Agents’ Mutual is this morning announcing the name of the portal it will be launching next January – On the Market.
Chief executive Ian Springett exclusively told Eye: “We are still working on our logo, our branding and identity, but I am very pleased to be able to announce our domain name.
“We have been able to secure both .co.uk and .com – so we will be onthemarket.co.uk and onthemarket.com – and we have also bought up some 150 other domain names to protect ourselves.
“These include subversive versions and misspelt versions.
“The board is very pleased with the name, and I think it is as good as possible.
“It does what it says on the tin. It is a well used phrase in the property market, and there will be no issues with consumers not understanding what it means.”
Springett added that in terms of recruitment “we are going great guns”.
He said: “Thanks to our regional and national sales team, we are now recruiting at the rate of 100 offices a week, and have brought on 660 since the end of May.”
Comments (114)
Posted on yet another AM/OTM story – thought I would add it here as well –
COMMENT OF THE WEEK??? "I don't care if I have to make it slightly less easy for the buying public to find a house to buy in the short term if it means my business will still be here in 10 years time." – 'Robin' In fact, I think #onthemarket (there – lets bu99er up your positive seo attempts by adding the latest hashtag malarkey the way you lot do… 😉 ) should also adopt the above – AS THEIR MARKETING SLOGAN. 'Robin' – Trademark it… QUICK! 😉
"Okay… you're wanting to argue about the future – that hasn't been written yet. Come 2/1/15 we will see what the customer chooses. But let's look at a different set of customers”…I take that as your acknowledgment that new customers from 2/1/15 will make their own choice of agent based on being advised who the agent advertises and will not be affected!
“ EXISTING customers on 2/1/15 – who will have the situation FORCED UPON THEM when their Agent drops RM or Z (as well as a number of other portals hardly mentioned anywhere except in your presentations)… in many instances I am sure without any prior knowledge whatsoever that it is being done.”…And finally a valid objection ;-)….I would suggest that every single onthemarket agent will have a responsibility to check their procedures and ensure that before instruction is taken, EVERY vendor/landlord is aware of where that agent advertises, all portal logos and text on websites and all marketing material are up to date. In addition, with the cross over customers ie. The customers instructed just before launch I would suggest that again procedures are put in place to advise all customers in good time. For example if an agent has a 12 week sole agency period then that agent should advise the customer at least 12 weeks before they come off of either Rightmove or Zoopla and perhaps a disclaimer is put in place of terms and conditions confirming that from 2/1/15 their property will not be show on X website if not cold or let by this time. THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY GOOD AGENT CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE CUSTOMER IS AWARE AND IN GOOD TIME.
That’s yet another objection blown out the water, what’s next PeeBee 😉
"I take that as your acknowledgment that new customers from 2/1/15 will make their own choice of agent based on being advised who the agent advertises and will not be affected!" Yup.
"I would suggest that every single onthemarket agent will have a responsibility…" You would SUGGEST? Oh, well… that's perfectly all right then, innit? Base covered as far as you're concerned. But NOT as far as I'm concerned I'm afraid matey…
"In addition, with the cross over customers ie. The customers instructed just before launch I would suggest that again procedures are put in place to advise all customers in good time." AGAIN, you simply suggest. No meat on the very tenuous bone you offer to satisfy my hunger for reassurance. Sorry – simply not good enough.
"THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY GOOD AGENT CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE CUSTOMER IS AWARE AND IN GOOD TIME."
SO, then… WHY NOT START MAKING THEM AWARE NOW??? It's only five-and-a-bit months to OTM-Day #1 – shouldn't be a problem for any of your customers anyway seeing as you Suvvern guys sell 'em in a heartbeat…
Go on, Paul H – put your own ***k on the block. And get all your mates to do it also. Show us how it's done – and that it makes the ZERO DIFFERENCE to your customers that you believe.
“I would suggest that every single onthemarket agent will have a responsibility"….. You would SUGGEST? Oh, well… that's perfectly all right then, innit?”……Well I’m not suggesting that we set up the onthemarket police but yes I would suggest that every agent has procedures in place just int eh same way they SHOULD have procedures in place for money laundering procedures, complaints procedures, staff training, CPR’s adherence and so on, it is down to the agent and I would SUGGEST that Am take a role in taking necessary steps to advise member agents in regards to this, but as you say we have a full 5 and ½ months so plenty of time or all to put in place.
“WHY NOT START MAKING THEM AWARE NOW???”….ill answer that with one of your own quotes….”It's only five-and-a-bit months to OTM-Day”
“Go on, Paul H – put your own ***k on the block. And get all your mates to do it also. Show us how it's done – and that it makes the ZERO DIFFERENCE to your customers that you believe”…..So you want me to tell all my potential customers who will not be affected by my choice of portal now (as I would have sold or let their property by 2/1/15) that I’m dropping one of rightmove and Zoopla?!
"…..So you want me to tell all my potential customers who will not be affected by my choice of portal now (as I would have sold or let their property by 2/1/15) that I’m dropping one of rightmove and Zoopla?!" So it won't bother them a bit then – will it? On the PLUS side – you can show you've "done your bit" for the cause – others will follow – and when the whole Membership does it with the ZERO DIFFERENCE effect you are so confident of receiving, lil ole' PeeBee will have to concede that I was wrong… and you'll get to feel warm and squishy all over!
And your triumphant post will get lots of 'Likes' – not just the couple that you and wilko are giving each other every time… 😉
"lil ole' PeeBee will have to concede that I was wrong"…Oh you'll be proven wrong alright old boy what I find quote bizarre is how you come up with objections that not anyone else has. I reckon you could talk yourself out of a date with Claudia Schiffer 😉
"…what I find quote bizarre is how you come up with objections that not anyone else has."
Erm… I'm unique, remember? I said it – you agreed with it.
"I reckon you could talk yourself out of a date with Claudia Schiffer" Yup – quite easily as a matter of fact. HMS PeeBee the lady in question doth not float, I'm afraid…
"Am I right in saying that the leader of the free market economy, the man who’s answer to the online agents is to BRING IT ON is now saying that he is against a new entrant coming to the market trying to take market share and become market leader…"
No – you are absolutely, totally, utterly, and sadly WRONG. But, then… you knew you were – so this will come as no surprise to you whatsoever.
