedingly valid points here – thank you. As far as the "service" aspect of RM etc goes I am 101% in agreement with you that were it not for their position in the marketplace NONE of us would elect to use the main pportals based upon our 'customer experience' – as they so fondly call a click or two on their website. Let's face it – these organisations don't even accept WHO is THEIR "customer"! Unfortunately I fail to see that the arrival of AM will change this aspect of their offering one jot – but the product will no doubt enhance as a result of wanting to be "No1". I think that what we have seen in recent months is simply that – but of course the cynical side of you, me and the world in general automatically leans to suspecting (and therefore suggesting) otherwise. Never mind churning out the 'one-liners', GPL – your versions of War & Peace are far more interesting and debatable! Keep 'em coming… ;o)
Here's the great thing, no-one is forced to join AM.
I for one am happy to join AM, leave Zoopla (as it is insignificant in my area) and either see a vast improvement in Rightmove's service etc that would convince me that it worthwhile to stay… however the real hope is farewell to Rightmove as they have failed to provide service and value for money! If you have a "duff" estate agent would you not seek a better one?
We (our Firm) made our choice to leave and our choice to join and our choice to invest in AM.
It remains the choice of the agent/member.
Despite the fact that I know someone extremely well within one of the "Big 2 Portals" and am aware of some of the "methods" being used in this glorified "bun fight"… I choose not to do the "tit for tat", "he said, she said" stuff! So, personally I can wash my hands re any accusations being made re the "behind the scenes games" in this portal debate.
Debate and choice is fine. Having witnessed the "debacle" of the Scottish Independence Campaigns first hand, living & working in Scotland… one thing shines brightly… ultimately… make your own mind up as the "smoke n' mirrors" is just that… smoke… and… mirrors.
AM, Rmove, Zoop… what will be will be.
It is not correct to claim no-one is being forced to sign up; the oldest and most consistent ‘Force’ in the property industry; what the competition is doing, is being used to gain members. Agents are being told their competition have joined when a quick phone call confirms they have not.
The quality of firms who have signed up ought to dictate at the majority would follow but using staff that within the past 12 months some posters on here were slagging off; the much despised duopoly reps, is seeing the very same gutter sales techniques being used.
Small independent agents who will be paying for Agent's Mutual out of their own spending money have every right to have their concerns addressed and IT IS NOT HELPING that posters like Paul H jump all over, shout down or attempt to discredit anyone who tries to use Property Industry Eye as the vehicle for intelligent B2B discussion. You can wash your hands of the nastiness and unpleasantness but you can't distance yourself from the fact that those practicing it are representing you. By failing to address the concerns of people like Rivero and allowing the disgraceful treatment of such posters you are condoning the likes of Paul H and robbing AM of its credibility.
Thank you for adding a dose of logic, rationality and good grace to proceedings…I was beginning to fear there was little of that available on here.
You're welcome but I am personally disappointed that such a post was necessary. For a collaborative to allow itself to be represented on its chosen media outlet by a group of fervent amateur vigil antes is in my opinion a disgrace. There is no sound reason why for the past 5 months Agent Mutual could not have employed the services of someone charged with representing the brand and engaging professionally. Easy Property have managed it, granted Chris is woefully out of his depth having only a fingertip grasp knowledge of the industry but he is posting, taking and answering questions. Why the AM excecutive board is above engaging with a majority reluctance is unexplainable and unjustifiable.
"There is no sound reason why for the past 5 months Agent Mutual could not have employed the services of someone charged with representing the brand and engaging professionally." HEAR FLIPPIN' HEAR – but I would suggest that the "someone" should have been on board a year ago…!
For professional sales and marketing experts it is simply staggering that some people simply do not understand the concept of overcoming objections.
For month and months and months those interested in AM but with concerns have been highlighting what is preventing them from committing to the project. Instead of someone having the wit to work out that if those objections were taken seriously more agents would sign up. Anyone who posts anything that is not on the Hymn sheet it subjected to what can only be describe as rudeness.
Whether it is Ian Springett publicly describing all Online agents as parasites despite clear evidence that some of the country's better agents have abandoned their High Street premises. Whether it is simply unpleasant and unprofessional character assassination in the National press of a Rightmove executive or the schoolboy petulance on here, there really is an unpleasantness about the whole affair that many agents want nothing to do with, irrespective of the benefits, motivation, conditions, restrictions and commitments involved.
So, that's why I think AM should… succeed.
Rivero… good to see where you are coming from in one post… and yes, you are others are entitled to your opinions.
I came into this business when footfall over the office door, telephone enquiries and newspaper advertising was how estate agency worked.
So, things have changed and always will, progress is inevitable although not always for the better.
Web portals are part of all our businesses for sure however they all are still effectively a shop window for marketing… as more and more arrive I believe they become less effective in the sense of each pushing for your business to make sure you are reaching out to every corner of the market.
Let me make the strongest point of all, for me anyway, all these portals do not replace a good estate agent… and for me that remains a high street, local, village based estate agent… and no, it's not for the "face to face" experience that we bring to our profession as we see less and less of the actual public… however it IS for the REAL EXPERTISE that we bring to the house sales/purchase process.
Time and time again I see online estate agents trumpeting cheaper cost/same service as "expensive normal estate agents" etc etc… the message being save yourself time and money and sell online…
Forgive me however as the current and future benefits of a real estate agent versus a virtual one burns very brightly because if you are a true estate agent you will be earning your sales fee! The job isn't done until you deliver the best result for your client… at least it shouldn't be!
I hope that AM is the beam of light that elevates real estate agents back to the forefront of real estate agency NOT virtual estate agency!
For me, and many other agents no doubt, I dance to the tune of Rmove and Zoopla as they genuinely don't serve me, yet I am forced to pay for their service as they have created the brand and the portal that is deemed to be the one to go for…
yes, the public does currently favour these portals however that wasn't always the case… so, why do some consider that there cannot be change, for the better, for the public, for the agent.
"Wait & See?"…. yes, I understand that and accept that…effectively we all did this when the current portals started, we gradually got on board… so, AM will most likely follow the same path… albeit supporters of AM, of which I am one, would love to see a collective switch as the public would simply follow the property… it is the online shop window that the public follow although they should be placing the same focus on selecting the best real estate agent for them.
John Lewis have an incredibly successful business based on customer service however the have also created a very successful online shop window… you don't go to other online shop windows to see their goods despite the fact that they retail items from a huge variety of makers/manufacturers… you go to John Lewis. John Lewis's website serves them and their customers very, very effectively.
The point for me is… a retailer like John Lewis has combined shop retail and online marketing to the benefit of their business by keeping the focus on their business… my hope for AM is that we can create that for real estate agents…. whereas we currently end up focussing the spotlight on Rmove and Zoopla and driving their business forward when it should be a 2-way street.
Their support of estate agents is "lip service" as we are just the "worker bees" serving "The Queen".
If you like… AM should become the portal to go to for "Real Estate Agents"… I want it to breathe the life back into "Real Estate Agency".
By all means, if you have to "wait & see" that's fine however if you are a "Real Estate Agent" I hope that you do end up stepping on board for the reasons mentioned.
….. I will now shuffle off stage left and leave the spotlight for someone else to command.
So, that's why I think AM should
If you don't mind I'd like to pick up on a couple of points (in the interest of debate, not bickering). Firstly, I agree that the most important point for a vendor is the quality of estate agent, although I'm unsure exactly how relevant the point is to the portal debate. I also completely agree with your sentiment regarding the industry in general, however I believe here in lies one of the problems. I worry that the members who have signed up so far have done so predominantly fuelled by a desire to 'fight back' against the big 2, and to a lesser degree, the online agents. We have all been frustrated for years with R & Z and then suddenly AM offers a way to wrestle back control. I think, though, that this point is particularly distracting. For my mind there are too many similarities with AM's model, core staff etc compared to R & Z's for there to truly be that much of a difference in culture moving forward. Sure you can fix your costs for 5 years, but what use is that if it is a fixed cost on something that doesn't work? I think many agents have allowed themselves to be blind-sided by emotion. You said "so, why do some consider that there cannot be change, for the better, for the public, for the agent."- I'm curious to know why you think AM is better for the public, I can only see that it is better for the agent, which again I fear will be one of it's fundamental flaws. If you mean that AM will be better for the public because it will just include traditional agents, then I would question that- surely it is best for them to have access to all property regardless of source; the public are bright enough to exercise judgement when choosing which model of agent to instruct (if they weren't we wouldn't be market leader in our areas ;-)…trying to manipulate that seems like another mistake to me. My other concern (and I will agree this is probably where I am being overly cynical) is that essentially AM is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' – if AM truly believe in a change of focus, control and culture why are there core staff almost entirely recruited from the very portals they stand against?
