Home Brokers & Agents In Which GaryVee Entertains, But Does Not Convince

In Which GaryVee Entertains, But Does Not Convince

1313
69
SHARE

Gary Vaynerchuk, of Wine Library, is a tremendously entertaining speaker. And he spoke at Inman NY this past week. While we wait for the official video from the good people of Inman, I found this… what do you call it, bootleg conference speaker video? on this blog post by Sue Adler, a realtor who actually works my market. (*wave* Hi Sue!)

Watch the whole video — I’m not going to embed it here, since you can view it on that site.

Gary Vaynerchuk — known more colloquially as GaryVee (his Twitter handle) — is an incredible speaker. He’s full of passion, full of entertaining stories, and definitely has the gift of gab. He is a superstar in the making. I found his Inman talk to be spirited, tremendously fun, and inspiring in many ways.

Unfortunately, for realestistas who must toil in the real estate industry, I felt that he ultimately failed to convince. Well, at least me. Which might be a good thing for GaryVee and his acolytes.

What is especially unfortunate is that Gary’s charisma and natural storytelling skills pose a danger for realestistas trying to figure out what’s what with all this social media stuffzorz. He makes points that are, on the surface, extremely appealing, and makes them in a very appealing way. If he had been a worse speaker, perhaps the seduction would be less.

Ah, but that’s where I come in, playing the killjoy party pooper. Let’s get into it.

Gary’s wide ranging speech had a number of themes, but for me, there were three major ones that are directly relevant to realestistas: Radical Transparency, Building a Community, and Personal Branding.

I can see everything, the rain is gone!
I can see everything, the rain is gone!

On Radical Transparency

Gary is passionate about transparency. He goes into it, calling some wine in his store “like putting horse crap directly into your face”. And he makes some very valid points. 22-year old kids are showing up in his store asking about some rarely-heard varietal wine; consumers have the information. Why bother trying to hide the info from them?

On the one hand, as a proponent of Cluetrain marketing, I am 100% for this method.

On the other hand, realestistas work in real estate, not in wine. They are often prohibited from being transparent by law.

Yes, as Gary says, you can kill your brand in about 30-seconds because you’ve BS’ed the client. At the same time, things like Fair Housing Act and state regulations make it impossible for a realtor to be totally transparent. Business realities often make it impossible for a realtor to be totally transparent.

For example, say you’re a realtor in Camden, NJ which is the ghetto that other ghettos look at and go, “Damn!” It used to be the most dangerous city in the United States; it is now the second most dangerous city in the United States. Yippee?

What exactly do you say? What could you say? “Up and coming neighborhood? We used to be the worst, but we’re now the second-worst?”

Your client has listed with you to represent his house for sale. You owe your client a fiduciary duty.

So “radically transparent” realtor would talk about how the home is located in an area whose crime index is 983 vs. a national average of 320?

More prosaically, and we’ll return to this, while one bottle of 2005 Chateau Magrez Fombrauge is pretty much the same as every other bottle of 2005 Chateau Magrez Fombrauge, no two houses are alike, even if they are right next to each other, built by the same builder, in the same year, using the same materials and workmen. This is especially the case when your client, as a realtor, may have provided you information that really should not be disclosed ethically.

For example, you may know that your clients are going through a divorce and that is the reason they are selling, and because of acrimony, they’re willing to sell the house for pennies on the dollar.

Do you become “radically transparent”? If you tell the buyer or the buyer’s agent that your clients are happy to take any crappy offer, I’m sure you could do the transaction quickly. The answer is, of course not. Unless you like lawyers, courtrooms, and depositions at least, you don’t.

I do think Gary’s ultimately right. Not providing consumers with information simply drives them to other sites where consumers can find the info. Working at Onboard Informatics, I happen to know that some of our broker clients don’t want to include crime stats in their neighborhood information. They’re afraid that it will be seen as steering, or reflect negatively on their listings, etc.

I’m like, “So you think a consumer can’t find out crime data from other sources? You think she hasn’t already before she called you, and is now asking pointed questions about violent crime per thousand in your zip code?”