"No – you are absolutely, totally, utterly, and sadly WRONG."….Ok so your happy for a new entrant to come to market, you just don't want them to cause disruption?
"But, then… you knew you were – so this will come as no surprise to you whatsoever."….Not at all PeeBee.
"Ok so your happy for a new entrant to come to market, you just don't want them to cause disruption?" Paul H – you surprise me. You have previously been capable of more reasoned debate than this. Have you changed your scriptwriter by any chance? Or are you simply running out of steam? I'm not even sure which straws you are desperately trying to clutch at with this response. Trying, as you are, to liken the entry into the market of yet another portal to that of a 'new' type of Estate Agency model is not going to score you a single point in this discussion – quite the reverse.
Let's look at the facts:
Estate Agents – whether High Street, Online, Hybrid or whatever provide a SERVICE to Vendors and Landlords (the customer). The customer chooses the service provider from the available options.
A portal is nothing more to the customer than part of the service that the Agent provides them. It is a method of advertising their property to prospective buyers/tenants – nothing more.
That being the case, WHY would a customer want their chosen Agent to advertise their home in a medium that RESTRICTS it from advertising elsewhere other than there and ONE OTHER PLACE?
You talk "disruption" as if, in the context you use it, it is a good thing. Yet, the "disruption" you are wishing brought on DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CUSTOMER – it is for the benefit of THE AGENT.
And the last time I checked, the customer believed they were the important part of the business relationship between Agent and Vendor/Landlord.
I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with AM/OTM becoming No2 – or even No 1 – Property Portal, Paul H. Bring it on. BUT FORCING IT UPON CUSTOMERS is not the way to do it.
"Portal of choice"? I don't think so – not THE CUSTOMERS' choice.
Why would they? Why SHOULD they?
Peebee:
Re: Yet, the "disruption" you are wishing brought on DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CUSTOMER – it is for the benefit of THE AGENT.
Exactly – that has been my point from day 1 and was the main crux of my very first post on here. This is not for the benefit of the customer, it is for the benefit of agents….BUT…..only certain agents.
The aim is clearly set out in the announcement today by AM……..to break the dupoloy of the two main portal groups and [for the protection] of office-based full service estate agents.
There is nothing in here about providing a better service for customers. It is restrictive, discriminatory and a last ditch attempt to cling on to old working practices.
Let me be clear once more – I am advocating full service estate agency, but that is not a criticism of on-line – the market can take all types and will move on. But, as a full service agency who has a model that is much more cost effective (serviced office) than the high street agency model, as a full service EA I will be unable to join AM.
Why?
My levels of service are as good (better) than most. But because I chose no longer to have a high st agency branch I cannot become a member of AM.
So, it is purely being set up for the protection of bricks and mortar EA, the aim of which is to break up a duopoly and has the interests of the agents at heart and not the customer.
mmmm, interesting. (fail).
JAM01 – Unfortunately, the voices of the few like you and I get drowned out by the constant throb of 'The AM Collective'. Their mantra is akin to that of "Resistance is futile" – but so far only 3000 offices have fallen under their hypnotics, NLP and guerrilla tactics, which is clearly disturbing to them.
"So, it is purely being set up for the protection of bricks and mortar EA…" But Sir that is incorrect – YOU ARE a "bricks and mortar EA" – only the bricks and mortar are apparently in the wrong place to qualify you for 'Membership' of a restrictive portal such as OTM!
I've got to say, 'restrictive' portals are not new – nor are they 'wrong' in my opinion… as long as the 'Membership' criteria is built on sensible footings, such as the PropertyLive model which required NAEA Membership.
I've ALSO got to say, JAM01, that I'm not the greatest fan of the hybrid model of Agency – but at the end of the day I have always said that there are niche markets open to us all and Homesellers/Landlords have a wide and varied choice as to their vehicle to get them from where they are to where they want to be.
I am extremely conscious that AM Members may be backing themselves into a niche on this venture. I sincerely hope I'm wrong – for the sake of the INDUSTRY.
"are you simply running out of steam?"…I'm just getting warmed up;-)
"A portal is nothing more to the customer than part of the service that the Agent provides them."….Precisely it is a service provided by the agent but please tell me where it is written in stone that an agent must be on Rightmove or Zoopla, where does it state that you can only choose an agent that is on one or both of those sites?
"That being the case, WHY would a customer want their chosen Agent to advertise their home in a medium that RESTRICTS it from advertising elsewhere other than there and ONE OTHER PLACE?"…Before instructing they will see and can find out what advertising mediums the agent uses, the customer can then make their decision as they see fit.
"Yet, the "disruption" you are wishing brought on DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CUSTOMER – it is for the benefit of THE AGENT."…This discussion has been going on for three days and i'm still yet to be shown how the customer will be disrupted when CHOOSING what AGENT TO instruct!!
"BUT FORCING IT UPON CUSTOMERS is not the way to do it."….How is AM being forced upon customers?
To reiterate customers are choosing agents not portals and I've got to say that I am surprised that you can not acknowledge this very critical point.
"."…This discussion has been going on for three days and i'm still yet to be shown how the customer will be disrupted when CHOOSING what AGENT TO instruct!!!
Okay… you're wanting to argue about the future – that hasn't been written yet. Come 2/1/15 we will see what the customer chooses. But let's look at a different set of customers – EXISTING customers on 2/1/15 – who will have the situation FORCED UPON THEM when their Agent drops RM or Z (as well as a number of other portals hardly mentioned anywhere except in your presentations)… in many instances I am sure without any prior knowledge whatsoever that it is being done. And, if your assumptions of numbers are correct, we could be talking HALF A MILLION CUSTOMERS on AM Day #1…
THOSE customers have ALREADY chosen their Agent. THOSE customers chose that Agent for any number of reasons – one of which may have been the internet coverage that their chosen Agent 'promised' them. Now… it is fair to acknowledge that a (unquantifiable) proportion of those customers may well not give a fuppeny tuck about the change – but what about the (also unquantifiable) proportion of customers that DO? What is THEIR option?
