Here is one of those newspaper snippets that seems carefully designed to irritate its target.
In this case, it is Rightmove – and to a lesser extent, Zoopla – that has reason to feel needled.
In the City diary in the Telegraph, the headline “Why Rightmove chief won’t be calling agents for London house” is nicely calculated to annoy.
The piece pours a small bucket of cold water over the theory that Rightmove chairman Scott Forbes recently sold £7m worth of shares in the company in order to raise money to buy himself a posh house.
Enter upmarket London agent Trevor Abrahmsohn who tells the Telegraph this is nonsense.
The real reason, he suggests, is that Forbes decided to halve his stake in Rightmove because of falling share prices.
And the catalyst for the 14% fall since February? It is of course Agents’ Mutual – of which Abrahmsohn is one of the original founders.
While Agents’ Mutual won’t launch until January and does not even have a name for its new portal yet, Abrahmsohn says it already having a “tangible deleterious effect” on the Rightmove and Zoopla online listings duopoly.
“They have treated estate agents with jaw-dropping arrogance,” Abrahmsohn tells the Telegraph.
It is interesting that the public relations battle is already hotting up – when Agents’ Mutual has, as yet, no formal PR in place. It is also fair to point out that Rightmove’s shares may have dipped, but so have a lot of others, and Zoopla did pull off a successful stock market launch only last month.
And as it happens, both Rightmove and Zoopla shares headed upwards yesterday. So much for the influence of the City gossip mongers.
But we look forward to the next round with interest.
Comments (50)
Ok PeeBee well I apologise for having a pop at your morals and professional ethics.
"You've clearly got a lot of time on your hand to either (a)cut and paste all those previous quotes and save them all up for a rainy day or (b) look them all up tonight."
The correct answer is (b). And, putting my wife second YET AGAIN (she gave up on me actually talking to her about two hours ago and went to bed…), I HAVE spent quite some time tonight putting together a response to what I take to be an accusation of my having an agenda in this debate other than PERSONAL OPINION.
"But the fact remains that you are giving money and plan to continue to give money to two portals that have created the people that you attack the most, the online agents."
Says WHO? I have NEVER "attacked" online Agents. I attack their claims, when they are clearly full of ********. Which is quite often.
If they just get on and DO what they SAY THEY DO (like the majority of us…) – then good for them – and good for their clients. But loaded dice have no place in my casino.
Please feel free to trawl through five or so years of my posts on this and 'that other' website in relation to online Agents to disprove what I say above.
And as far as the portals having "created" them – REALLY? Come on – you don't really mean that, do you?
They allow them to exist in our world – or at least part of it. You coming off ONE of the portals ain't gonna shut them all down – they will still be on the other one – AND the one you retain.
Result? I don't think so.
"You've mentioned above that you don't heavily rely on the two portals yet you also state that your customers could lose out if your not on them and that your savvy comp can use it to gain instructions"
I don't "rely" on portals – TO SELL a property. But – as I have stated a case – the great majority of Agents rely on them TO GAIN INSTRUCTIONS.
Will I be proven right or wrong? Will it be possible to ascertain the true answer?
There will be several sets of statistics thrown at us in 'proof' one way or another, no doubt.
And with regard to the 'Paul/Paul H' malarkey – going back a week or so, 'Paul' asked a question; I responded asking for more information – and YOU then responded to my post as if you had asked the initial question.
See why I made an assumption?
Anyway… I'm now going upstairs for a well-deserved serving of cold shoulder.
Nighty night. No doubt this will resume in the morning.
See you then – same place as usual! 😉
No Ill drop it… I don't want to be responsible for anyone getting a divorce.
Although I will say(and im sure discuss at a later time)that the online point is an interesting one as surely you must have realised that their business plan relies on lieing and attacking traditional agency.
Next time I will let Paul reply himself.
Paul H (and Robert May)
Further to my statement last night, I wish to make a rather large amendment – and an apology.
I stated " I am not "friends" with Robert May", and I gave reasons for that statement.
Those reasons are true – but the statement was literal, based upon the reasons, and not on reality.
I cannot however truthfully state that I have not built up a friendship – based purely upon remote correspondence – with Robert May.
And it is a friendship based upon the industry we exist within and common views regarding that industry.
I can – and will – state that we have no professional ties. I am NOT Robert's puppet – neither am I his unpaid 'Field Rep'.
I guess in the good old days (you won't remember them, Paul H…) Robert and I – and his mate 'ampersat' for that matter… and George… – would have been 'pen-pals'.