But as long as those certain laws, regulations, and common law principles (like fiduciary responsibility) continue to exist in real estate, there are clear limits to transparency for realestistas. Is this something that NAR should possibly take a look at in their government relations activities? Possibly.

Passionate Community

This is a point that many in the audience really responded to, and I think it’s seductive.

The notion that a realtor can, through the power of social media, build a personal brand (“not an option, but a necessity” in 2009) with a passionate, engaged community is incredibly seductive.

The idea that all you have to do is get a $300 video camera, and like Gary does (which he invites the audience to do) do a daily recording of houses, and so forth is really appealing.

But here’s the cold reality: just because you call a group of individuals a “community” doesn’t make it one.

A community, at a minimum, has to have some sort of a shared interest that sustains their interactions. Wine drinkers have that shared interest — namely, in wine. Poker players can be a community. Comic fans are most definitely a community. Realtors can be a community.

A bunch of shoppers do not make a community. Especially when they (a) share little else, and (b) are active, on average, every seven years.

You can “care about your customer” all you want. You’re not seeing him again for another seven years. A wine drinker can buy a bottle from Gary, then come back and buy another bottle a week later. No one is buying a house, then coming back and buying another one a month later.

And someone who is a buyer today, is passionately engaged in learning all he can about the neighborhood, the house, home values, what to look for, etc. etc. becomes just another homeowner who could care less about real estate next year.

The Seven Year Cycle is a phenomenon that really differentiates real estate from other industries. It really does so little good to compare business models and social media techniques from industries that do not share this fundamental factor with real estate.

The only really good analogue I can think of to real estate is the wedding industry. They might even share the Seven Year Cycle….

The point is, when a couple gets married, they are passionately engaged for a sustained period of time. They want to ask all their friends, read every review of every wedding hall, and of every DJ or band, taste every appetizer, look at a hundred thousand different dresses, etc. Then the wedding happens.

You will never see them again. Even if they get remarried, the second (or third) time around, the bloom is off the rose. The same passionate engagement is no longer operative (in most cases).

Do realestistas get business from social media? Of course they do. Does that make their clients, past, present and future into a “community”? No, sorry, it does not.

Blogging, Twitter, video blogs, and all of the social media techniques in real estate, I believe, is less about community building than it is about establishing expertise. Which can and does lead to business. But passionate, engaged community like Gary’s wine fanatics or the average Apple customer? Sorry, I’m not buying it.

But since we’re talking about establishing expertise… let us segue into…

Personal Branding

In a way, this is the most seductive and the most dangerous of Gary’s points. He almost had me believing that I can be rich, powerful, famous and charismatic as GaryVee simply by taking advantage of social media tools to build my personal brand.

Thing is, I’m more likely to be successful at doing that than your average realestista.

Gary uses the story about how he’s going to MC some wine show in Boston, even though he hasn’t shipped a single bottle of wine to Massachusetts in ten years (due to laws). It’s the wrong story. And the wrong focus.

The real focus needs to be on the fact that (as mentioned above) one bottle of 2005 Chateau Magrez Fombrauge is pretty much the same as every other bottle of 2005 Chateau Magrez Fombrauge. Wine, no matter how rare, is still a commodity good. Even with all of the bewildering variety of wines, grapes, vintages, regions, and so on, it is possible that one could become an acknowledged expert on wine.

Gary has been reading Wine Spectator since he was 16 years old. He’s clearly passionate about wine. He has drunk more wine, and more different wines, in the last month than I have in the last five years.

In that sort of a scenario, it is possible for someone to build a personal brand in an industry space that is large enough to warrant building a personal brand. A wine expert who knows all about cabernets probably knows a thing or two about merlots and pinot noirs. Perhaps there are true specialists in the wine world, where someone could specialize only in French varietals from 1985 to 1995 made by one-eyed vintners utilizing 16th century techniques. But on the whole, someone who truly knows wine probably knows enough about (guessing) 90-plus percent of wines in the world to pass judgment, have an opinion, and be taken seriously.