Paul H – come on – tell me now that you have NEVER 'lost' an instruction because a customer has said that Agent 'X' offer better 'advertising' than you. Tell me that you have NEVER in your Appraisal pitches stated that you will advertise the customer's property on RM, Z, Uncle Tom Cobbley & All, in order to impress that customer that you are using every weapon available in the arsenal to get them a buyer.
Can you?
“For the record… again… I state my opinion. Firstly, it depends on WHICH "consumer" we are referring to here. Buyers/Tenants can pretty much be lumped together; as can Vendors/Landlords. In respect of the former grouping, they currently have 'the duopoly' where, between them, they can find in 99.9% of cases what they are looking for. Post-2/1/15, AM Members, in their aim to 'cause disruption' within THE PORTALS, are in reality making these consumers' searches more difficult – thereby causing disruption TO THESE CONSUMERS.”……….Ok now you have me REALLY confused. Am I right in saying that the leader of the free market economy, the man who’s answer to the online agents is to BRING IT ON is now saying that he is against a new entrant coming to the market trying to take market share and become market leader, if so then I think Mr May will have an opinion on this, you are basically saying that Rightmove and Zoopla is the be all and end all and we should not try to change that?!
“Disruption that the consumer could easily argue is unnecessary and unwanted”……So no one is allowed to enter the market then?!
“In the latter grouping – these consumers are facing disruption in that on 2/1/15 their Agent is REMOVING their property from what they had previously heralded as "one of the country's "Top Two" portals" – in favour of one which is straight out of the box; untested and virtually unknown.”…..NO NO AND THRICE NO the consumer has precisely the same choice as they have now in that they are choosing an AGENT not Rightmove and Zoopla, if the consumer wants to choose an agent that is on Rightmove or Zoopla then they can stil do so, no one is making any decisions for the consumer. “And both camps will be told WHAT when they ask "WHY?"….So your now saying that a consumer will only use an agent if they are on Rightmove and Zoopla? You are beginning to sound like an online agent old boy 😉
“seeing as the only REAL, TRUTHFUL answer is so that the Agent's marketing cost comes down with NO BENEFIT passed to them”….That is at this stage a guess and nothing more, how do you know that those onthemarket agents won’t reduce fees to take into account the reduced portal costs, can I borrow that crystal ball again PeeBee?
“You've stated you want to "knock out" BOTH portals anyway…”….Yep that’s right PeeBee we want to knock them out what’s the probelme with that, this is business not tiddly winks old boy;-) Over to you.
Paul H
Re: "“And both camps will be told WHAT when they ask "WHY?"" What will Landlords and Sellers will be told by an AM agent seeking the instruction? That their property will be on RM OR Zoopla and not both as AM agents are seeking to keep their marketing costs down?
Vendors do not give one hoot as to an agent's marketing costs. They want the best price they can for their property and they believe they will get it when their property is advertised as fully as possible by a credible agent who knows what they are doing.
It goes back to the (now age-old) adage – an AM agent can advertise only on one other portal. Without this criteria, more agents would sign up and then, if and when AM proves to be the place where customers do go to seek out their new home or let, then the other portals can be more slowly withdrawn from.
Initially however, a competitive advantage will be given to the agents who remain able to advertise on all portals, NOT because they actually help sell the property, but because the general public believes that they do. It will take time for that to change.
The first tranche of agents listing on AM will be at a disadvantage compared to those who do not – I can hear it now. Competitive agent during market appraisal tells potential vendor, "don't list with Paul H's agency, he cannot afford to be on RM and Zoopla – he is with AM just to keep costs down. Is that he agent you want to be marketing your home with?"
That is what the competition will say Paul H – it is a no-brainer.
"Don't list with An AM agent they can't afford to list on RM and Zoopla"…. Jam01 but do you realise how silly that sounds taking into account some of the leading agents on board.
Paul H
Sounds silly? Really? It is THE fundamental reason why AM is being founded. Agents have had enough of the high fees being charged by the two main portals and is forming its own mutual association to break them. If RM and Zoopla had continued to charge agents £300 pcm plus VAT, AM would not have been formed. So no, I am afraid it is not silly.
"Don't list with An AM agent they can't afford to list on RM and Zoopla"…. I believe that anyone coming out with that line will end up looking extremely silly and i''' give you an example why. I can name one High Street where I live where I know full well that EVERY single agents has signed up to #onthemarket with exception of two, Marsh and Parsons(LSL) and Barnard Marcus(Connells), every other agent on that High Street are extremely reputable, long established and hold most of the stock. If Barnard Marcus were to go into a val and tell the client what you told them to say above, then they would get laughed out the house, that comment would simply look unbelievable.
If I were Barnard Marcus or Marsh and Parsons I would be more worried about what the other agents could say about me.
PeeBee…how does trying to topple rightmove and Zoopla cause carnage I do not understand…surely the goal of any business is to gain market share?!
You also state that onthenarket will disrupt the consumer.. Again I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this can you please explain?
You state that AM have used unprofessional tactics…from what I have seen they simply explain why there is a need for an agent owned portal using facts based on showing the rate that fees have increased and how the two plc's plan to raise them further.I see nothing wrong with this and nor have the 3000 who have signed up I'd imagine.
Robert said "Pressured into selling what Paul? Can you point to the post where I have suggested that?"…I meant pressured into signing.
Ahhh… that puts the kybosh on me asking exactly the same question!
BUT it raises the need for some input.
Paul H – I have now as you know been to the AM(way) 'Presentation'. Two, in fact – although I pretty much knew the script before I attended the second one and didn't need a top-up. I have seen it for myself. I don't think Robert has – but no doubt has spoken to some, if not many, who have (he will correct me if I'm wrong).
Dunno how you carry out your 'Presentations' in the living room – but two things I was 'brought up' NOT to do are a) knock the competition – sell yourself instead, and b) ask for the business – but don't tell the decision-maker tomorrow/next day/week/month may be too late to give you the business.
I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion – admittedly more INdirectly than directly – the AM Presentation totally sh@ on both of those pearls of wisdom.