Come on, Nick – your techies haven't fixed the chuffin' problem!! It's taken six months to get Jonnie to cross over here to The Dark Side – and now he's here he can't even keep logged in!!
Fixing the issue is at the top of the IT priority list this morning PeeBee. Certainly don't want to risk losing Jonnie's entertaining posts now that he is here.
"GPL, I along with many others have not been able to understand PeeBee's position fully on AM after debating the point for most of this year." I'm sorry to hear you are struggling to keep up, Paul H – you really should have said so earlier, and I would have used shorter words and typed s l o w e r… ;o)
Looks like this to me…
http://www.needaproperty.com/
Wondered who else would notice! ;o) OTF – you know there's no such thing as a "new" idea. Hopefully the OTM will NOT follow in the footsteps of the same portal in terms of website…
Ok PeeBee and Rivero… I don't know your background and your profession etc but lets assume that you are both estate agents…
My background is 28plus years as an estate agent, across a very varied property market/economic conditions with corporate & independent agents and pre internet-remember when people said the internet wouldn't take off! lol
Instead of assume the Alex Salmon/Alastair Darling Dance Off… stats and bickering… give me your clear reasons/views on AM versus other portals as I can't seem to understand what your position is? other than requoting other posters and seemingly bickering for bickering sake?…
It may be that you can't afford to run 2 portals and are fearful of losing business whether you go or stay? And if you are estate agents and that is the case then can understand… wait & see!
However, let's hear from both of you on what your view is?
I think you know my position as I haven't lingered on stats of how many or how few?
Which web portals do you subscribe to and why wouldn't you subscribe to OnTheMarket whether now or in the future.
It would be good to hear your views presented clearly so I can understand.
If you can't or won't then I and perhaps others have to assume you don't wish to debate, just disrupt… and try not to requote me, just use your own words.
Over to you both…
I am an independent agent (don't want to say exactly how many branches but it is in double figures). We list our property with R & Z because it is what our customers have told us they want. We have also conducted pretty robust measuring of ROI from both portals and we feel that return in both cases warrants us continuing (obviously I would like us to pay them both less but I could say that about every cost on the balance sheet). Our position on AM is essentially 'wait and see'. The idea of committing for 5 years to a product as yet unseen and with no customer brand awareness does seem bizarre to me, however I do respect other people's positions. I have concerns about the longevity of a business which needs to try to quash free competition in the market place (which if you think about it they are doing); it should be able to stand on its own feet if it is to survive. Customers don't care about our beef with R & Z, they simply want their property on the sites with the most users. I believe it may be a mistake to downgrade our marketing package (which make no mistake, all AMers are doing in reality) just to try to give R & Z a ****** nose. I also don't think it's truly 'mutual' (domain names owned by separate companies, some agents offered better terms than others etc). In addition I have serious doubts about AM's ability to raise the marketing budget required to realistically take on the big 2 (especially given AM will only have around 25% of UK offices at launch. The reason you may have found me disruptive is because I have reached the point (only posted yesterday for the first time) that I could no longer stomach all the blind 'flag waving' for AM. I have looked back through previous comments on here on the subject and there is an overwhelming atmosphere of delusion and major resistance to anyone who wishes to question the AM business model. So there you have it, do you have any other questions?
GPL, I'm sure you can make up your own mind but I think it clear that the plan for posters like Rivero is fairly obvious, which is to get as many people as possible to not commit prior to launch. They want to scare people in to waiting until after launch as they know it is the best and possibly the only way that AM can now not succeed.
…and why exactly would that be in my interest, given our business would save money if AM does succeed? You just find it impossible to make a comment that is not a wild accusation don't you?
Rivero, For someone who wants AM to succeed you seem to be doing your hardest to persuade people otherwise.
It's a point of view and quite eloquently put, any talk of problems with the AM model doesn't get debate , it gets fingers in ears and "La-la-la-la-la-la… I can't hear you" if you believe in it so much and believe that it's such a good proposition why doesn't rivero tell you where does business and go open on the street using on the market? Personally I refuse to do business with anyone who says you cannot do this that and the other , they haven't built my business for 20 years and I'll be damned to hand over control of my marketing mix to someone who's done this before and sold out. There is also some questions to answer about the ownership of the IP, domain etc's …. Or do you think those at the top of AM love agency so much there working for free. Cue "la-la-la-la-la-la"
I repeat: "why exactly would that be in my interest, given our business would save money if AM does succeed?"
That is 'on the money' Danny
GPL, I along with many others have not been able to understand PeeBee's position fully on AM after debating the point for most of this year. But I wish you the best of luck;-)
He seems to be against AM because he feels that the consumer will have to change the way they buy property and will therefore require re education on how to do so. The disruption of having to type in a different name into a web browser will cause shock waves comparable to a tsunami (apparently).
Subsequently he will do whatever he can to pick apart every single minute detail in a desperate attempt to find something wrong with the proposition as well as disrupt the AM train as much as he possibly can with. P.S. His not even seen the latest Memorandum apparently!
Well it's good to see PeeBee has made another friend in (long time lurker first time poster) Rivero.
Anyway back to the logo, I think it'd fairly good actually but of course I would say that being so (unwisely) invested in the success of AM.
I certainly agree it is better (for your mood) if you concentrate on the superficial aspects of the AM proposal…it is after all best not to look too hard at the detail.
I don't need to look at the details/numbers as I signed up in November when there were only 1500 branches that had given letters of intent.
In which case may I congratulate you on your foresight.
Tis the Sound of Silence from PeeBee…
Okay… seeing as the theme is S&G, here's a reason you could throw into the hat, GPL – you subscribe to RM & Z to 'Keep the Customer Satisfied'. How many MORE reasons would you like me to give you for the money you spend every year? While I'm about it, would you also like me to "remind you" why you pay for light and heating in your office?
Pee Bee says
Apparently our local AM rep is ****–a-hoop that this article has received so much "positive feedback" and "hit an all-time high" in terms of posts…etc etc
PeeBee hereinafter to be known as
"Rumourhasit"… lol
Banter aside, I welcome the real challenge that AM offers and have already seen the reaction from Rmove so that proved beyond doubt….
Competition is by & large a good thing for public & members alike so I look forward to reviewing the performance of AM in January 2016… that will allow us all to judge how well AM fits and whether Rmove continue on there path of trying to retain members by providing what we actually always wanted and most often didn't receive, a decent service at a decent price.
Tis the Season to be Jolly "OntheMarket" is on its way!
"PeeBee hereinafter to be known as "Rumourhasit…" That would be because… why, exactly, GPL?
If there is one thing I've learnt over the last 24 hours or so…don't expect a pro AMer to experiment in substantiation, it is at odds with their DNA.
Yeah – but on the other hand 'Liking' their OWN comments is firmly embedded into the code… ;o)
Roll Up, Roll Up…. the Non Believers….
It's a lot of effort for something you don't believe in?
Remind me of the benefits of Rmove & Zoop…
I'll settle back and await the deluge of positives and real stats….
Persuade me to stay with them?
I'm comfortable now….. please proceed…
"Remind me of the benefits of Rmove & Zoop…" Sorry – you currently subscribe to these portals… and you need someone to remind you WHY you do so…? Strange, to say the least.
It's interesting you use the term 'non believers' as signing up to AM is a little similar to worshipping a God/gods. It requires blind, unremitting faith in an abstract and unproven concept and deep pockets for the collection plate. It is not for us to persuade you to stay with the big 2 or not, it is of course your prerogative. Just because we question the viability of AM does not mean we are huge proponents of R & Z. As I've said before, I would rather AM succeed but I'm not going to sign up blindly just because the principle (on the face of it) is right.