If we ever meet – we will probably hate each other. I will let you know should the meeting ever take place.
But, without face-to-face contact – he's a mate I met on the internet – and probably spend more time with, in that respect, than Mrs PeeBee!
Once again, apologies to you both – but mainly in this instance to Robert.
No need to apologise PeeBee, but when I said "friend" I was referring to more of an EYE friend as opposed to a meet outside if work and get drunk friend or business aquitance. Can we please close this thread now 😉
With respect – I didn't 'open' it… you did.
And you have yet to learn that I don't 'walk away' very easy – ESPECIALLY when my morals and professional ethics are seemingly questioned.
Peebee given that friendship is always built on strong foundations of honesty, integrity and respect I am honoured to be considered your friend, thank you!
Lots of peebeing in that post PeeBee. You've clearly got a lot of time on your hand to either (a)cut and paste all those previous quotes and save them all up for a rainy day or (b) look them all up tonight.
But the fact remains that you are giving money and plan to continue to give money to two portals that have created the people that you attack the most, the online agents. Yet you do nothing about it other then tell them to Bring It on. You've mentioned above that you don't heavily rely on the two portals yet you also state that your customers could lose out if your not on them and that your savvy comp can use it to gain instructions, we can all pull out contradictions in our posts if we want.
Instead Ill go down the 'Put my money where my mouth is route', that's always stood me in good stead.
And to touch again in point raised right at the top of this thread my name is Paul H, Paul is a different poster.
"Perhaps as PeeBee's business is less than two years old his still reliant on rightmove and Zoopla more than most other agents…"
Erm… EXCUSE ME???
1. I am working within a firm which was in business when your Daddy was an itch in your Grandad's pants, mate.
2. My company – particularly my branch – is probably WAY less reliant on the portals than most. What have I ALWAYS said, Paul H…?
"…that is understandable but is out of kilter with the opinon of most established agents"
MOST? You have 2000-odd in your Collective so far, matey.
To me, that means MOST "established agents" are sitting either where I sit on the subject – or somewhere in the middle.
And remember – I am "somewhere in the middle".
"7000 on AM in January…"
REALLY? 650 or so branches a month? And with "Gold" Membership supposedly being pulled at any minute – where is the incentive?
I didn't say my VIEWS were unique. Only me. 😉
Woah steady on old boy, I appear to have hit a nerve 😉
No you and your views are unique PeeBee, nearly every single agent I have spoken with has had enough of rightmove and Zoopla, you seem completely oblivious to the issue.
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?
"Woah steady on old boy, I appear to have hit a nerve"
Hit a nerve? You haven't even broke my skin, Paul H (and believe it or not, it's not as thick as you might think).
At least… not until you followed up with –
"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?"
NOW you hit a nerve. BIG TIME.
Not had for a guy who, only three weeks ago, in response to my comment "Believe it or not – it's for all the right reasons. I have the industry and its customers at heart”, stated
"….There is no douting that PeeBee"
Well… that's one H£ll of a 180 of opinion in a short space of time.
Are you so wrong so often?
Or – oh, dear… is this simply proof that if all else fails there's always the "personal interest" card to play when you're desperate to undermine the opinion of someone who doesn't kowtow to the way of thinking of The AM Collective?
I'll cut back my 'number of reasons you are SOOO wrong' to only a few – don't want to bore anyone more than I have to – but such an inferred accusation of bias requires a response.
1. I am not "friends" with Robert May. We have never met. We are at opposite ends of the country, for starters.
2. I think you will find if you can be bothered to look, we have not always seen eye to eye on various industry matters. I am sure that will continue in the future.
3. Until very recently, I was completely unaware that it was Robert May who posted under the name of 'ampersat', or under any other alias.
4. I put NOTHING before the best interests of this industry. It is where I 'live' – where I HAVE 'lived', for the best part of 40 years – and where I will CONTINUE to 'live' for the best part of 20 more.
I am ashamed to admit this – but even my family have come second over the years.
5. I have nothing to gain from such insinuation. Neither, I would suggest, does Mr May. I am nobody – an anonymous poster on a website read predominantly by those in the Industry.
What could my support possibly gain him?
6. I have NEVER – repeat, NEVER – said that I want AM to fail.
Take, for example, from the discussion above –
"…ONE of us is going to be right and the other is going at some point to admit that they were wrong… For the sake of THOUSANDS of Estate Agents and their customers, I sincerely hope it's me."