That is personal brand.

In contrast, as we noted above, every single home is different and unique. Okay, maybe brand new developments being offered to the public for the very first time has identical units, but even they are located in different places (or if an apartment building, different floors, or different sides).

The very nature of a house, in its sheer physicality on a unique patch of dirt, or with a unique view, or a unique sun exposure, or whatever means that it is the single least commoditizable thing we are legally allowed to buy and sell.

Now add in the fact that nearly every single home sold by a broker is in the ‘secondary market’ — it is owned by a seller who has ostensibly lived (or otherwise used) the property for some period of time. Differences in upkeep, in interior design, in modifications made, painted walls vs. wallpaper, etc. etc. means that even two identical condo units can be completely different in value, in desirability, and so on.

Now add in the fact that the geographic “placeness” of a property means that all of the external factors of being on that lot on that street in that section of town with that school system in that county in that state come into play. Property tax rates are different from this town to that one. This street floods when it rains, while that street remains dry. This school system is excellent, while that school system is only mediocre. Regulations on transfers of real property in this country differs from regulations in that county. And the examples abound.

It is simply impossible for any one human being to be an expert on homes in the same way that Gary can be an expert on wine. Impossible.

Someone who claims to be that expert is someone who will never, ever get my business. Because he’s lying to himself, which makes him an idiot, or lying to me, which makes him a crook.

What this means is that while social media can help a realtor establish expertise, and a realtor can work on her personal branding within her specific market on which she is an expert, I have no reason whatsoever to trust what she says about a property in another state. Or county. Or town. Or in a different asset class (multi-family vs. condo vs. single family).

This is, I submit, the ultimate in Long Tail. There is only the Long Tail in real estate, and no Fat Head.

Why oh why is this of any relevance to the issue of personal branding?

Because in the Long Tail, only the aggregators make money:

There are three basic types of participants in Long Tail markets: consumers, aggregators and producers (note that it’s possible to be all three; these aren’t mutually incompatible). The main effects on each are:

  • Consumers. Effect: Largely cultural. People have more choice, so individual taste increasingly satisfied even if the effect is an increasingly fragmented culture.
  • Aggregators. Effect: Largely economic. It’s never been easier to assemble vast variety and create tools for organizing it, from search to recommendations. Increased variety plus increased demand for variety equals opportunity. Also note that just as one size doesn’t fit all for products, nor does it for aggregators. I think the winner-take-all examples of eBay, Amazon, iTunes and Google are a first-inning phenomena. Specialized niche aggregators (think: vertical search, such as the real estate service Zillow) are on the rise.
  • Producers. Effect: Largely non-economic. I responded to a good Nick Carr post on this last year with the following: “For producers, Long Tail benefits are not primarily about direct revenues. Sure, Google Adsense on the average blog will generate risible returns, and the average band on MySpace probably won’t sell enough CDs to pay back their recording costs, much less quit their day jobs. But the ability to unitize such microcelebrity can be significant elsewhere. A blog is a great personal branding vehicle, leading to anything from job offers to consulting gigs. And most band’s MySpace pages are intended to bring fans to live shows, which are the market most bands care most about. When you look at the non-monetary economy of reputation, the Long Tail looks a lot more inviting for its inhabitants.”

Now, I know some of you are arguing that for the individual realtor, social media works as a personal branding vehicle with indirect revenues: the great personal branding leads to more referrals, assignments, and the like.

Yes, true… to an extent.

But two things fall out from that.

One, a realtor can never really be GaryVee. “Take the world,” exhorts Gary. Unfortunately, that is simply not a reality for realestistas. Ginger Wilcox may be very well known in the RE.net for her social media prowess (she even writes the blog Ginger Knows, after all). But someone looking for a house in New Jersey ain’t calling Ginger. Can Ginger, like Gary, win consulting assignments and write books and such? Sure. But those are distinctly non-realtor opportunities, quite distinct from Gary getting invited to Boston wine event.

Two, from a consumer branding standpoint, he who aggregates all of these personally branded individuals under a single consumer brand (and enforces it and grows it) is the one who will ultimately make most of the money.