Yes – blind faith is King here, Rivero (and look at his lovely new clothes… ;o) ) – but in fairness I have (affectionately) labelled them "The AM Collective", after "The Borg" on Star Trek TNG. (For the benefit of non-Trekkies, their collective mantra being "Resistance is futile" as they try to assimilate the rest of the Universe into their culture). The similarities are alarming… ;o)
Apparently our local AM rep is ****–a-hoop that this article has received so much "positive feedback" and "hit an all-time high" in terms of posts. Okay… in terms of positive feedback – out of 168 posts, 11 are pro-logo; 3 (me included) are non-committal; and 4 don't like it at all – INCLUDING TWO AM MEMBERS! The other 150 posts are the usual – with a bit of extra venom added for good measure – nowt like welcoming a new poster into the community… and not the best light for Agents Mutual Members to be seen in, I would respectfully suggest. Well, I'm sorry – but if I was AM I'd be pretending this article didn't even exist! :o|
It seems that no-one is going to report the actual gold member figures and no other contributors are prepared/able to verify the numbers, therefore the blind faith AMers will go on thinking they've got 60% more committed members than they actually have! To be honest it's quite laughable.
I like it. It reminds me of the drop pins you get on a virtual map. It's never going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but I can live with that.
"Paul H, it's easy, all you have to do is ask them. That's what I did, but you now don't want the answer do you?"…"He should check his facts then apologise. He won't because he is in denial so I will just have to get over it ;-)"…..Welcome to EYE if anything you've made me laugh today. Don't bother replying as I'm leaving my office in one minute. BYE!
Not an 'on-topic' post, I'm afraid – but am I the only person who is getting 'Logged Out' of this site all the time for no reason whatsoever? Bl00dy annoying when you've lost about ten rants in a day and have to remember what you flippin' typed the first time!
to be fair I don't think the last 150 posts have been particularly 'on-topic' lol!
Me too. I've lost about three posts today.
Were any of them "sorry for calling you a liar but I am in foolish denial, so rather than checking my facts I thought it would be easier to insult your integrity. That way I won't have to admit to having my finger embarrassingly off the pulse, embarrassing as I often post with a slightly superior tone like I really know the score on AM when in fact I am unaware of the most fundamental of facts surrounding my involvement"?
PeeBee et al. Sorry about this login/out problem. It has been raised with I.T.as an urgent issue. (Or maybe we have secret anti-rant filter that remotely detects a rise in a poster's blood pressure and logs them out prevent a breach of 'elf and safety. Theirs. 😉
Nick – you must know how many Gold member branches are committed, would you mind clarifying please?
Rivero – I'm sorry but as M.D. of Eye I do not as a rule comment or contribute to discussions on these threads. That is for our readers. Be assured that our editor keeps a close eye on comments and takes heed of them.
Thank you Nick and I understand and respect this policy. What I would say though, having been a reader of EYE for some time now (you guys do a great job btw!), is that I decided to enter the debate yesterday as I had become bemused by the pervasive sense of delusion and misinformation prevalent in your comment sections. I quoted recently received facts in order to add perspective and balance and was berated as a liar. I believe it is crucial to understanding the progress of AM's campaign to know how many gold members there are (given that silver members are not yet committed in any way). I believe it to be fewer than 2500 and one of your contributors believes it to be around 3900 – this is obviously a wide difference of understanding. I also find it surprising after a quick 'google' and search of your pages that no-one seems to have reported the actual committed numbers of late, everyone is merely happy to accept the 'catch all' figure of '0ver 3500' even though a third of those are not committed. I don't want AM to fail, but I want to discuss the facts so we can all make an informed judgement, yet this site now seems populated by too many with an investment in AM who are happy for misinformation to abound. Given Ros' journalistic credentials I was rather hoping she could shed some light on the 'actual' figures for us please?
Keeping it short, which I and many other agents fail to do! lol
The Investment Return is irrelevant if you truly support the cause. We were founding Gold Member, my firm, however you join along the way and accept the terms if you wish at that time. Entirely transparent.
On Zoopla withdrawal only, I look forward to withdrawing from Rightmove as that will most certainly happen for my firm, again we may have to take the first step to encourage others however, once again, I don't recall every agent rushing
to Zoop & Rmove. Likewise agents are withdrawing at different stages from these 2 portals.
The thing is is Rmove didn't milk agents to death they wouldn't have the problems looming large in their future.
Their CEO sells millions of shares…. I don't believe any reason given other than Rome is Burning, Taxi for Rightmove CEO! Laughable!
As short an answer as I can make it. lol
Just a thought here – could Paul H and Rivero BOTH be 'right'? Is one referring to Member BRANCHES and the other to Member FIRMS? That would go some if not all the way to explain the large differential in 'numbers' they are quoting, wouldn't it?
Oh – and this one's now topped the high score… ;o)
I don't think so, I am talking about number of member branches/offices, as I'm sure Paul H is also.
"I don't think so, I am talking about number of member branches/offices, as I'm sure Paul H is also."…Yes I am.
Okay, guys… I was only looking to potentially smooth the waters between you a wee bit! ;o)
Nice try PeeBee. It's clearly a little difficult for Rivero who seems to be in the previliged position of having received information (1200 silver members & 2300 gold members) that apparently no one else has and all of this from a BDC of AM supposedly.
…and I appreciate that 🙂 We don't need reconciling though. He should check his facts then apologise. He won't because he is in denial so I will just have to get over it 😉
Paul H, it's easy, all you have to do is ask them. That's what I did, but you now don't want the answer do you?
Well if we go on what's on the Agents mutual home page, they have since 1st August quoted "over 1500 member firms with over 3500 offices".
which includes 1200 silver members
…for clarity, 1200 silver member branches
It states this on their website: "More than 3500 offices have signed up for Gold or Silver membership". I thought you said the 3500 figure was solely for Gold? So basically now I bet it's around 1820 gold 1, 500ish gold 2 and 1200 silver.
I'm also curious how many of you signed up at gold 2 or 3 stage? If you did were you not at all miffed you were offered less favourable terms than gold 1? Surely this is a bit 'Animal Farm'…all agents are equal but some are more equal than others?
Gentlemen?
Really?!
It's like Table Tennis! He said, no, he said…
Here's the thing… members and properties at launch are what matters!
Having actually invested along with many others to help get OTM on its way I am interested in the position at launch… when you exchange contracts in England you have secured a sale, all the if's, but's and maybe's beforehand don't matter…
If they do let's start counting how many agents are walking away from Rightmove & Zoopla?
I await the Sound of Silence on "real figures" however add this one in from me!
240 Scottish Estate Agents walking away from Zoopla to OTM…
that's the sound of footsteps marching away…
Those that want stats for AM, tell ME your monthly sales figures, commission, what percentage above your original valuation, or below, that you sold properties for, what is your average fee etc etc etc…
Yup, the Sound of Silence from you and supporters of Rightmove & Zoopla. I would question the business acumen of any real estate agent that doesn't see the real business case for the success of AM.
However, in a democracy everyone is entitled to their opinion, just make sure you can provide an answer in return for queries that you raise… otherwise you are playing tennis alone!
Entertaining Debate? Questionable?! It's as bad as watching the debate over Scotland…. monumental bickering!
FACT? OTM is growing and should build on its success. Those that don't want to join? … that's fine, stay where you are.
You're not a big fan of Simon and Garfunkel by any chance are you?
GPL – "240 Scottish Estate Agents walking away from Zoopla to OTM… that's the sound of footsteps marching away…" Yes, it is. Assuming, however, that all 240 remain on the RM portal you have made no difference whatsoever to THEIR business… people can still search THERE and effectively cut out any need for OTM… and instead of weakening that portal's position I would respectfully suggest you are STRENGTHENING it. (sorry I caps a lot – until the site incorporates a bold feature it's the only way to emphasise…) Your serve! ;o)
A very good point. Detractors cannot say that AM hasn't grown significantly since the start and factually that is a success so far. We should all agree a ceasefire until , say end of January. See what the Zoopla and Righmove share prices are then and whether OTM successfully launched or flopped.GPL is right this is monumental bickering….not lively entertaining debate any more.