And I'm NOT the only person with that opinion. They may not post here in agreement – but they are out there… trust me.
Actually I think most agents would resonate with a lot of what is in the presentation, in fact 3000 have. I do agree with your selling against the comp comment, however, the simple truth is that Zoopla and Rightmove are the reasons for #onthemarket coming to being. Of course it should be made clear where we are now and what their intentions are.
Re the deadline…I think the whole point is that the more who sign the more will follow and will make it a success. Again we get back to my point about the numbers on board. If no inventive is given then everyone would leave it to 31st dec and there would be far less committed. To date the strategy has worked and is continuing to do so. You must remember that the end goal is to knock out Zoopla and Rightmove…if you consider this as the over riding issue rather then objections like the one other portal rule and 31st July deadline for gold membership#2 then those objections are minor in the grand scheme.
"Actually I think most agents would resonate with a lot of what is in the presentation, in fact 3000 have."
Erm… not really, Paul H – how many were roped "in it to win it" BEFORE the presentation material was rolled out? 1000 maybe? The 'founding fathers' add up to how many?
More's to the point… how many have been presented to and have NOT signed on the dotted line?
"You must remember that the end goal is to knock out Zoopla and Rightmove…"
SO MANY comments spring to mind to that one sentence. Another slip of the digits on the keyboard today, perhaps? AM prefer to say they want to "create disruption" – your words above equate to "bring about carnage". Whatever YOU and THEY state the reasoning behind that to be – the reality is a profit-based campaign which will primarily "disrupt" the consumer… a.k.a. OUR CUSTOMERS – present and future.
Peebee
No one was pressure sold on any presentation I've been too, people were simply told about packages available being gold, silver or bronze and then ADVISED that the deadline for the current gold membership was 31st July. There is a difference between advising of a deadline and "fear pressure" (as stated by rob) which entails telling agents of the consequences of not signing up and staying on Zoopla. You are giving the impression that you received a hard sale?!
"Your words equate to bring about carnage"….really how so matey?
PeeBee said…."your words bring about carnage" and " which will primarily disrupt the consumer"….can you please explain both of those statements mate?
Paul H – I didn't say that it was "hard sell" at all. I said that it uses tactics which I personally find distasteful, unprofessional and unbecoming from an organisation whose claim is they will represent only the most professional of Members. Sorry but I cannot agree that they are demonstrating a good example to potential Members, when competition-knocking forms a major part of THEIR OWN method of gaining said Memberships…
Maybe I should have tipped up at one of the presentations YOU have attended.
""Your words equate to bring about carnage"….really how so matey?" Erm… I repost the evidence, typed and submitted by your goodself – "You must remember that the end goal is to knock out Zoopla and Rightmove…". Please enlighten me if I am so wrong, how "KNOCK OUT…" can be construed in any way, shape or form as anything other than a call to arms and a fight to the death or glory?
Just in case this isn't clear enough – allow me to draw on what we Agents rely on, day in:day out, to justify our advice to our potential clients – a good old fashioned comparable. Muhammed Ali did not win THIRTY SEVEN of his 61 fights by reasoning with his opponents that he was the better fighter – HE KNOCKED THEM OUT. He removed the threat – plain and simple – before the threat could remove him. In another nineteen fights, he did more damage to his opponents than they did to him – thus still retaining his position. He failed on FIVE occasions to KNOCK OUT or OUTPERFORM his opponents – and LOST THOSE FIGHTS. I rest my case on that one. You now have the floor to offer the case for the defence, mon ami… 😉
""…which will primarily disrupt the consumer"….can you please explain…?"
For the record… again… I state my opinion. Firstly, it depends on WHICH "consumer" we are referring to here. Buyers/Tenants can pretty much be lumped together; as can Vendors/Landlords.
In respect of the former grouping, they currently have 'the duopoly' where, between them, they can find in 99.9% of cases what they are looking for. Post-2/1/15, AM Members, in their aim to 'cause disruption' within THE PORTALS, are in reality making these consumers' searches more difficult – thereby causing disruption TO THESE CONSUMERS. Disruption that the consumer could easily argue is unnecessary and unwanted.
In the latter grouping – these consumers are facing disruption in that on 2/1/15 their Agent is REMOVING their property from what they had previously heralded as "one of the country's "Top Two" portals" – in favour of one which is straight out of the box; untested and virtually unknown.
And both camps will be told WHAT when they ask "WHY?" – seeing as the only REAL, TRUTHFUL answer is so that the Agent's marketing cost comes down with NO BENEFIT passed to them.
Call it "regaining control" all you want – it will be var nigh impossible to make that stick when the internet is littered with posts from disgruntled Agents from years gone whingeing about the cost of RM, Z et al and plotting "the latest cunning plan" to kick the portals in the nads.
Oh – and don't think for one nanosecond that THE PORTALS ain't gonna get that message out there in some way, shape or form – straight in front of who really should matter in this entire, sad state of affairs – THE CONSUMER.
H£11 – what the chuff have they got to lose by doing just that?
You've stated you want to "knock out" BOTH portals anyway…
I went to the Agents Mutual pitch in NW London this morning.
Firstly to clarify a point of discussion raised below. They are now aiming for 4000 members by launch, not 5000. They are currently just under 3000.
We own a separately branded letting agency but are now awaiting confirmation if we will be allowed to sign up as we primarily let our own properties. Should they decide we are ineligible we will be forced to cease our working relationships with agents across London who have signed up as they will not be able to market our flats.
"…we will be forced to cease our working relationships with agents across London who have signed up as they will not be able to market our flats."
Pourquoi?
7000?5000? 4000? Viablity as a portal requires about 6200. The lower the branch count goes the less effective the impact.
"fear of loss"? Loss of WHAT, exactly, matey?"….I believe it will come down to agents deciding if not being #onthemarket outweighs not being on Zoopla. Youre argument has always been that an agent could lose instructions by not being on Zoopla. However, I believe that the fear of not being #onthemarket will at some point make agents forget any objections and encourage them to get on board.
Don't forget once 5000 is achieved Zoopla are at break even, agents will realise that that particular portal is in decline and will in my opinion jump ship. I believe this will happen before launch.
