Thanks man — and again, thanks for writing that original post.

You are right that one of the key functions of marketing is to stay on top of trends, and identify threats — such as safety razors and hippie lifestyles — before they become serious problems. Of course, the barber has to listen to his head of marketing that they might want to start looking into operational changes…

-rsh

Combine this with an %age based model, and a housing price boom, customers rightly question why should they pay agents a fee thats significantly larger than inflation for potentailly less work as they can do a lot of the purchase leg work themselves.

I don’t think redfin is the answer, but maybe more of a fee for services model. The internet-izing of the MLS has removed a lot of the proprietory information agents used to have, so they are no longer adding the value they did 15 years ago.

Agents are not employees of the mega-firms. The firms just take a cut of their sales. Its in the firms interest to have as many agents as possible, which in the boom years has meant that there are far too many, chasing after clients. They spend so much time/effort chasing leads, that they the profit of an actual customer needs to be high to justify the effort of finding them.

As you noted, you and I do not disagree at all. Your analysis is clear and precise and does a great job in illustrating other critical issues for today’s real estate company which all can be derived from a historical look at brands of old that withered over time.

I content that if these old school businesses employed marketing department who kept a diligent eye on their brands, did usability studies, did consumer focus groups, etc., they would have learned that what they were offering was slowly going by the way of the dodo and could have remained viable and current and could have better protected their tuf from being over run by interlopers.

Had they employed marketing, they would have learned that their own messaging such as $5.00 Haircuts – were not strong enough calls to action or a clear enough differentiators as the marketplace evolved and new brands emerged.

Time and space are limiting here and there is so much more to discuss within this topic. But between both our perspectives and general takeaways from history, some valuable lessons going forward can be acquired.

So true – its not only about the core services offered, but an ongoing education to master the skills required to execute those services are what is really key. Top stylists go to shows in Paris, and top realtors are constantly staying on top of their game with education as well.
Next week I’m getting my CDPE designation ( distressed properties). Why? Because if I don’t, I’m just a barber.

I’d like to chime in on a few things that resonated with me.

“… they (the barber shops) failed to adapt their core service offering to the new environment”

I think that’s absolutely parallel to today. The events over the last 18+ months, coupled with an up and coming generation of future buyers is quite likely to have an impact on the way in which owning real estate is considered. It will be interesting to see all that attitude entails, and that it may not be “The American Dream” of years gone by. Someone will get it right.

“ … perhaps brokerages will need to reinvent themselves as a new kind of real-estate services firm”

The Gillette analogy raises another interesting thought: Will the new attitude toward real estate force a commoditization of the services? I don’t mean a discount brokerage per se, rather the reinvention you mentioned.

Finally, I am also of the mindset Marketing is critical, and yes, there does need to be something behind the curtain to market, right Mr. Wizard?

Brandie