True, although it does amuse me a little that whilst you both comment on the bickering, you too cannot resist including your own points in the same post. Yes AM has grown, so what? How can you possibly say it is a success, it doesn't even have a product yet? As others have stated we will not know that until maybe a year from now.
It very much matters who is saying what, please do not try to stifle the debate.
An onerous 5 year financial commitment that for many agents will be an additional spend and one that will place additional business and lifestyle restrictions on agents has to be set on very certain foundations. It is not wrong to demand answers to questions and concerns and it is wholly right to seek clarification of ambiguity especially where there is apparent attempts to mislead. Posters like Rivero have to be applauded for raising their concerns and making their points on what is promoted as the Pro AM site and in the face of some contributors.
There really is little point building allegiance based on fear and false claim, the litigation that will follow will delay, derail and undermine the whole project and the reputations of all involved.
Thank you Benay for helping provide some sense of balance. I am an independent agent, if anything it's in my interest for AM to succeed but I'm fed up with all the false info being bandied around. The full picture is not being conveyed. So who in reality in burdened by a vested interest, me or the agents who have already committed?
Ros – Are you able to confirm with AM exactly how many gold member agents have signed up and are legally and financially committed at this point please? I think it will help clarify the position. Thank you.
I am liking this Rivero poster though I am surpised Paul H hasn't accused him of being a Rightmove or Zoopla rep yet.
I think he kind of is (indirectly).
Nope – more likely to be an incarnation of 'Ampersat'… ;o)
Sorry Peebee, I can see where you are coming from but Rivero is succint without being staccato and can spell.
I stand corrected, Mr May. Maybe then, Rivero is ME posting under another name. Nah – way too eloquent; no overdoing 'capitals' for emphasis; and certainly no poorly disguised gutter-speak littering Rivero's posts. Guess I've ruled myself out of the running. Who can we suggest next as the culprit…? ;o)
Well… there we go – another AM/OTM article… another 100+ posts ;o)
I was just about to post the same thing…..so out of interest what is the record?
I think about 130… but this one is heading through the roof I reckon! Ros will remember when one particular thread in her 'previous incarnation' went to over 550 – and who knows where this one will tail off… it's not doing bad for a morning's worth! ;o)
I think thats going then…..anyone else wanna pick a fight??
It's a shame that this seems to be the all consuming matter for every contributor (along with online v high st). One of the benefits I've commented on before is that forums like this can be great for getting industry info, ideas and opinions and sharing them. Recently it seems that the lead story is either AM/Z/Rm or Online/High street and a slanging match (sorry a bit more civilised than that) duly ensues………More to come I guess. Heres some guaranteed headlines for the coming months……"Zoopla assures investors that income will increase after OTM launch" …."Small technical issue puts OTM launch back 24hrs"…..100s of "New online agent vows to sell houses for FREE" " No Surprises that Easy property fails makes moving simpler or quicker"……"Tesco enter the online market-store cashiers will carry out valuations and epc's"……….eventually…….."Googles' worldwide self sell/agency property portal triumphs"…..It's a shame that these types of stories are the only ones that bring comments in their 100's
wilko – I would agree wholeheartedly however this is essentially a 'news' site which, by definition, will bring more controversy to our screens than networking/sharing opportunities. You only have to look at the post count for 'real' stories – lucky if they get one or two at best.
The other problem is that we inhabit an industry where 'sharing' of ideas is virtually zero. In my opinion, if I or anyone else can put forward something that makes EVERYONE'S life a bit easier then it should be encouraged and received gratefully. However, in reality we all work like schoolkids, writing behind our arms so that no-one else can see our answers. Those that 'share' the best tricks of the trade don't actually practice them – they offer to "train" us all to make us better in what we do… and in fairness all they have usually done themselves is to observe the actions of others and adapted them to suit. Maybe as this site develops (hint, hint, Ros… ;o) ) there could be an area for training and development through sharing – but I fear that the schoolkid mentality of the majority would spoil it for the minority who would use and benefit from it.
Pee Bee I don't even mean networking or sharing opportunities ……but , for example, is it just my offices, or are deals taking significantly longer to through nowdays?(for a variety of reasons) not just a few weeks but, in a lot of cases, months! and this is in an age when technology is supposed to speed things up. If this was, for example, something that was being felt by other agents and someone had a red hot solicitor or a suggestion to get things through quicker it would be worth the exchanges.
All we seem to do at the moment (on cetain topics!) is get dragged into point scoring and mud slinging which doesn't really help us as individuals,business or otherwise, and certainly doesn't change the status quo outside the walls of the forum.
wilko – I wasn't literally referring to sharing opportunities either – I've just read the post again and see where you get that from. And as far as 'networking' goes, I would only want that in the way I (and you) were referring to – sharing of ideas. The end of the first sentence in that post wasn't worded the way it should have been. Other than that, it's a pleasure to agree with you on a matter very close to my heart – the 'good' of the industry! ;o)
Rivero said…"An 'email' from a representative of the company in question yes. So again you think your guess is more accurate than an AM BDC's email?"..So why not send this email to Roz as this sounds like a newsworthy story.
Who's Roz, the editor? I'll consider sending it on a couple of conditions: 1) My identity and that of the BDC in question is protected 2) You apologise for calling me a liar when my claim is substantiated by Roz
If it is true that there is less than 2300 gold member sign ups then I will happily apologise to you, although I say again that AM rep told me as 9 other people in a presentation in June that there was over 2600 gold member sign ups.
I said it was fewer than 2500, you said it was 3500-3900 gold members (depending which of your posts we take). As it happens the figure given to me on 11th August 2014 was 2239 gold members. If that is indeed what my email states you should apologise for calling me a liar should you not?
"If that is indeed what my email states you should apologise for calling me a liar should you not?"…Yes but it doesn't because your fibbing.
Tbh it's not even newsworthy, it's quite obvious if you 'read between the lines' of all the propaganda rather than merely blindly following.
PeeBee said…Paul H – "1821 signed up in the first gold membership which closed 31st December" Signed up, maybe – but NOT ONE of those 'sign-ups' entered into a Contract at that point, did they?YES they all did.
"Only when the mark reached 2000 was a binding commitment entered" No not correct.
"and I still wonder how many of the original 1821 actually put pen to paper?" all of them.
"Or for that matter, the first 2000" See above.
"as unless they ALL did, then the Contract surely wouldn't have been binding on any of them OR AM." there was 1821 gold member sign ups to the first gold membership offer, just read the latest Information Memorandum.
"Whatever is the case – I still think your post to Rivero is out of order. 'Doing down' the opposition in any form is not the way to do it." That is because he is fibbing PeeBee.
Keep telling yourself that. Why don't you email Ian Springett and ask how many legally committed gold members they have? No one likes to back the wrong horse but pretending it's winning when it fell at the first is a bit weird.
I have not seen 1 post from anyone who is backing otm question the sign up figures. Why don't those people who don't believe them contact Agents Mutual to get the stats direct and whilst you are there have a chat about joining. I am convinced that those that while away the hours trying to point score on this forum over the odd contract signed here and there are amongst the serial de railers who don't want it to work for their various (usually personal) reasons. Otm has continued to gather massive momentum throughout the year that will contribute to it's ultimate success.
Like I've said since the early days and the numbers increase every time I say this;….as of NOW in 2015 circa 1 million properties will go onto the market and NOT be on both Rightmove and Zoopla…FACT-they will be on otm. Now if anyone doesn't think that is success (wherever they set their success bar) then they are way way off the mark.
"Why don't those people who don't believe them contact Agents Mutual to get the stats direct" – I have, that's my point.
If we assume the target of 4000 agents is met do you really think the average AM branch is going to list 250 properties in the course of the year?
About 2.2million properties come on and off the books each year that indicates about 110 props per branch average. On that basis 110. Rightmove and Zoopla will be down about 450,000 not as you are claiming Wilko.
"That is because he is fibbing PeeBee." Paul H – that is your opinion, for which you have provided no substantiation. And in MY opinion, saying that Rivero is "fibbing" is way less offensive and confrontational than what you actually stated. Whether Rivero would agree is another matter – but you will no doubt remember the hard time I gave you when you brought MY honesty and integrity into question not too long ago…
Oh – and I don't have access to "the latest Information Memorandum" – I'm not registered, so I can't read what you are quoting from. I AM, however, quoting from information here on EYE on 22/7 – " The original Gold agents who signed up did not have to sign contracts until the 2,000 member office mark was reached. Those who have been recruited since have gone straight to contract." So if, as you confidently seem to think, my comment was incorrect, that is simply because of misinformation reported here – which has NEVER been challenged or corrected by AM.