The number of agents
No Robert I am not talking about anyone using fear pressure…YOU are. I'm talking about agents realising how many people are on board and deciding to also jump ship. I believe this will be the key factor. In general nearly all agents have had enough of the duopoly, some are prepared to jump now and others when there are more people in board.
" Youre argument has always been that an agent could lose instructions by not being on Zoopla. However, I believe that the fear of not being #onthemarket will at some point make agents forget any objections and encourage them to get on board."
Interesting… the 'argument' (one of, at least…) I have ALWAYS put forward – the 'argument' that The AM/OTM Collective have ALWAYS dismissed as ******** – is now reversed and used as YOUR 'argument' for the success of the venture! I admire your style, Paul H.
"Don't forget once 5000 is achieved Zoopla are at break even…"
Assuming WHAT percentage of those 5000 AM/OTM Members dump it and not RM?
Youre argument has been that agents will fear they will lose instructions by not being on Zoopla, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I believe that agents will sign up because in general they have had enough of the duopoly and in theory agree with there being an agent owned portal, but for them the tipping point will be THE NUMBERS ON BOARD! It really is a momentum thing, the more who sign up, the more agents will see the venture as viable.
"WHAT percentage of those 5000 AM/OTM Members dump it and not RM?"…I'm going on the recent article in EYE from June where a city analyst forecasted that should #onthemarket get 5000 agents then Zoopl COULD lose £30m in revenue, to reiterate again the figures for financial year ending 31 March 2013;
Zoopla incomings £65m
Zoopla Outgoings £35m
Profit £30M
If the city analyst is correct then some agents will be advertising on a portal in decline, with less stock, less revenue and at break even.
What?????? You posted
"Paul H on July 18, 2014 at 8:22 am
Your putting far too much thought into it Robert. In time any objections will be far outweighed by the 'fear of loss' it is this alone that will win the portal battle."
Did you forget you posted that?
Robert, "Fear of loss" is not the same as "Fear selling", please don't put words into my mouth.
I am positive you understand the difference Paul.
I am positive that you are turning my words, if you read my following posts it is clear what I am saying, you however are suggesting that agents are being pressured into selling, and that is just plain codswallop.
Pressured into selling what Paul? Can you point to the post where I have suggested that?
PeeBee…..secretly I'm jealous that I couldn't go to the board meeting that decided the name just so I could vote on what biscuits we were having with our tea;-)
In all seriousness PeeBee one member one vote does not mean "sign up to vote for everything", that is not why I signed up and I'm sure that's the case for most people.
On another note 3000 now signed up and once 5000 is achieved then Zoopla are supposedly (based on the last years financials as well as by the prediction of a city analyst) going to lose £30m of revenue and therefore be at break even. Anyone know where there 16% income increase on £65m is going to come from?
"In all seriousness PeeBee one member one vote does not mean "sign up to vote for everything"…"
No – but it DOES mean that you have the right to vote for SOMETHING. They have SOLD YOU the right. And, IF that "something" has such a material bearing upon the potential future success of the animal you feed – then you should be pretty wazzed off that the choice was made for you.
ESPECIALLY to read all about it in the press before receiving the 'official' communique.
It's YOUR money that's being spent, matey.
Be honest – with yourself as well as me – given the choice… would YOU have spent it on that name?
"Would I have spent it on the name?"….yes. PeeBee…I'm not wazzed off and I don't know anyone who is. You really are unique with your views aren't you 😉
Your making something out of nothin you really are.
"You really are unique with your views aren't you ;-)"
Told you so.
"Your making something out of nothin you really are."
Maybe I am… maybe I'm not. One of these days – I might just make something out of something, even in YOUR opinion, with my ramblings.
Until that day comes – onward and upward, mon ami! 😉
What will waz me off is if I'm not given a vote when LSL, Connells and Countrywide eventually come begging to become gold members after launch but demand to have some form of discounted share scheme. That we should have a vote on although I trust the board will tell them where to go.
Paul H
MY understanding is that once this second 'draft' of Gold Membership is met, there will be NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY to join other than as a 'Silver' – or, from 2/1/15 onwards, third-rate 'Bronze'. Now I can see that the 'Corporates' would be 'Brassed off' by that and want to sit on the Board at very least – and probably expect AM to pay THEM for the privilege of doing so – but AM surely CAN'T go back on such a fundamental stamping of the foot as they have made this latest 'cut-off' to be.
Trust me, matey – you would be only ONE OF MANY with their wazz well and truly offed!
But… I've got you thinking now – haven't I…! 😉
"Brassed Off" – maybe THAT should be 'Corporate' Membership level – whadd'ya think??
Go on – put it to the vote! 😉
One member, one vote. No-one voted. The idea of one member one vote was to ensure inclusiveness. That has not happened. However, I very much take the point that if members had been canvassed with, say, 3 or 5 top names, then someone would have bought all of the domain names and then held AM to ransom. I am sure most aspects of one member one vote will be adhered to, but on this occasion I can see from a practical sense why that could not happen.
And if the new name was a pup, the uproar would cause AM to change but, in the main, it has been very well received. Let's see if the trade mark gets through 'examination' and then the public register and 'hope' no-one from Rightmove or Zoopla lodges an objection, which will delay it by at least a further 2 months 🙂
You're making something out of nothing, you really are.
No Paul he isn't; he is doing a massive favour to everyone involved in the selling process of Agent's Mutual. The convincing and selling process of any product or service comes down to needs/wants, features/ benefits and objections.
The low hanging fruit has already been safely harvested; 10 firms with 466 (ish) branches between them and then a number of key regional IAEG ( or similar) multiple office firms. With 17% of the possible branch total met there remains another 3 or so percent that will fall relatively easily. With that done the slog really begins. It is not because agents and individuals do not believe in the concept and are anti the project that is preventing them from signing on the dotted line it is the concerns and objections they individually have.
Instead of seeing Peebee as some maverick enemy to the project someone with an informed and mature debating style ought to be debating with him to understand the thoughts, objections and apathy that Peebee and others are highlighting, not to knock or dent the project but highlight the areas of weakness in the thinking and delivery.