Or what about this, from March
"AM might, or might not, be the new ‘Hovis’. For me, the jury is out and I wouldn’t want to be putting my money down until I see the results. Some may think that is shortsighted – but at the end of the day I don’t give ‘my’ money away lightly. I want to see, feel – and benefit from – RoI.
Good for those who cash in if it’s an instant success – the early bird catches the worm and all that.
But in my experience it’s always the second mouse that enjoys the cheese… ;o) "
I would remind you that you actually agreed with me on that point.
And here's an old cherry from a year ago, which I posted an 'that other site' – I reckon you'll LOVE this one…
"…the public would stop 'using' RM, Zoop etc THE SECOND that all the properties were removed and listed on yetanotherpropertyportal.com. They'd have no other choice.
But that's not gonna happen… is it?!"
And, funnily enough – it's still NOT going to happen – we will just move them around a bit in the publicly admitted expectancy that it causes "disruption" in the portal world.
Is THAT "in the best interests of the industry", Paul H?
I, for one, don't bl00dy think so.
Neither, in my unique, unseasoned, opinion will at least a proportion of the public – for whom I have always believed this industry is there to serve.
Or have I got THAT wrong as well?
"I have to say I chuckled that you have been relegated to a mere newbie with an opinion that isn't worth much simply because you aren't chanting the derived mantra."….Not because his not chanting the derived mantra but because I think PeeBees views are not in line with most agents views who I have spoken with who have all had a enough of rightmove and Zoopla. Perhaps as PeeBee's business is less than two years old his still reliant on rightmove and Zoopla more than most other agents, that is understandable but is out of kilter with the opinon of most established agents…As PeeBee has said his views are unique.
"Let's assume too that the gross affect is a 37% dent in branch withdrawals if Paul, Paul, Wilko, AM and Co get 7000 branches signed up. The 63% that remain is enough to be viable and it still almost twice the size of AM."…Who are those 37% you refer to Robert? How much revenue do they currently bring? And how many listings will be coming off of Zoopla? These are the key points that you seem to be side stepping. 7000 on AM in January will mean that Zooplas revenue will be roughly £42m less than now, and will bring their revenue down to £23m.
They are your figures Paul; 7000/18625= 37%
If 37% = £42,000,000 then the revenue will fall from £113.5 million down to £71.5 million I am not side stepping anything Paul but taking your figures, applying them to figures known to the industry and coming up with results slightly at odds with those obviously quoted to you.
If the number of Agency branches is no longer 18625 as reported on a previous thread what is the figure?
Robert, I suggest you read a very recent article on EYE where it was forecasted that Zoopla could lose £30m revenue a year should AM achieve its 5000 target on that trajectory that's £42m with 7000 agents. As you know(being in the portal game) Zooplas incomings for year ending 2013 was £65m it's overheads £30m. 7000 agents in AM in January means an annual loss of £12m all subsidised by the likes of PeeBee.
You did know Zooplas annual turnover I presume?
Again Paul I am sure you are right, someone far more educated than me is putting these stories together but unfortunaetly the figures used to justify one point; the effects of 7000 branches withdrawing from Zoopla, a figure that equates to £6000/annum/branch doesn't tally up with Zoopla only earning £3939/annum/branch which you are now claiming. (£65 million/ 16500 agents on Zoopla)
Either stick to £6000/ branch or stick to £3939/branch but for goodness sake don't mix the two up to make a point.
If the per agent figure is £6000 meaning a drop in revenue of £42 million then instead of only having revenues of£65 million they must be turning over £99million, less 42 million leaves 57 million, less 30 million leaves a profit of £27 million
If the £65 million turnover figure is correct, losing 7000 branches to AM will cost them £27.5 million less £30 million operating costs, they will still be earning £7.5 million profit.
It was a city analyst that projected a £30m loss I assume he took into account some of the firms who have already signed up to AM and the fees they pay.
Thank you Paul I am not sure how "1000 of very experienced entrepreneurs" is 1000 firms but I am sure you are right.
Your welcome Robert. Indeed the number of entrepreneurs could be more taking into account some businesses have more than one owner/director.
But it's fairly trivial really the key is that currently 2800 odd agents will (in most cases) only be using AM and one of Rightmove or Zoopla come January.
Robert
I quoted 1000 firms above which was a rough guesstimate. Will probably be 7000 branches and 3000 firms by launch.
Is that a satisfactory reply Robert?
Oh you'll certainly need to admit your wrong PeeBee;-)
I'm ready, more than willing, and able.
