Real estate agent’s core competency is that they are brokers, they will find you the best stager, the best moving company, the best photographer, the best floorplan drafter, the best mortgage broker, the best lawyer, the best critics to critique your commerce, they broker…let them broker and operate as full service instead of wasting time imitating a critic and reviewing commercial establishments.

Here’s the issue. If you define a real estate agent’s core competency is as a “broker” — meaning, someone who matches buyer and seller — then you’ve essentially removed most of the value. Take a look at financial services and what the advent of web-based trading has done to the old-school stockbrokers.

All of the ancillary services you mention — finding a stager, moving company, etc. — are things that a website does better than just about any human. The key word is “best” — but why would you trust a broker’s word for who is the best moving company and who is not? Why would you trust a real estate agent’s recommendation on the quality of legal services?

Since your point is that New York magazine has professional restaurant critics and whatnot, and real estate agents are not, I’m failing to see why you’re so eager to trust a real estate agent for advice on attorneys and mortgage companies.

Nonetheless, you’re still not seeing the real issue here: the value proposition of a real estate agent in the Internet age. If it is, as you say, “brokering” then the industry is doomed. If, on the other hand, the value is advisory services whether that advice covers who the best movers are, who the best lawyers are, and where the best neighborhood Irish pub is, then from a branding perspective, it is imperative that the company establish the bona fides of its people as experts capable of rendering that advice.

-rsh

Real estate agent’s core competency is that they are brokers, they will find you the best stager, the best moving company, the best photographer, the best floorplan drafter, the best mortgage broker, the best lawyer, the best critics to critique your commerce, they broker…let them broker and operate as full service instead of wasting time imitating a critic and reviewing commercial establishments.

Here’s the issue. If you define a real estate agent’s core competency is as a “broker” — meaning, someone who matches buyer and seller — then you’ve essentially removed most of the value. Take a look at financial services and what the advent of web-based trading has done to the old-school stockbrokers.

All of the ancillary services you mention — finding a stager, moving company, etc. — are things that a website does better than just about any human. The key word is “best” — but why would you trust a broker’s word for who is the best moving company and who is not? Why would you trust a real estate agent’s recommendation on the quality of legal services?

Since your point is that New York magazine has professional restaurant critics and whatnot, and real estate agents are not, I’m failing to see why you’re so eager to trust a real estate agent for advice on attorneys and mortgage companies.

Nonetheless, you’re still not seeing the real issue here: the value proposition of a real estate agent in the Internet age. If it is, as you say, “brokering” then the industry is doomed. If, on the other hand, the value is advisory services whether that advice covers who the best movers are, who the best lawyers are, and where the best neighborhood Irish pub is, then from a branding perspective, it is imperative that the company establish the bona fides of its people as experts capable of rendering that advice.

-rsh

Yes, if you look at it from a web based business perspective, content is king and time is money. Problem is that Halstead — as far as I know — is not a web based business. It’s very much a real-world based business, involving the taking of fees from transactions in real property.

If I’m looking at it from a ten-year old real estate perspective, then you’re looking at it from a fantasy perspective that simply does not exist, and does not jive with the reality of Halstead’s business model.

Besides, I’m not looking at anything from a web or non-web perspective. I’m looking at the issue from a branding perspective. For the vast majority of brokerages, a website is a consumer acquisition tactic; a brand is a strategic differentiator. Sacrificing your longterm brand value for the sake of a tactical advantage, in my opinion, is shortsighted at best and extraordinarily destructive at worst.

Note that I never said Halstead shouldn’t provide local information on their website. In fact, I believe they absolutely should. It’s just that I believed they should have seen the brand value of having their agents provide that information directly on the website, thereby enhancing the branding of their agents as local experts. It would have been worth the extra money for Halstead to pay New York magazine more money to have the reviews appear as if written by Halstead agents. (Assuming that option existed for enough money.)

To dismiss what Halstead did here as “merely web-based” betrays a real misunderstanding on either your part or on my part on what makes up the value proposition of a real estate agent. What they did was to establish New York as the local expert, and Halstead agents as mere paper-pushers.

Either that’s a brilliant time-saving device, if an agent’s inherent value to consumers is merely as a paper-pusher, or brand suicide. I happen to think it’s the latter.

-rsh

Yes, if you look at it from a web based business perspective, content is king and time is money. Problem is that Halstead — as far as I know — is not a web based business. It’s very much a real-world based business, involving the taking of fees from transactions in real property.

If I’m looking at it from a ten-year old real estate perspective, then you’re looking at it from a fantasy perspective that simply does not exist, and does not jive with the reality of Halstead’s business model.

Besides, I’m not looking at anything from a web or non-web perspective. I’m looking at the issue from a branding perspective. For the vast majority of brokerages, a website is a consumer acquisition tactic; a brand is a strategic differentiator. Sacrificing your longterm brand value for the sake of a tactical advantage, in my opinion, is shortsighted at best and extraordinarily destructive at worst.

Note that I never said Halstead shouldn’t provide local information on their website. In fact, I believe they absolutely should. It’s just that I believed they should have seen the brand value of having their agents provide that information directly on the website, thereby enhancing the branding of their agents as local experts. It would have been worth the extra money for Halstead to pay New York magazine more money to have the reviews appear as if written by Halstead agents. (Assuming that option existed for enough money.)

To dismiss what Halstead did here as “merely web-based” betrays a real misunderstanding on either your part or on my part on what makes up the value proposition of a real estate agent. What they did was to establish New York as the local expert, and Halstead agents as mere paper-pushers.

Either that’s a brilliant time-saving device, if an agent’s inherent value to consumers is merely as a paper-pusher, or brand suicide. I happen to think it’s the latter.

-rsh