Today, the drama in the real estate industry is who will emerge as that aggregator. Will it be the niche search engines like Trulia and Zillow? Or will it be the Big Brokers (including major franchises, such as Remax)? Or perhaps it may be the MLS/Realtor Associations with public-facing websites.

Because while one individual agent cannot be an expert on all homes in a large enough market segment to make real, serious money, a large enough collection of them absolutely can.

And that is a very useful thing to think about if you own a Top 100 brokerage company in 2009.

Ain’t No Business Like RE Business

In the end, I loved Gary’s presentation and speech. He’s a truly dynamic speaker. He talks with passion, with knowledge, with expertise, and with the credibility that comes only from success.

But fact is, he isn’t in real estate. He doesn’t know some of the real fundamental issues that makes this industry so absolutely unique: the non-commoditization, the Seven Year Cycle, the Longest of Long Tails. All of which conspire to make the overall thrust of his vision a very appealing, very seductive dream.

Sadly, a dream it is. And a dream it shall remain. Until the fundamental facts of this most unique of industries change.

-rsh

69 COMMENTS

  1. I disagree and must have failed in explaining the core message, I will do a video blog to expand 🙂 In 30 minutes I was unable to hint at details But I will attack in a special video just for u!

  2. I disagree and must have failed in explaining the core message, I will do a video blog to expand 🙂 In 30 minutes I was unable to hint at details But I will attack in a special video just for u!

  3. Rob – you know I love ya man, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.

    See my blog post here for a quick reaction to Gary’s Inman keynote.

    I *think* I’ve seen almost everything GaryVee has done on similar topics (transparency, personal branding, etc) and I think he’s spot on, and it has absolute implications for real estate.

    Let’s face it. I don’t sell you a home, I have to sell you on ME. Give me five minutes, and I can find you 100 agents in Phoenix (or any market) that can write a contract, market a home and negotiate a deal through closing. What separates me from the other 99? Instilling confidence in my clients and prospects that *I* am their best choice.

    It is ALL about transparency and branding.

  4. Rob – you know I love ya man, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.

    See my blog post here for a quick reaction to Gary’s Inman keynote.

    I *think* I’ve seen almost everything GaryVee has done on similar topics (transparency, personal branding, etc) and I think he’s spot on, and it has absolute implications for real estate.

    Let’s face it. I don’t sell you a home, I have to sell you on ME. Give me five minutes, and I can find you 100 agents in Phoenix (or any market) that can write a contract, market a home and negotiate a deal through closing. What separates me from the other 99? Instilling confidence in my clients and prospects that *I* am their best choice.

    It is ALL about transparency and branding.

  5. One other point:

    “You can “care about your customer” all you want. You’re not seeing him again for another seven years.”

    Yeah, but I can see his friends, family and associates. And their friends, family and associates. And their friends….

    The agent that takes an attitude like, “I won’t see that guy for another seven years” is making a huge mistake. HUGE.

  6. One other point:

    “You can “care about your customer” all you want. You’re not seeing him again for another seven years.”

    Yeah, but I can see his friends, family and associates. And their friends, family and associates. And their friends….

    The agent that takes an attitude like, “I won’t see that guy for another seven years” is making a huge mistake. HUGE.

  7. @Jay – I know you love me, bro, and you know I love you too. 🙂

    Maybe it’s semantics, but transparency means something else to me than authenticity. There are certain professions — namely those that are regulated and held to fiduciary type of standards — where transparency is wholly inappropriate.

    I think you have to be authentic and be expert. But transparent?

    Again, may just be semantics….

    -rsh

  8. @Jay – I know you love me, bro, and you know I love you too. 🙂

    Maybe it’s semantics, but transparency means something else to me than authenticity. There are certain professions — namely those that are regulated and held to fiduciary type of standards — where transparency is wholly inappropriate.

    I think you have to be authentic and be expert. But transparent?

    Again, may just be semantics….