"That is because he is fibbing PeeBee." Paul H – that is your opinion, for which you have provided no substantiation.” I have said that I was told face to face by a rep in front of 8 other people that there was at that point (in June) 2600 gold member sign ups, now someone is fibbing, hime or me.
“ Oh – and I don't have access to "the latest Information Memorandum" – I'm not registered,”…Poor show old boy for someone with such an opinion on the matter you should at least have signed up.
“so I can't read what you are quoting from.”…Well why are you commenting then when the figures are incorrect!
“I AM, however, quoting from information here on EYE on 22/7 – " The original Gold agents who signed up did not have to sign contracts until the 2,000 member office mark was reached. Those who have been recruited since have gone straight to contract."…I believe the deadline was 31st Jan for the first gold membership and just over 2000 branches signed letters of intent, of those 2000 1821 entered into contracts by end of January 2014”
“ So if, as you confidently seem to think, my comment was incorrect, that is simply because of misinformation reported here – which has NEVER been challenged or corrected by AM.”..In all fairness PeeBee I don’t think it fair to blame EYE for the fact that you haven’t bothered to sign up to information from AM.
"I have said that I was told face to face by a rep in front of 8 other people that there was at that point (in June) 2600 gold member sign ups, now someone is fibbing, hime or me." – you really think they are the only two possibilities? You don't think that either you were sold a line or I was given the wrong information?
Paul H – "In all fairness PeeBee I don’t think it fair to blame EYE for the fact that you haven’t bothered to sign up to information from AM." I'm not blaming EYE in the slightest. I simply said that they published misinformation – purely on the basis you state it to be incorrect, you understand – why should I doubt you. Yet, this has never been raised before by either someone from AM (…but of course they don't lower themselves to correspond with we mere plebs…) or by any of their army of ardent followers. EYE publish what they are given – Ros doesn't make up the news. Now – to "I believe the deadline was 31st Jan for the first gold membership and just over 2000 branches signed letters of intent, of those 2000 1821 entered into contracts by end of January 2014" So what you are NOW saying is that a) of the "just over (whatever that is??) 2000" branches that signed letters of intent, around 9% did not convert their interest into Membership, and b) despite not actually hitting the "2000 office commitment before Contracts" (as was reported) they went ahead with committing those 1821 to a binding Agreement regardless. Oh – and let's not forget that in order for information to be absolute, unequivocal, unquestionable fact, the criteria is that you have to be "…told face to face by a rep in front of 8 other people…" Okay – that's explained all that, then. See – who needs to sign up here and there for information… when we can get it all here in one tidy parcel! ;o)
“Now – to "I believe the deadline was 31st Jan for the first gold membership and just over 2000 branches signed letters of intent, of those 2000 1821 entered into contracts by end of January 2014" So what you are NOW saying is that a) of the "just over (whatever that is??) 2000" branches that signed letters of intent, around 9% did not convert their interest into Membership, and b) despite not actually hitting the "2000 office commitment before Contracts" (as was reported) they went ahead with committing those 1821 to a binding Agreement regardless.” No what I’m saying is that this 2000 figure you quote is incorrect. Initially the target was 1000 and then once this was hit AM started to put in place the management team. They then gave a target of end December to put forward letters of intent, over 2000 did so. They then asked those to enter into legally binding agreements of which 1821 did. I do not know what you are referring to when you say the target was 2000. This is not correct and I believe you have mis-interpreted this.
“Oh – and let's not forget that in order for information to be absolute, unequivocal, unquestionable fact, the criteria is that you have to be "…told face to face by a rep in front of 8 other people…" Okay – that's explained all that, then. See – who needs to sign up here and there for information… when we can get it all here in one tidy parcel! ;o)”…In all seriousness I am amazed that you comment so much about a subject and yet make no effort to find out what they are saying, perhaps you rely on this mis-information being given by some posters on here!
Paul H – "I do not know what you are referring to when you say the target was 2000. This is not correct and I believe you have mis-interpreted this." Okay – I simply repeat what I stated above – "I AM, however, quoting from information here on EYE on 22/7 – " The original Gold agents who signed up did not have to sign contracts until the 2,000 member office mark was reached. Those who have been recruited since have gone straight to contract." I'm not sure if the link will be allowed or not – but here it is: http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/agents-mutual-cracks-past-3000-membership-milestone/ … and you will see that it is the fourth paragraph I have quoted. "In all seriousness I am amazed that you comment so much about a subject and yet make no effort to find out what they are saying, perhaps you rely on this mis-information being given by some posters on here!" Paul H – for all I know it could ALL be "mis-information" – every syllable of every word of every post. And you wonder why I'm sceptical of it all? What have I said to you from Day #1? That I want to see it; to feel it – I want to know that it is working and fit for purpose before I would want to commit on both my, and also my customers' behalf. To which, may I remind you, you stated "I completely understand your position about waiting to see the product before deciding whether or not to jump on board." (20 March). So much water has flowed since then, Paul H – but only ONE of us is sticking to his original stance on the matter!
…..just verifying that Paul H figures tally with mine and, as all know, my company has backed AM from the start and they have published regular updates to those that registered…costs nothing to register and I have always had written replies to any questions put….like I've said "talk to AM – get your stats from there. Members have even seen confidential lists of other companies signed up (which tally with their publicised sign up rate) It is all transparent…….unless you are saying those on the publicised list aren't signed up or interested?….but then you wouldn't know who they are….would you Pee Bee and alike.
Rivero said…" I've been told there are currently around 1200 Silver members so your figures don't add up."…Come on be honest your making it up aren't you?!
How many silver members do you think there are?
"How many silver members do you think there are?"…Probably a few hundred.
Ha! You are a classic
"Ha! You are a classic"..and your 1200 is based on what exactly…an email??
An 'email' from a representative of the company in question yes. So again you think your guess is more accurate than an AM BDC's email?
… and for the Non Believers bickering over numbers of members?
Save your energy and get back to work, go and sell and instruct more properties!
The numbers will go in their own direction. Again I don't recall Rightmove starting with 10 Zillion Members?
Any business or portal has to build or did your agency open its door on Day 1 with 3500 houses for sale?
I'll get back to work now.
I'm not saying it can't succeed due to the numbers, my point is the propaganda and misinformation is being used to paper over the cracks. Mouthy proponents of AM are quoting incorrect figures because it is in their interest for AM to succeed.
…. Oh?
It's Tally Ho for OnTheMarket Logo!
… and BooHoo to Zoopla & Rightmove!
lol
Well, as one of the first Scottish Gold Members and one of the 240 GSPC Members to move from Zoopla I clearly support Agents Mutual and OnTheMarket.
Whether you are a believer or not, time will tell! I don't recall Rightmove opening up with 20,000 members nor Zoopla.
The public want the simplest way to search all the properties online and if we can provide that at a sensible cost then we serve the public and our members.
Frankly, I would love to ditch Rightmove now as they don't serve me in relation to what I pay.
It's like paying an estate agent for poor service and then being asked to keep paying them every month for poor service!
So, after 28 Years in this industry I welcomee and embrace the New Player that is OnTheMarket.
I sincerely hope genuine estate agents get on board as we have done, I understand those that wish to wait & see first…. but to those that comment it will never work?…
….give up estate agency, you clearly should be a clairvoyant!… and you must know the winning lottery numbers each week.
I hope Scotland remains part of the UK and OnTheMarket becomes the only real PropertyPortal for all the right reasons.
We are in effect being given the opportunity to Join UK ESTATE AGENCY online with a portal that serves us and our clients FIRST! So, gather round one & all and lets see if we can make it work! I don't ever recall signing up to work for Rightmove or Zoopla… we only have ourselves to blame!
As someone commented….
Vive La OTM or as we say in Scotland, Gaun Yirsel 🙂
…. and I like the Logo, yes it could have been tweaked however there is NO design that would meet everyones approval.