There are 3 or 4 key objections to overcome, things that aren't objection in your head but which are preventing over 13,000 branches from signing up.
Throw what rocks you like at me Paul, I don't matter, but for goodness sake do not turn on Agents like Peebee or those he represents.
Your putting far too much thought into it Robert. In time any objections will be far outweighed by the 'fear of loss' it is this alone that will win the portal battle.
"In time any objections will be far outweighed by the 'fear of loss' it is this alone that will win the portal battle."
"…fear of loss"? Loss of WHAT, exactly, matey?
The "fear of loss" when I mentioned that a few weeks back you and your chums were all over me claiming that no way was fear pressure being used to sign up agents. It was as a direct result of a disturbance sell session that one afronted agent picked up the phone and explained how he felt he was being scared into signing. Agent don't like that Paul.
Putting too much thought into it? given how many times things I have posted over the past 3 years have been lifted and quoted it is probably a good job I am. I can point to more than a few instances where stuff I have posted has so obviously been digested, re-worked and copywritten into a trumpet blowing hurrah.
Instead of trying to paint me as an enemy of the state you probably ought to understand I have been fighting this particular battle for traditional estate agents since August 2008 when a single ill informed/ ill motivated business decision was the seed for everything that is going on right now.
'Paul' – "If you can't win the battle on home turf, what is that saying to you?"
Hmmm… 47 comments (including this one) here on EYE at the time of my pressing "submit" – TWENTY SEVEN (57%) of them NOT pro-AM/OTM.
Maybe – just maybe, you're absolutely bang on the money with that statement, 'Paul'. 😉
Probably a byproduct of my post PeeBee! Lot's of nays scurrying over to here to multi post and prove the comment wrong 😉
Look what can happen if you rally a few people together, you can make anything happen!
Get behind it PeeBee, you know you want to! If you were as diligent in being proactive about OTM as you are trawling the days post, you could have had another 5oo branches signed up by now!
It's not too late, you won't lose face by going for it.
If we fail you can say I told you so and feel great about yourself, if we succeed you can feel great about yourself 😉
Somehow, I think you are going to go for glory!
OH and one final point on your stats, you are the master of illusion because whilst there might have been 47 comments, you can't actually claim the double, triple or more posts by the same people!!!!!
The yays – 10
The nays – 5
And one on the fence!!!!! 🙂
Now then, Paul! 😉
I've read your comment – and I'm going to provide 'balance' here.
" Lot's of nays scurrying over to here to multi post and prove the comment wrong… OH and one final point on your stats, you are the master of illusion because whilst there might have been 47 comments, you can't actually claim the double, triple or more posts by the same people!!!!!". Actually, since your original post at 9.47am yesterday, only FIVE "new" posters joined the debate. Of those, ONE is most probably an AM/OTM Rep (if not, 'Robin' bl00dy well SHOULD be… 😉 ; one is, literally, a "fence-sitter"; Robert May chipped in a couple of times; and then you've got JAM01 and little old me banging up the old post count in multiples of 10 – and I would say that we are both sitting on same 'fence' as our aptly monickered mucker. You are right in the latter part of your statement, the POST count went through the roof, matey – but not the HEAD count.
Next – "If you were as diligent in being proactive about OTM as you are trawling the days post, you could have had another 5oo branches signed up by now!" "Trawling"? Or do you mean "trolling"? I've been called worse. IF I actually 'believed' in AM, then converting 500 would have been a walk in the park, matey.
Then – "It's not too late, you won't lose face by going for it."
Erm… I have no "face" to lose. I'm an anonymous poster – you would never know whether I was a Member or not, unless I chose to divulge the information.
Now – THIS one needs me to go into Upper-Case Overdrive Mode, for emphasis – "If we fail you can say I told you so and feel great about yourself…" FFS – Let's clear this up (…AGAIN…) for once and all – I DON'T WANT to be in the position that I could say "told you so" – and I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T feel good about myself if I WAS put in that position! IS THAT CLEAR??
I have a lot of friends putting money into this venture. People I respect. Do you think I want to see them all – YOU all – lose ANYTHING as a result of 'failure' of AM/OTM?
There – said it – Upper-Case Overdrive Mode deactivated.
No doubt we will resume in the morning, Paul… I look forward to it. 😉
Please don't read anything ino my posts on this story Peebee. As far as I am concerned it is only a URL.
Personally I am looking forward to the TV advert with say Big T sat astride Alexander.
Oooh, errrr, Matron – I'm afraid to blink now in case I get a mental picture! 😉
On the Meerkat?
Morning matey 🙂
I'm touched, you do care! I never actually doubted that PeeBee, I like you, enjoy a prod and a poke every now and then 😉
And I got an extra long response from you, which is always a Morning matey 🙂
I'm touched, you do care! I never actually doubted that PeeBee, I like you, enjoy a prod and a poke every now and then 😉
And I got an extra long response from you, which is always a bonus.
Now, lets make a promise today between us both…..
No more counting posts!!!!!!
Morning, matey. I love you too! 😉
On the counting posts issue – agreed! On ANY other matter… let's just say I'll still love you in the morning!! 😉
Quick question (well – two in one, really…) to 'The AM Collective'…
When did you guys find out about the name being confirmed as 'onthemarket' – and did you vote 'For' or 'Against' it when it was put to the Members vote?
I found out on EYE, although I received an email from Agents Mutual around the same time of the announcement. There was no vote as far as I am aware, I'm happy with the name.
"I found out on EYE…"
THAT, mon ami, is not only a bit sad, really – but I would suggest very, VERY bad communication from AM. NOT, hopefully, a taste of things to come…
"There was no vote as far as I am aware…" Hmmm… surely for an organisation that screams "one Member:one vote" as (one of) its USP(s) to us all (assuming we fit inside the Membership criteria bubble, that is…), something as vital to the future success of the venture as the actual brand name should have been voted on? Maybe you weren't available when they rang for your input.
It just would have been nice to know what alternatives were put to you all.