    -rsh

  9. I really enjoyed watching the bootleg videos of GaryVee at Inman. But conversations like this one is what gets me excited. Real ideas, debated back and forth for an audience to absorb – that is valuable!

    Also, I think buzz words like ‘transparency’ and ‘personal branding’ are easy to get people fired up and start a conversation. But aren’t these really just about being yourself and being honest? I can be honest and still follow the law and still work with my client’s best interest. If I do these things without pretending to be something I am not, then maybe I just created my brand of doing business?

  10. I really enjoyed watching the bootleg videos of GaryVee at Inman. But conversations like this one is what gets me excited. Real ideas, debated back and forth for an audience to absorb – that is valuable!

    Also, I think buzz words like ‘transparency’ and ‘personal branding’ are easy to get people fired up and start a conversation. But aren’t these really just about being yourself and being honest? I can be honest and still follow the law and still work with my client’s best interest. If I do these things without pretending to be something I am not, then maybe I just created my brand of doing business?

  11. Hi Rob, fantastic to meet you at Inman.

    I’m one of the crew that got into it with you about CB vs. KW, and the agent vs. big brands while were at the Active rain after party.

    I think you are definitely missing Gary’s message about agents creating their own microbrand – you’ve got the business card so I know you know the concept.

    I’m working with agents that are doing this, whether it is with a market segment that they dominate effectively with their brand, a type of customer that they know and server better than anyone else, or a type of transaction that they really do better than anybody else – short sales/foreclosure being the easy answer. These guys are making great money, and some of them are selling their systems to other people – which is how you go do what Gary is doing, except in our industry.

    Of course, my perspective is skewed – I pretty much only work with people that are doing this. And there seem to be more of them everyday.

    I’d love to have the debate about it over a glass of something from Gary’s store at the next Inman. Or on stage, your choice.

    -J

  12. Hi Rob, fantastic to meet you at Inman.

    I’m one of the crew that got into it with you about CB vs. KW, and the agent vs. big brands while were at the Active rain after party.

    I think you are definitely missing Gary’s message about agents creating their own microbrand – you’ve got the business card so I know you know the concept.

    I’m working with agents that are doing this, whether it is with a market segment that they dominate effectively with their brand, a type of customer that they know and server better than anyone else, or a type of transaction that they really do better than anybody else – short sales/foreclosure being the easy answer. These guys are making great money, and some of them are selling their systems to other people – which is how you go do what Gary is doing, except in our industry.

    Of course, my perspective is skewed – I pretty much only work with people that are doing this. And there seem to be more of them everyday.

    I’d love to have the debate about it over a glass of something from Gary’s store at the next Inman. Or on stage, your choice.

    -J

  13. Rob, You make a very well thought out point but one that I believe is based on a fault, and that fault is the curse of knowledge. You let your in-depth understanding of the real estate space obscure your thinking on some very basic issues.

    In no particular order:

    – Realtors absolutely can create and build a personal brand that drives massive amounts of wealth from real estate. National or local or regional coverage all play a role. A great example is the McMonigle group in Southern California. John McMonigle is on Good Morning America regularly, which is clearly national in scope, and uses that popularity to list nearly every high-end luxury home in southern california. Why? Because he’s built his personal brand as the one guy, the one team you want selling your high-end home in SoCal. He is the guy working the “Fat Head” of real estate sales in SoCal. National exposure can certainly help you sell more homes in your backyard, I have no doubt about that.

    – The argument that real estate isn’t a commodity cuts too fine a point. Homes may not be exactly the same, but they certainly have similar attributes and qualities that make them more alike than dissimilar. In fact in periods of declining housing values I believe they’re more of a commodity than other things. People shop commodities on price, they shop homes on price. By definition commodities are those items which price is the driving factor. For most Americans price is a driving factor on home sales. This commodity aspect of homes should be exploited by Realtors and leveraged. The tired refrain of “every home is unique” is just that, and it comes from old-world real estate where people live in and pay-off their homes once. Much different than the housing market we see evolve where move-up buyers move inventory and families up through the market.