We are not part of the collective, but I think the logo is excellent. It's very clean and fresh looking and sets it apart from the rest. It also looks rather classy in the window and in advertising. It also has to have an identity on the tiny space on page tabs – so all things considered, fair play and well done.
The logo is pants.
Comment of the week please Roz
Now, now, wardy – you can't say that – you're going OnTheMarket, aren't you? ;o)
Rivero said…"As of mid August less than 425 I've been told."…For someone who I believe has only started posting today you've posted some absolute pearlers!!…With the greatest respect your telling porkies aren't you???
I only started today because my frustration at the propaganda got too much. You can believe what you like but I've got the email. You and your mucker on the other hand call me a liar and yet it seems that the highest gold member figure you've been quoted by AM is not 3500 but 100 more than I said they have!
"You and your mucker on the other hand call me a liar and yet it seems that the highest gold member figure you've been quoted by AM is not 3500 but 100 more than I said they have!"…And that was in June, it is now September. So your saying that (based on an email!) less than 425 had signed up by Mid hat point and yet I had been told in June that there was already 2600 gold members. I think it fairly obvious who's telling porkies here mate!
The email I have is from a BDC from AM from mid August, whereas you are making an assumption..and that's all it is-an assumption. It seems to me that you and PeeBee (who at least has the good grace not to name call) have not asked the precise questions of how many gold, how many silver, how many legally committed and how many legally and financially committed. I assure you I've asked those questions, I have the answers and you are just guessing (whilst at the same time calling me a liar). Your obtuse and blinkered attitude only further goes to give me confidence I am on the right side of the fence – the side where we make commercial decisions based on facts and figures, not speculation.
Rivero – I may have missed something – but who are you referring to as Paul H's "mucker"? As far as I can see, he is alone in questioning your information.
Yes, I apologise for putting you together (I went in to defensive mode).
I'm PeeBee's mucker that's certainly a first ;-)…Oh I'd love to see this reamil from an Agents Mutual BDC (from mid August) claiming that there is only 2245 gold members on board…hilarious.
This is an extract from Ian Springett's email circular dated today: "If you prefer to join as a Silver member, you pledge your support now to list for 5 years – but there's no binding commitment at this stage. We just ask you to confirm in good faith with a Letter of Intent that you'll be happy to enter a contract when overall support from agents reaches 4,000 offices. Support already stands at over 3,500". I've been told there are currently around 1200 Silver members so your figures don't add up. Are you seriously suggesting that in their recruiting emails they are not including Silver member numbers when they quote the support of 3500?
Hmmm… I had to read my own comment several times there – I thought I'd joined 'The AM Collective' without even knowing it! Rivero – for me there are holes in the AM offering that you could sail an oil-tanker through sideways. I've posted literally hundreds of times on the subject and had every kind of reaction from the pro-AM sector that you can imagine – including plenty of rubbishing of my opinion – so believe me I wear the same moccasins as you are here and now. And as you now bear the scars, you will attest that Paul H's admirable passion for the cause sometimes gets the better of him.
Yes sorry I think I misinterpreted one of your comments. As for Paul H, to be fair I think I'd be a bit tetchy if I'd wasted so much money. I guess the truth only hurts once you face it!
Rivero I think the point you are trying to make here is there is no substantive evidence to support the PR and marketing propaganda employed to entice huge sums of money for a concept not yet proven, by a salesman promoting mutuality from the safety of a complex organisational structure.
Yes to a point, that and the fact my integrity has been called in to question my someone who can offer no evidence to dispute my claim, just the fact he has made an assumption. So yes you re-iterate the main part of my point. The second part is that some supporters of AM seem very keen to gloss over the facts and many (if they were honest with themselves) are not very well informed about the actual facts and figures.
Rivero said "Out of interest, why do you think they have 3500 gold members, have they categorically told you that?"…….I was told by a rep in June that there was to that point around 2600 gold member sign ups.
So your statement "The numbers quoted by AM are GOLD members not gold and silver members" is unsubstantiated then.
"So your statement "The numbers quoted by AM are GOLD members not gold and silver members" is unsubstantiated then."….This is a wind up right?!
No. You say they have 3500 gold members but you have absolutely no information to support this do you…oh, other than you have previously been told they have 2600! Oh well of course that must mean they have 3500 then.
"Not according to the correspondence I have from AM which specifically addressed this point, but tbh it doesn't matter as I understand that pro AMers will believe what they want to believe, and to be fair that kind of denial/optimism (whichever you prefer) will be necessary to stand any chance of making it work."…And this very post sums up the desperation and lies now being spread by those who for whatever reason do not want onthemarket to succeed.
Why would I lie? I don't care if it succeeds or not (I just don't think it will). I state information I have been given by AM to support my opinion, but because that opinion differs from yours you call me a liar! I can assure you I have the information in black and white and for you to call me a liar is inelegant in the extreme.
Come on, Paul H – just because a poster has made an unsubstantiated comment there is hardly need for you to do the same. What if Rivero has 'proof' to offer to back up his statement?
"What if Rivero has 'proof' to offer to back up his statement?"…Even you know he hasn't got the proof PeeBee, 😉
No – I don't. And neither do you. For the sake of 'The AM Collective' (whose trust in this venture is unfailing) – I honestly hope he hasn't.
Out of interest, why do you think they have 3500 gold members, have they categorically told you that?
I have an email from AM with the figures on it, but I'm not sharing it for fear of getting anyone it trouble. If you want to believe that means I don't have the email, frankly I don't care. Surely someone from AM reads these comments and they can confirm exactly how many gold members they have to date? If the information I have is wrong then so be it, it will simply illustrate inconsistencies at AM.
Rivero…It would make sense if this email you have was from May or June this year, but it is definitely not the correct figure to date. 1821 signed up in the first gold membership which closed 31st December, are you seriously trying to say that less than 700 branches have signed up as gold members from 1st Jan to 3rd September?
As of mid August less than 425 I've been told.
So I'll ask you the same…have you been categorically told they have 3500 gold members?
Paul H – "1821 signed up in the first gold membership which closed 31st December" Signed up, maybe – but NOT ONE of those 'sign-ups' entered into a Contract at that point, did they? Only when the mark reached 2000 was a binding commitment entered – and I still wonder how many of the original 1821 actually put pen to paper? Or for that matter, the first 2000 – as unless they ALL did, then the Contract surely wouldn't have been binding on any of them OR AM. That being said, in mid July they reported passing the 3000 Member milestone which must indicate that this number of actual Contracts have been signed and sealed. Whatever is the case – I still think your post to Rivero is out of order. 'Doing down' the opposition in any form is not the way to do it.
Sorry – I should have said "IN MY OPINION I still think your post to Rivero is out of order." You seem to think it's perfectly A-Okay.
With a silent investor group owning the domain names onthemarket.co.uk and onthemarket.com just how 'mutual' is this setup?
The whole 'mutual' bit is a very clever marketing gimmick set up in order to help sell 'the emperors new clothes'. Basically all the risk is 'mutual', the potential assets are clearly not.
It surprises me that 'Eye' is readily accepting OTM/AM marketing propaganda yet not fully investigating the background and structure of what is potentially a massive financial gamble by many estate agents frustrated by portal fees.
But as you can see by the majority of posts on here, the readership does not want to read it – they wish to remain in blissful ignorance as they do not wish to acknowledge the fact they jumped in too early. For most, whom have already committed, they do not want to hear the harsh facts (not for at least the next 5 years anyway!)
Parting with tens of /hundreds of thousands of pounds upfront on the word of a salesman is not good 'investment' advice I will give to my children…
Ban all multi agents portals is the only solution .. oh I see that pig has escaped and just went by my window.
That would be the pig on the trapeze from yesterday's articles, Woodentop, mon ami! Anyway – where did you disappear to all those months ago? EAT lost a good contributor far too early – but it's great to see you here on 'The Dark Side"! ;o)
Striking, sufficiently different to RM/Z, and will DEFINITELY be noticed by all who see it in our shops in the near future. This is one way the public will become acquainted with the new article. Another obvious way is on all our websites and written communications. If the so-called AM collective wants to make it a success it will be partly down to us to get behind the marketing….and as for all you fence-sitters and grumps (you know who you are): wake up. It is going to happen and we will make it work 😉
It's ok. Design good, love the name, not so sure the colours are striking enough. What worries me more is that I had the AM rep in last week and they gave me a marketing budget figure of £15m for the first year (not a lot for a launch which needs to include a committed national TV campaign) but had no idea of a budget for the second year. Doesn't instill you with alot of confidence when Zoopla have spent £20m so far this year. Quite happy on the fence for now wishing it all the very best.