I believe all Gold members were asked in March for any suggestions. I do not expect to be asked vote on such a matter only on something like a possible sale which for me will always (and forever more) be a no. In any case asking members to vote on this is simply not practical, firstly all the directors of the gold member firms would have needed to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement before voting, the 150 web names would have to be purchased before voting, how much do you think that would have cost? There was no need for a vote.
"I do not expect to be asked vote on such a matter only on something like a possible sale which for me will always (and forever more) be a no."
So… what the H£11 is the point of the "one Member:one vote" USP, matey? Surely, in such a democratic community, any ONE Member is free and able to propose something… anything… that must then be 'put to a vote'? Maybe they might need a 'second' in order to be qualified as voteworthy – but I have little doubt that the requirement would be there to call a ballot.
"There was no need for a vote."
I wonder, if you put THAT to the vote, matey – what might the result be…? 😉
Is the name of a new organisation best chosen by allowing 2000+ members to vote on every proposal put forward? I dont think that would work very well – you would never reach a consensus. Surely it would be much better to have the new name formulated by a smaller group of people with experience in the field. Who on earth would have voted for 'Google' or even 'Zoopla', come to that?
Robin – "Is the name of a new organisation best chosen by allowing 2000+ members to vote on every proposal put forward? I dont think that would work very well – you would never reach a consensus"
To which I will respond is ANYTHING, EVER, "put to the vote" of 2000+ Estate Agents, each with their own world to protect, going to reach a consensus?
"Surely it would be much better to have the new name formulated by a smaller group of people with experience in the field."
Sorry – WHICH particular "field" do you refer to, Robin – Estate Agency? Advertising/PR? Branding? Portal Naming(I assume there is a "field" for it…)?
"Who on earth would have voted for 'Google' or even 'Zoopla', come to that?"
Simple answer – obviously those that chose it – the site OWNERS. At the time, they had NO-ONE to answer to for their actions other than themselves.
Remind me – WHO, exactly, are the OWNERS of AM/OTM??
Cricket, PeeBee, I am getting lost in the ever increasing maze of your replies, and replies to replies, and have nothing but admiration for your ability to manage a dozen or more conversations on here all the same time. I think that you can be a little too particular in correct use of language though – we are not drafting legislation here after all! On this particular point I would like to explain that I was making a general point about the people making the decision being specialists in this field and by that I suppose I did mean that there are people who have named portals before, people who have created property web-sites before, people who are marketing experts and people who are logo design experts etc etc. Of course I have no idea exactly what skills and experience the actual people had who voted, or even if a vote was take – for all I know Mr Springett may have had this name up his sleeve for years but what I do know is that I like it, and I have not been able to come with anything better, and nor has my wife!
That last post should have started with 'Crikey' but I quite like 'cricket' as a polite expletive and may well use it again….
Sorry peeps, but I do think AM will have issues getting 'On The Market' registered as a Trade Mark.
'On The Market' has been applied for in another application in another class (that of estate agency – not the classifications AM is applying for) and an examination process that normally takes 20 working days has been ongoing for 3 months.
Why?
It could be for this reason, as taken from the IPO website regarding TMs that are NOT acceptable:
We will not accept marks which:
describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them e.g. "Cornish Clotted Cream" for cream;
have become customary in your line of trade e.g. "China Garden" for Chinese restaurant services;
'On the market' is a phrase that has become customary within estate agency and is therefore not a TM that could (should) be gained by one organisation working within it.
Don't want to be the bearer of bad news…..but….
"Don't want to be the bearer of bad news"…Really 🙂
Nope – but if I can conduct due diligence from Afghanistan, where I currently am…
Why bother, what are you worried about, shouldn't you be enjoying the hot weather?!
If I wasn't interested in AM, I wouldn't be bothered….and as for your current heatwave (30), it is 48 degrees here! 🙂
The names and domain names:
OnTheMarket
OnTheMarket.co.uk
OnTheMarket.uk
OnTheMarket.com
are owned by Vespa Capital Partners Ltd, Ian Springett being the 'IPO representative name' for this owner. Is it fair to consider there are some discretionary funders behind this venture other than the participating agents?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00003059865
http://www.vespacapital.com/vespacapital.html
A word of caution. Having just applied and successfully registered 2 x Trade Marks via http://www.ipo.gov.uk……. Ian Springett has applied for Trade Marks in NICE Classes 35, 38 & 42. They are not yet registered, they are under examination for variants of 'onthemarket'. Anyone can delay these by registering an interest during publication, adding months to the prospect of these being awarded.
Out of interest, Mr Charles Battersby of Godstone will be pleased. He has the Trade Mark of 'On The Market' for estate agency and associated services under NICE Classes 36 and 45. He has the estate agency TM of 'On The Market' stitched and will benefit greatly from the marketing by 'On The Market' via AM, attempting to be registered under Classes 35, 38 & 42.
I would not have advertised this name, and did not with my own, until the TM is approved and registered.
PS – 'examination' phase of TM application is THEN followed, if it passes 'examination' by 2 months publication prior to TM approval. No chance of this TM being approved before mid-Sept and could get stopped – hold fire on your branding peeps!
Godstone in Surrey? Great research but I would guess they have the TM side of things taken care of too Jam.
This is the TM side of things I am referring to. They are currently in 'examination' and that takes 20 working days. Then follows publication for 2 months, to which anyone objecting delays this by another 2 months. The TM is not assured, just applied for.
What about the TM's held by Mr Battersby? Isn't there a strong possibility that he is an agent for AM?
What IS interesting, is that Mr Battersby actually filed the TM on 7 April – only 10 weeks before AM filed their four trademarks.
Inspired thinking at its best…
…BUT….applied for on 7 Apr 14, and the examination normally takes just 20 working days. It is STILL under examination as at 16 Jul 14. He is having trouble getting it through examination….and if he is….!
Robert, this is where you'll find Mr Battersby
http://www.raynersproperties.com/
Without looking, FNAEA?
I congratulate them on a very well executed plan.
I LOVE this name. It exactly matches the form and function and is very easy to place into a thought or conversation: "I'm just going to see what's OnTheMarket" will quickly become the phrase of choice for housebuyers and tenants nationally as all the domains disappear into the 'also ran' category. Fantastic! I can't wait for this to launch with 50% + of all available stock guarenteed to be displayed from day one. Once the name is promoted nationally it will not be long before all those fence-sitters will be queueing up for membership…..