    – Passionate community. You say it doesn’t exist because of the long sales cycle. I don’t think long sales cycle has anything to do with it. I think it doesn’t exist yet because no one’s done a good job of it. There are much longer sales cycle industries that have passionate user groups around them and individuals – the real estate profession has just spent too much time in the last 7 years thinking of everyone as a lead to turn as fast as possible instead of trying to grow a true community. With commissions still at 6% even developing a community over 7 years will have positive ROI.

    – No business like RE business. I disagree. There is nothing special about real estate. All businesses have regulations and peculiarities that make them different. It doesn’t mean that personal brand, transparency and community don’t apply. It just means that you have to make them work for the space. Just because no one has done it doesn’t mean it’s not doable and more important, doesn’t mean it’s not a more viable business strategy in the long view.

    In sum, I think your point of view is too mired in old world Real Estate and comes with a thinking that refuses to accept that things can change. They are changing, personal brand, community and transparency will come to real estate. It will come with you leading the way or kicking and screaming, but it will come.

  14. Rob, You make a very well thought out point but one that I believe is based on a fault, and that fault is the curse of knowledge. You let your in-depth understanding of the real estate space obscure your thinking on some very basic issues.

    In no particular order:

    – Realtors absolutely can create and build a personal brand that drives massive amounts of wealth from real estate. National or local or regional coverage all play a role. A great example is the McMonigle group in Southern California. John McMonigle is on Good Morning America regularly, which is clearly national in scope, and uses that popularity to list nearly every high-end luxury home in southern california. Why? Because he’s built his personal brand as the one guy, the one team you want selling your high-end home in SoCal. He is the guy working the “Fat Head” of real estate sales in SoCal. National exposure can certainly help you sell more homes in your backyard, I have no doubt about that.

    – The argument that real estate isn’t a commodity cuts too fine a point. Homes may not be exactly the same, but they certainly have similar attributes and qualities that make them more alike than dissimilar. In fact in periods of declining housing values I believe they’re more of a commodity than other things. People shop commodities on price, they shop homes on price. By definition commodities are those items which price is the driving factor. For most Americans price is a driving factor on home sales. This commodity aspect of homes should be exploited by Realtors and leveraged. The tired refrain of “every home is unique” is just that, and it comes from old-world real estate where people live in and pay-off their homes once. Much different than the housing market we see evolve where move-up buyers move inventory and families up through the market.

    – Passionate community. You say it doesn’t exist because of the long sales cycle. I don’t think long sales cycle has anything to do with it. I think it doesn’t exist yet because no one’s done a good job of it. There are much longer sales cycle industries that have passionate user groups around them and individuals – the real estate profession has just spent too much time in the last 7 years thinking of everyone as a lead to turn as fast as possible instead of trying to grow a true community. With commissions still at 6% even developing a community over 7 years will have positive ROI.

    – No business like RE business. I disagree. There is nothing special about real estate. All businesses have regulations and peculiarities that make them different. It doesn’t mean that personal brand, transparency and community don’t apply. It just means that you have to make them work for the space. Just because no one has done it doesn’t mean it’s not doable and more important, doesn’t mean it’s not a more viable business strategy in the long view.

    In sum, I think your point of view is too mired in old world Real Estate and comes with a thinking that refuses to accept that things can change. They are changing, personal brand, community and transparency will come to real estate. It will come with you leading the way or kicking and screaming, but it will come.

  15. Jay – I saw GaryVee’s Inman speech on your blog, thanks!

    Brad – Couldn’t agree more, conversations like this one are were the really good stuff comes from.

    Gary – Can’t wait to see your expanded response. Love your passion, man!

    Rob – I’m glad I found this post because you’ve brought up one of the main concerns that I have about using social media, namely, transparency. Oddly enough, you may have hit the nail on the head, at least for me, in your comment – “Authenticity”.

    Building a personal brand in real estate seems to me to be not so much about being transparent but about being genuine, authentic, principled, and passionate; caring for one’s clients over making a buck, going the distance even when I know the road will be long and hard, admitting mistakes and fixing them to the best of my ability, demonstrating the character that will be trusted, respected and referred.