Just out of interest as I think I've found a link…how many of you AM stalwarts had Betamax machines (if you're old enough) ?
Now we're talking – 'Brand Wars'! What were you, Rivero – a 'K-Tel' or a 'Ronco' man when it came to your LP collections? ;o)
I've got to say that some of the arguments from the non AM collective are becoming plain silly.
I think the logo looks good i'm looking forward to co branding up the stationary, website and the office in readiness for onthemarket in January, as im sure are all the other savvy agents who have signed up or will do by launch date.
I guess it just comes down to differences of opinion. I would describe committing legally and financially for 5 years to a website which you haven't seen, is yet to exist and has no customer brand awareness at all as silly. It is blind faith fuelled by some kind of strange portal vengeance.
"I would describe committing legally and financially for 5 years to a website which you haven't seen, is yet to exist and has no customer brand awareness at all as silly." Yes me and the other 3500 branches must all be mad!
Ill judged, misguided maybe, not 'mad'. I also believe it's fewer than 2500 offices out of what, 20,000? that have actually committed.
"I also believe it's fewer than 2500 offices out of what, 20,000? "Scroll up to the top of the page on the right is an advert for agents mutual saying 3500 have committed. This figure has not changed since 1st August. However it was announced yesterday that 240 scots scots have also signed up and AM are signing 100 a week. the figure is nearer 3900 not 2500.
Let’s not spoil the party today; getting into the numbers might show how at least one person is claiming certain agents to be on board when the MD of said firm is somewhat in the dark. Oh Pinocchio what a big nose you have!
If you want to describe all the Silver members who are not committed legally or financially at this point as 'committed'. It's this type of delusion that worries me about the whole thing.
"If you want to describe all the Silver members who are not committed legally or financially at this point as 'committed'. It's this type of delusion that worries me about the whole thing."…Sorry but you are ill informed. The numbers quoted by AM are GOLD members not gold and silver members.
Not according to the correspondence I have from AM which specifically addressed this point, but tbh it doesn't matter as I understand that pro AMers will believe what they want to believe, and to be fair that kind of denial/optimism (whichever you prefer) will be necessary to stand any chance of making it work.
I really dislike it – and my agency have signed up as gold members to OnTheMarket! I can't help noticing the similarity between this logo and primelocation. Similar font, and the "O" is to similar to the primelocationlogo. In fact it looks like how I would imagine an early sketch of the primelocation logo with some very basic modification.
Quadrophenia……That's what immediately springs to mind. Might dig out the old fishtail parka and put the logo on the back for a bit of early advertising. Target should have been a winking eye in my view…..but as Ric says….Zoopla is absolutely nothing to do with property.
Instead of the arrow pointing to 4 o'clock it is pointin down to half past. showing how time has moved on from Primelocation. Even the tag line "A way of life" seems to fit.
"Do wot! Do wot! Do you want some Shipside" is the war cry and "Our House" from the Madness can be the theme tune! brilliant!
Outstanding…and comment(s )of the week for me!!!
"We are the mods, we are the mods, we are we are we are the mods"
Hope the OTM outcome is better than the Beachy Head one!
Now if they had put the arrow at between 1 and 2 o'clock, rather than at 6, then that might have given a bit more muscle to the logo.
Peter – you need to see the video methinks! (which kinda tells me there's gonna be a problem… ;o) )
It doesn't matter what the logo is like (I think it's misleading/distracting btw) as the website is doomed to failure. Think about why you are all going to drop Rightmove or Zoopla…is it so you can offer your clients a better product or service? No it's so you can stick it to one of the 'big 2'. I think for many it is a decision born of frustration and is therefore an emotional response, not one geared towards providing the best service for your vendors, so therefore it is not a good business decision. Vendors want their properties shown to as many people as possible, this (almost by design) will not happen with Onthemarket. They will never have as many agents or properties as the 'big 2' and will therefore never have the financial clout to invest in the sort of marketing budget to deliver anywhere near the same traffic to their site. After a year of it not quite taking off, and of you all losing instructions because you're not on Zoopla but your competitiors are, you will have to write off your investment in Agents Mutual and go back to whichever of the 'big 2' you dumped. Like many, I was tempted by the principles behind Agents Mutual, the problem is it is fundamentally flawed commercially. I believe too many agents have jumped in attracted by the promise of wrestling back control without properly investigating the commercial viability. In a way I hope I'm wrong…guess we'll see over the next year or two.
Really Rivero?…………..Losing business because you are not on Z………….I can prove quite the opposite and my opposition would probably agree…….2 of my 4 offices were opened in villages with between 4 and 7 agents all of whom are on Z and both were opened in the past 4 years………both had the most sold and most to sell in 12 months and remain that way today. You are brainwashed!
Ha! Maybe so, although I think there are differences of competitive environments across the country. You obviously have good staff etc and are number one in spite of not being on both big portals, but that doesn't change my mind one iota about the potential for Onthemarket to succeed or fail. It does pose the question why you are investing in AM if you are number 1 without both portals? Do you intend to solely be on Onthemarket? If not, why would you increase your cost base substantially to fight a battle which by the sounds of it you don't need to fight?
Because I believe I can remain number one by paying a portal which will give me a return! not just strip my bank account. I have defended RM in the past for offering a no nonsense good website but the constant increases are ridiculous mine next one due soon!……………………….SO PHASE 2 is what I am aiming for…………….ie when I can say to RM I don't need you as AM offers what I need, until AM get level with RM I am indeed paying more than I need to, BUT my company will help AM have the market share of property locally, so I need to support it to help it work……………. Where I will vomit is if OTM have ridiculous stupid listing information like How long the property has been on and how many visitors and silly premium listings etc………………………………Time will tell……..but I plead with you on your next touting session to use Z against your competitor who is selling the house you plan to tout, so many times Z is counter productive to what our aim is! If you think Z is key to you, you will struggle to come off it…………but only the number 1 portal is really needed! surely?
So you are investing because you are confident you can help OTM become the number 1 portal? Do you not think that's unlikely whilst corporate and online agents are not on there? I am not trying to be argumentative but I am genuinely not getting the whole AM thing.
PS my staff are excellent I have to say……..they make us what we are……….I am lucky in that…..but anyone can have good staff….!
Absolutely……………! 100% confident I can help them……..and certainly in raising the user awareness in the towns I cover……whether they will become No.1 or not time will tell as we all agree……
Sorry but you fell right into the trap RM & Z hope agents would. May I suggest you stop and take a good hard look at how big multi agents portals actually effect your business. We would be better off without any of therm.
I don't disagree with 'we would be better off without any of them' but we both know that's not going to happen. Agents coming together to try to 'rig' a free market will simply not work.
Well… here we go – The AM Collective are wetting their knickers over it… those that are excluded will say it's a pile of cr@p – and the fence-sitters will simply sit where they are, because it's not good – or, in fairness, bad – enough to make you want to commit yourself to a currently non-existent website for the next 5 years. And as far as I am concerned, sorry – but when a company needs to produce a video 'explaining' their logo, I see it as they have no confidence in it themselves…
Don't completely agree with that PeeBee that they have no confidence BUT agree it on first glance I think they could have done better – And as you know I am VERY VERY pro AM……….
Thing is, Ric – when it boils down to the good stuff at the bottom of the pot, all we are talking about here is the extension to your shop window, innit? 'Ric & Co' isn't OTM. It isn't your logo – it's just the logo of one of the places you advertise your wares and services. As long as you get a RoI, there's 'no problemo', as Arnie would say. If you get more out of it – by way of instructions and sales or lettings you wouldn't have achieved otherwise – than the cost incurred, then it's been good money spent matey. Only you will know – and only time will tell.