Are YOU? 😉
In your part of the world Peebee, you will have LSL and the many guises of Countrywide along with, as previously mentioned and covered on PIE, a strong base camp of AM members.
Let's assume 44% corporate who won't be coming of Rightmove and Zoopla 25%? (guess) of AM who will come off Zoopla? (guess), that leaves roughly 31% undecided.
In your opinion waht does 2nd January look like t'up North?
Rightmove no change- Zoopla down 25%, a third Portal in the mix. Will that strengthen or weaken Rightmove? (Zoopla if RM is the favoured remaining portal)
Robert are you suggesting that 44% of the industry are either Lsl, Countrywide or Connells or that 44% of corporates will not come off of either rightmove or Zoopla?
I am trying to work out the dynamic of the industry in 4.9 months time and was asking Peebee for his opinion for his part of the world.
Peebee might say the corps only have a 20% hold of where he is. Down here they have no presence at all, in other locations they account for 90% of all agents.
In response to Robert's question…
Yes – BOTH LSL Agencies have a foothold here 'oop North (usually one at the opposite end of every High Street…), as do Countrywide. In the major conurbations, you will find them all present and correct.
Where I am, only one is based in the town – the other two about 5 miles away. They have about 15% of market, and advertise on both portals. The others have only token representations. We 'locals' keep them at bay in the majority of cases – anyways, they should be spending more of their resources, time and effort selling what they have available in their own back yard rather than taking on stuff they have even less chance of selling! 😉
I firmly believe that Z will 'lose' the vast majority of listings up here. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if your guesstimated figure wasn't within a tap-in, if not a hole-in-one, Robert.
But, then… I'm not a "seasoned Estate Agent" – so don't take anything I say as Gospel… 😉
I have to say I chuckled that you have been relegated to a mere newbie with an opinion that isn't worth much simply because you aren't chanting the derived mantra.
Let's assume that Zoopla are the ones to suffer at the hands of Agents Mutual. Let's assume too that the gross affect is a 37% dent in branch withdrawals if Paul, Paul, Wilko, AM and Co get 7000 branches signed up. The 63% that remain is enough to be viable and it still almost twice the size of AM.
Of course but it ain't gonna happen padre
The reply strings certainly take some following!
Barcelona.
(just to make them even more difficult to follow) 😉
Peebee
You keep having blind spots PeeBee should we be worried 😉
I am trying to 'see', Paul H.
So far, no-one has shown me anything that convinces my eyes.
Remember – I have spent as much time in the property industry being a 'client' as I have being an Agent.
And maybe – just maybe – that gives me a different vantage point.
But it's so far convinced 2800 odd branches and 1000 of very experienced entrepreneurs who know precisely what their doing.
You say it gives you a "different vantage point"…I've got to say I've spoken to quite a few people and heard many views about this debate and your views are totally unique. I don't believe they represent the view of a seasoned estate agent and as you've said you've only been an agent for two years….that would make sense old boy. Us long term agents know that it was our money and effort that made rightmove, findaproperty, prinelocation and Zoopla, we know how to make Agents Mutual a success, your not thinking like an agent tho PeeBee.
"…your views are totally unique."
I already said I'm unique, Paul H – tell me something I don't know! 😉
"I don't believe they represent the view of a seasoned estate agent…"
Just a different season, matey.
"…and as you've said you've only been an agent for two years…."
I've only been working AS an Agent for that length of time. Slightly less, actually – but when you consider that immediately previous to that ONE of my roles was running a Lettings Agency, I suppose technically I've been a "seasoned" Property Agent for 22 consecutive years and counting… which puts me there right when we started feeding and nurturing the beasts you now aim to slay.
"…we know how to make Agents Mutual a success…"
Sorry – but I don't think you do. Just because you have SEEN IT DONE doesn't mean you can do it. I've seen brain surgery on TV – but I couldn't hold a scalpel to a head.
"…your not thinking like an agent tho PeeBee."
Oh, I am – just a different kind of Agent. That's me being unique again, matey. I've made a career of it.
I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if and when the time is right.
How many firms is that Paul?
Come again Robert?
You quoted 2800 branches, I was just wondering how many firms that is.
Paul H
I think you know that I am NOT a portal rep – but I am totally in agreement with Danny's summing up of an AM presentation… and I've had the dubious pleasure now of being to TWO of the chuffin' things!
That makes two of you then PeeBee, but you are slowly becoming the minority.