    I think the point of GaryVee’s speech wasn’t so much “follow in my footsteps”, but more look at the power of social media and how thinking outside of the box can yield fantastic results.

  16. Jay – I saw GaryVee’s Inman speech on your blog, thanks!

    Brad – Couldn’t agree more, conversations like this one are were the really good stuff comes from.

    Gary – Can’t wait to see your expanded response. Love your passion, man!

    Rob – I’m glad I found this post because you’ve brought up one of the main concerns that I have about using social media, namely, transparency. Oddly enough, you may have hit the nail on the head, at least for me, in your comment – “Authenticity”.

    Building a personal brand in real estate seems to me to be not so much about being transparent but about being genuine, authentic, principled, and passionate; caring for one’s clients over making a buck, going the distance even when I know the road will be long and hard, admitting mistakes and fixing them to the best of my ability, demonstrating the character that will be trusted, respected and referred.

    I think the point of GaryVee’s speech wasn’t so much “follow in my footsteps”, but more look at the power of social media and how thinking outside of the box can yield fantastic results.

  17. @Brad –

    i think what you’re talking about (being honest without pretense) is what I would call “authenticity”. That’s a far cry from “transparency” which calls for total honesty about everything.

    On the brand issue, yes, that “authentic” brand is the way. All I’m saying is that I consider individual agents/realtors to be sort of “micro-brands” each with a slice of the long tail that is real estate. For them, social media is mostly about indirect revenues — and on that basis, it isn’t 100% clear that social media wins out over more traditional concepts like “sphere of influence” because the tail is so damn long.

    I know… it probably needs much more explanation….

    -rsh

  18. @Brad –

    i think what you’re talking about (being honest without pretense) is what I would call “authenticity”. That’s a far cry from “transparency” which calls for total honesty about everything.

    On the brand issue, yes, that “authentic” brand is the way. All I’m saying is that I consider individual agents/realtors to be sort of “micro-brands” each with a slice of the long tail that is real estate. For them, social media is mostly about indirect revenues — and on that basis, it isn’t 100% clear that social media wins out over more traditional concepts like “sphere of influence” because the tail is so damn long.

    I know… it probably needs much more explanation….

    -rsh

  19. @Jack –

    Was GREAT to meet you as well. I’m sorry that I was a bit… ah… under the spiritual influence as it were. 🙂 But i do remember that discussion with you, Christine and Sue. We definitely should go hang out at Gary’s store, pick out a bottle or something, and hit Khun Thai one of these days.

    WRT your point, I really think I need to do more explanation re: Long Tail and its effects on real estate. But even granting that you’re correct, I suppose my view is that Gary can sell wine all over the world via e-commerce, and his opinion on a particular wine will be valid / expert. And even if Gary does nothing but just sell wine (i.e., no ancillary revenue streams), he still went from $2m to over $50m in sales. That’s because the wine industry, IMHO, is not quite as long tail as real estate is.

    In contrast, let’s take Sue. Say she’s an awesome agent, leveraging social media, blah blah blah. A consumer in Montana should never use Sue to buy a house in Montana. She can’t possibly be expert in that market the way she is for Millburn/Short Hills. In fact, to represent her knowledge of real estate in her market as being somehow transcending locale is to be inauthentic.

    On the ancillary revenue side of things… I dig what Gary’s saying. But those activities (speaking, books, etc.) do not in any way shape or form help a single client of Sue’s. Nor does her speaking on social media strategies to a bunch of California realtors lead to her being a better, more dominant realtor in the NJ market. (Except, I suppose, for some relocation type of stuff, but honestly, just join a relo network….)

    That stands in relatively stark contrast, in my mind, to a retail operation.

    -rsh

  20. @Jack –

    Was GREAT to meet you as well. I’m sorry that I was a bit… ah… under the spiritual influence as it were. 🙂 But i do remember that discussion with you, Christine and Sue. We definitely should go hang out at Gary’s store, pick out a bottle or something, and hit Khun Thai one of these days.