Time will tell as you say……………. you will not get me changing my mind the OTM will work as it will and it will be a great success and new place for buyers and vendors to see property FIRST hopefully…………..Come on PeeBee join in………you know you want to and I wonder if you actually have and are just being a tad grumpy today………….
"…you will not get me changing my mind the OTM will work as it will and it will be a great success…" I sincerely hope you are right, Ric – for the sake of the property industry and its customers.
"…and new place for buyers and vendors to see property FIRST hopefully…" Maybe that's the problem. Forget the "hopefully" – I know where you are coming from there – but the place for buyers and vendors to see property FIRST isn't on a third-party website, surely – it is on Ric&Co's own website. To quote "Shaun77" yesterday: "How difficult it is to type in a different web address into a browser? They couldn't give a monkeys where they source their information, so long as the information is there. If it's on OTM that's where they will go. RM/Z traffic will dry up in an instant if they don't have any properties to display." Isn't the stark truth about that comment that IF all Agents pulled off ALL the portals – then the ONLY way internet searching for property could be done is to visit all the Agents' websites individually. Which is, let's face it, where you want them in the first place.
Hi PeeBee, I get Ric&Co should be my sole priority BUT I would be a tad short sighted to think Ric&Co is enough to keep me as market leader………….pains me to say but not being on RM at present without a VERY successful No.2 (and I did not think Z was this) my business would slowly fade away…………….The comment from Shaun77 of how hard it is to type in http://www.blabla is true but for my area in the way people say I would consider living in x, y or z, means they would have to type some 40 to 50 http://www.blabla in the browser to be sure of seeing all of the property……. WHICH I WOULD WELCOME if it meant no more paying the big 1 or 2 but that simply will not happen………..if there was no RM, Z or OTM today and we knew not of such a concept……….I would invent it, own it and rake it in and as I have said before take the sh1t RM take whilst on my boat!……….I'm not against the concept of a one stop portal as I would prefer to type in one domain myself if looking to buy, as the site puts all the info in the same format, easy to compare and see……….BUT I am against year on year hikes IF we have a chance to have a portal we as agents can control…….!
"BUT I am against year on year hikes IF we have a chance to have a portal we as agents can control…….!" That's fair do's matey – but what if the portal YOU 'control' needs to uplift prices year-on-year? Things go up, don't forget – whether it be basic stuff like premises, utilities – or what about staff numbers and wage increases… never mind the cost of AM-liveried vehicles for all the area reps… ;o) But joking aside – what if the cost has to rise by, say 3% per annum? Or 5%? More, maybe? You only "control" a tiny bit of the portal, Ric. You cannot control such things alone – and there will be literally THOUSANDS of 'Rics' with the same amount of say in the matter. And when did you ever know TWO Agents to agree on ANYTHING – never mind thousands of the little bu99ers…? ;o)
Well done Team AM – great job.
It works for me – cant wait to get this logo in the windows, on the details, and on the web-site. Just don't mention meercats…
PS I also love the Red Arrows.
The Red Arrows are a stunning thing to behold – but I'm conscious and very wary that there's always the chance of a catastrophe happening right in front of you. There are, apparently, a percentage of people who ardently watch them purely for that reason…
It's a bit poor in my opinion. It reminds me of the RAF which has nothing to do with property so brand awareness goes out the window…. The colors are a little bland. I'm surprised their PR/Branding company didn't do a better job to be honest. It's a very generic logo when really they needed something to make a splash.
I am very Pro AM as you know BUT agree to some extent that the logo is nothing great…….sometimes for me PR/branding companies are too keen to get a house, or a key or in this case a target in the logo for estate agents very 1980's…….simplicity can be very powerful sometimes…………HOWEVER as for nothing to do with houses………tell me what an earth is Zoopla then?………..as I said before it matters not in a way how good the logo is as people will type in w.onthemarket.com not a logo and due to the support and passion from the people who can make this work they will get away with this……………however missed opportunity for me…….it isn't all that and I had to see the video to get it………..
"…due to the support and passion from the people who can make this work they will get away with this…" Just how sad is that, Ric? And, worse, given the hype, the promises and the phenomenal support and commitment that this venture has going for it – how completely unnecessary should it be for you to make that statement?
you in a mood! LOL……….Viva La OTM………… It will be a success!
Ric, matey… it was YOU that made the comment – I was just agreeing with you! ;o)
Actually in the summer and autumn of 1940 the RAF pulled off a bit of a coup against much larger opposition so there is an analogy link there……….. insert paragraph………..
I am getting Mods and Rockers; suits and Ties on Scooters (with LOTS of mirrors tying in the narcissism of the whole affair) Mods would arrive with a whole heap of hullabaloo ( ping ding ding ding burble burble burble) then spend their time rucking with anyone who disagreed or got in their way.
Benay – YOU OWE ME A KEYBOARD!! :o|
No surprise that you don't like it portal person. You have got me very very worried ,however, as you know an awful lot about digital marketing / advertising to corporation level no doubt (I often wonder how someone as mindful and skillfull as you has time to post on this small forum with the enormous amount of responsibility that must come with your high ranking career) . If you say it's bland and too generic then it must be doomed to failure……why oh why did I ever believe those AM people???
Wilko. I don't not like it because I don't like AM, quite the opposite, I just don't think they will live up to their promises. I think you guys (as agents) should be demanding better from them is all.
And I get time to post because I'm retired!
And I just got the note of sarcasm from your post!… Kudos, they really need a sarcasm font on this website. The fact remains I do have all the qualifications and expertise you say, whether sarcastic or not. That said I have seen terrible websites: craigslist, reddit, hackernews to name a few be massive successes and truly innovative websites fail within weeks so who knows, anything is possible 🙂
I don't know if you have seen the film "syrup"….It is a marketing film that is very good in my opinion. If I asked you to draw the up to date Rightmove logo, the current Coke logo (or Pepsi for that matter), The current Barclays Bank Logo, I could go on- and I think you would be surprised how little you have noticed how these companies have changed their logo over the years. I know you could reply that they are already established names but what I am trying to say is that the logo doesn't really matter (as long as it isn't offensive). This logo for otm plays it safe and I'm happy with that. What will happen is that brand will be marketed FACE to FACE to millions of people that will deal with the 1000s of offices that will put their property on the portal (not to mention tv newspaper advertising etc). Do you know of any other portal that has launched with c 17,000 members of staff in all parts of the country selling the portal to people on it's launch. What's more it would exclusively stock circa 1 million properties in the uk in 2015 alone that were not on both zoopla and rightmove….The logo could, in my opinion, have been a blue pig and the site would still be successful because the marketing will make property hunters want to explore it as they would not want to potentially miss out on their dream property. There will be other marketing that could include things like "Great property appears on the market before Rightmove or Zoopla" with member agents putting their properties on OTM 24 hours before the RM/z. I appreciate you are good on the digital/technical side of marketing, but you seem to lack the imagination and insight into what OTM will tell the public it needs regarding a property search rather than what us individuals think they need.
I know the logo doesn't matter in the end but it does at the start. The OTM brand is trying to conquer two very established giants and for that they need recognizable branding. Their branding agency has simply let them down, fortunately it's not to late to change. Don't forget they're not trying to attract agencies because they have sales staff for that, they're trying to attract (in the future) consumers and for that you need something that looks fresh and not designed in 2002.
Bludy Brilliant!!!!! Love it 🙂
erm……..debate is out on the logo – fortunately it matters not as it is the volume of property and the extra marketing and support from the member agents which will make this work……………….. but the TM could be in a more subtle place and the "target" in a way (FOR ME) distracts from the actual name…..you could be forgiven for reading it as "TheMarket.com" if you are not as informed perhaps as we are……….for me if they were intent on sticking a target in there……….it could have floated as a water mark type feature behind some very strong text just saying OnTheMarket……….just my opinion…………….
oh no…….I'm feeling lonely now…………….. it might have something to do with a local agent to me has the same logo………… perhaps I need to stop seeing them when I see this………..
Well that will teach me to click on the first link before commenting next time……with the video it becomes very relevant how the target works with the name……………….and no doubt the TV adverts ect will capture this perfectly……………..
Love it! I think the public will too…
I really like it. Reminds me of an RAF roundel so almost like we are going to war against high charging 80 % profit making non loyal portals!
Well said Greg.