Robin… REALLY??
I suggest you need to add more water to whatever you're supping, Sir. 😉
Sorry Robin, This is just the kind of piffle that AM subjected me to when we sat down. Thorwing in phrases like "with 50%+ of all available stock guarenteed to displayed from day 1" is just waffle.Lets get back to the real world , AM's own estimate is 4000 branches which is 6000 ish short of 50% .The 100 a week they are signing up will more than likely be silver and I can see alot of them backing out nearer the time …
It's 100 gold being signed up per week not silver. The estimate/target is 5000 and not 4000. And not at any presentation that I've been on was there a mention of "50%+ of all available stock guarenteed to displayed from day 1".
It appears that the "piffle" is coming from you Danny.
Hi PeeBee Hi Danny
Yeah, well I am an enthusiast and inclined to err on the side of optimism – the '50%' figure is all mine so please don't attribute it to AM…. However, I don't think this would be too difficult to acheive: Let's start with 18000 estate agency branches nationwide (this figure varies depending on where you look but this is one of the higher estimates), then take off the 2500 or so which are controlled by the corporates leaving 15500 independents. If the available stock can be assumed to be evenly distributed over 18000 branches then AM would need 9000 independents to sign up by December 24th, or 58% of the total. Given that most of the independents in my area have already signed or are in negotiations I dont think this is an unreasonable target. According to the FT, AM may have already passed the 3000 mark leaving 6000 to go. We only have 22 weeks left before the end of the year so I agree they will have to up their recruiting levels but this is no longer a 'passive' process and is being driven by a motivated sales force. In any event, why on earth would anyone in our business not want to support a mutually beneficial organisation like this which has the stated purpose of bringing down the cost of our route to internet marketing? You really would have to be slightly bonkers to want the current portal situation to continue unchallenged even if you love RM and Z and they do not intend to allow access to private advertisers, ever. What would be wrong with having one portal for the professional full-service agent and one or more separate portals for everyone else who wants to play at selling / letting houses?
Robin – "What would be wrong with having one portal for the professional full-service agent and one or more separate portals for everyone else who wants to play at selling / letting houses?"
No, matey – in my opinion the question is "What would be RIGHT…?" with having what you suggest.
Since you asked here's my position . Apart from my own website I get 99% of internet leads from rm and z . I get jack from the other 15 free ones . The split is 60/40 rm but the billing from z is half right moves . If AM launch and take 10% of the audience, say 5% off each, by joining I can only get coverage I can only possibly achieve 70% with rm and am (incidentally my yearly portal costs go up by c£1200 pa !
By sticking withy the two portals who currently give me full coverage of the internet I can only achieve 90% … So I will miss some audience whatever happens . That's why … Interestingly if AM aren't as successful as they want to be but achieve say 30% and they have to renege on the one other portal rule in two years time to attract people like me I will end up paying three portal fees if I need to list there as well,Brilliant
Danny
"Apart from my own website I get 99% of internet leads from rm and z ." INCLUDING, then, your own website – Might I then ask, what percentage of your leads come from "the duopoly"?
"Interestingly if AM aren't as successful as they want to be but achieve say 30% and they have to renege on the one other portal rule in two years time to attract people like me I will end up paying three portal fees if I need to list there as well,Brilliant"
Erm… sorry for sounding a bit thick here – but if they "aren't as successful as they want to be", then WHY would you feel you would then "need to list there as well"?
With all due respect you missed this one Mr Springett…
http://www.placeonthemarket.co.uk
Thumbs up from me, was worried it would be a snowstorm enduced effort by some marketing wizz, if it is then fair play!
Beano – they currently don't have a "marketing whizz" – so it was never going to be anything but simples.
Which, I have to say, is probably just as well. I'd have hated to see someone use the opportunity to go for good old Method #1 – take a Scrabble-esque jumble of letters and go for the highest (made-up) word score possible.
Or, failing that, Method #2 – "I'll have one vowel please, Carol, and six consonants…" 😉
Interesting to see such a positive reaction here to the name.
Quite right too.
But over on the Anti Agents site, they hate it.
Hmmm… "But over on the Anti Agents site, they hate it."
Not a good comparison, Ajax – so far they have a 30% higher post count – meaning the 'NAYs to the left' outgun the 'EYEs to the right' – which is exactly what stubborn doubting souls like me have been saying from day 1.
Morning PeeBee anyone can post on the other site and as many times as they want too.
Some of those comments are just plain silly and include name calling, i'll take that with a pinch of salt and will instead agree with your comments (on EYE) in that the name is a good one.
" Some of those comments are just plain silly and include name calling…"
Oh – and that NEVER happens here of course…
"i'll take that with a pinch of salt and will instead agree with your comments (on EYE) in that the name is a good one."
Don't get excited – it's going to take one H£11 of a lot more than an okayish name to win me over, so don't expect me to start spouting "Resistance is futile" anytime soon… 😉
Your far too demanding PeeBee, playing hard to get is clearly your forte 😉
I'm just a great big tease, Paul H! 😉
It's about even on there actually and given that they are tagged as the anti agent, anti AM (On the market) etc etc, you would expect there to be a bigger gap between the nays and the yays, which points to a more positive reaction to it.
If you can't win the battle on home turf, what is that saying to you?
The name – I like.
The product – we will see.
Name alone won't convince me.
I think its a clever name, easy to remember and you can see the consumer facing campaign building behind it
OnTheMarket – it's OnTheMoney!
Has to be better than a weird name like Zoopla! No doubting what the site is all about.
If it's on the market, it's got to be on the market!
…unless, of course, it is on the market with a list of types of Agent who for reasons best left undisclosed don't fit the criteria to allow them to be "on the market" – in which case they are STILL 'on the market' – but not "on the market" on the market.
They are just on the market where everyone knows where they are.
🙂
maybe there is a angle here for off the market.com!
Nah… but what if RM changed THEIR web address to onthmarketHEREbutnotTHEREdotcom ? 😉
It's growing on me…
OnTheMarket. I like it!