New AM GOLD members are currently signing up at the rate of 100 a week, not only signing up but also loaning money to the venture such is their belief in the project and their understanding that an agent owned portal is required for the industry.
To be honest PeeBee both yours and Danny's views are beginning to sound outdated, AM is now being embraced by thousands of agents across the length and breadth of the country and will be seen as the portal for traditional agency, you and Danny will simply be left behind.
Quite right Paul H. Agents really are "putting their money where their mouth is" on this one.
MF. Yes, they are.
However, from those that I know in my patch, I would suggest that 80% of those Agents are probably doing so for the WRONG reasons…
"AM is now being embraced by thousands of agents across the length and breadth of the country and will be seen as the portal for traditional agency…"
Meaning WHAT, exactly, Paul H? That buyers and tenants will now have to search MORE sites to get the same results they did before? Because basically – that's 'it'.
Or is it?
Say 50% came off RM, and 50% came off Z. The figures don't really matter. They say on one or the other. So… the stock stays in the same places it was originally.
Just MORE of it from SOME of the Agents in a THIRD place.
Matey – the 'rise' of the onlines is proof that SOME sellers and landlords don't give as much of a fuppeny tuck as you and I do about whether the Agent they choose is 'traditional' or whatever – and this is ESPECIALLY true in respect of the buyer and tenant, who basically just want the roof over their head.
I quote the words of one of 'The AM Collective' – wilko from another of EYE's articles:
"I have NEVER said in ANY post that selling property should only go through the traditional agency route and not through an online agent. I have even gone on record as saying that the likes of emmoove have a good businees model, which is sure to get stronger."
So – even though AM is lined up to kill off the duopoly, your own bretheren know that at least SOME onlines will continue to disrupt your disruption.
Ally THAT to my comment – in my opinion you are choosing not to see the wood for the trees I'm now convinced.
"To be honest PeeBee both yours and Danny's views are beginning to sound outdated…"
To be equally honest, Paul H – I don't give a hoot. My views are my views – simple as. Sorry you're miffed they don't concur with yours – but this way, ONE of us is going to be right and the other is going at some point to admit that they were wrong.
For the sake of THOUSANDS of Estate Agents and their customers, I sincerely hope it's me.
"…but you are slowly becoming the minority."
Thanks, Paul H – I don't mind in the least being "the minority". In fact – I'll go one better.
I'm unique. A minority of one.
It's a great feeling 😉
Speculation. Nothing more and rather distasteful.
I know AM has many letters of intent, but wonder how many will actually bite the bullet when the decision has to be made.
I am still surprised that if AM are going to take on the world, I haven't heard a peep out of any of their BDM's – not so much as an email, though a few in the network have attended meetings.
I hope AM succeeds – it can only be a good thing if it does. I really don't want it to fail as that would simple strengthen the duopoly it seeks to break.
Eric are you saying that you have either not been to a presentation or contacted Agents Mutual to get the. to contact you if so I am quite surprised to say the least?
I have got the presentation and fully understand the concept.
Eric,
apologies for replying on this forum and not directly. I think I know which agency you represent, but don't want to make the wrong assumption and make contact with the wrong person.
I am one of the Business Development Consultants working for Agents Mutual in the North West and Midlands and of course we want to make contact with all our interested agents and those who haven't yet seen any presentation.
If you can, please give me a call on 07798-736-883 or e-mail lee.hynes@agentsmutual.co.uk and I can make sure the most relevant person to help with your requirements gets in touch.
Kind regards
Lee
Lee, I have seen a presentation recently and if I can offer some constructive feedback more than half the time was spent telling us about rm and z share price , doom mongering , frenzy whipping and fear peddling . Not much actual substance about your own business … Which is asking me for more money than my current contract with one if the portals I advertise with … And get a good response from …. I'll politely decline your kind offer to charge me more and limit my marketing options , if you succeed I can advertise in a couple of years . If you don't succeed I'll be expecting the phone call offer me AM for £5 and a handshake
Lee, don't worry about Danny…his our resident Zoopla rep mascarading as As an agent..but judging by the amount of people signing up to AM he will be applying for a job with you fairly soon!
I read this in the paper. Either this Trevor is a great investigator or a totally unpleasant character.
If it were my money in agents' mutual I'd prefer the directors to be concentrating on building a good business, not throwing their handbags around launching personal attacks.
I hope Mr Forbes had the sense to enjoy his massive gains away from the press (whether I think he earned it or not) on the private island he can now afford.