    WRT your point, I really think I need to do more explanation re: Long Tail and its effects on real estate. But even granting that you’re correct, I suppose my view is that Gary can sell wine all over the world via e-commerce, and his opinion on a particular wine will be valid / expert. And even if Gary does nothing but just sell wine (i.e., no ancillary revenue streams), he still went from $2m to over $50m in sales. That’s because the wine industry, IMHO, is not quite as long tail as real estate is.

    In contrast, let’s take Sue. Say she’s an awesome agent, leveraging social media, blah blah blah. A consumer in Montana should never use Sue to buy a house in Montana. She can’t possibly be expert in that market the way she is for Millburn/Short Hills. In fact, to represent her knowledge of real estate in her market as being somehow transcending locale is to be inauthentic.

    On the ancillary revenue side of things… I dig what Gary’s saying. But those activities (speaking, books, etc.) do not in any way shape or form help a single client of Sue’s. Nor does her speaking on social media strategies to a bunch of California realtors lead to her being a better, more dominant realtor in the NJ market. (Except, I suppose, for some relocation type of stuff, but honestly, just join a relo network….)

    That stands in relatively stark contrast, in my mind, to a retail operation.

    -rsh

  21. I have to agree with Rob on the Community aspect!

    What makes a community is the repeated interaction between those within the community. Consumers/Clients might post questions on your blog or forum and once their questions are answered, there is a slim chance they will be returning, they are most likely going to email or call you. Without the repeated interaction on your blog or forum, you lack a “community”.

    Just because you may have hundreds of consumers/clients posting questions on your blog or forum every month, it’s not a community if they aren’t returning to interact!

    Just my 2 cents on this subject…

  22. I have to agree with Rob on the Community aspect!

    What makes a community is the repeated interaction between those within the community. Consumers/Clients might post questions on your blog or forum and once their questions are answered, there is a slim chance they will be returning, they are most likely going to email or call you. Without the repeated interaction on your blog or forum, you lack a “community”.

    Just because you may have hundreds of consumers/clients posting questions on your blog or forum every month, it’s not a community if they aren’t returning to interact!

    Just my 2 cents on this subject…

  23. Rob-

    If that consumer in Montana found Sue’s site, and it had great information and captured the consumer, and Sue refers it – she just made money. If Sue generates a reputation (and search rankings) as being “the agent” for a property type or type of sale, and people find her online and ask for a referral, she makes money. I see this happen all the time with investor deals, short sales, etc.

    She has opportunities outside of that stream of income if she decides to pursue them – and I won’t elaborate further without her permission.

    Further, Sue is already selling $50m in real estate. She’s making enough money to be living a good life.

    There’s more here than meets the eye.

    Jack

  24. Rob-

    If that consumer in Montana found Sue’s site, and it had great information and captured the consumer, and Sue refers it – she just made money. If Sue generates a reputation (and search rankings) as being “the agent” for a property type or type of sale, and people find her online and ask for a referral, she makes money. I see this happen all the time with investor deals, short sales, etc.

    She has opportunities outside of that stream of income if she decides to pursue them – and I won’t elaborate further without her permission.

    Further, Sue is already selling $50m in real estate. She’s making enough money to be living a good life.

    There’s more here than meets the eye.

    Jack

  25. @Morgan – Love the comments bro. Let’s get into ’em. Meaty stuff, those.

    – Realtors absolutely can create and build a personal brand that drives massive amounts of wealth from real estate. National or local or regional coverage all play a role. A great example is the McMonigle group in Southern California.

    A few things.

    1. I would argue that McMonigle group is more akin to a brokerage than an individual agent. His team sold $505m worth of property in 2007. Plus, his team is 19 people. I hardly call that “personal branding”. Or put another way, if you are going to call McMonigle a personal brand, probably should call “Colbert Coldwell” a personal brand too.

    In other words, McMonigle Group to me is precisely the sort of nascent “new-age brokerage model” that someone like @Mizzle has as well.

    2. Despite that, despite being the #1 agent in the CB system, despite his national exposure, etc. in one of the top luxury markets in the country… McMonigle can’t translate his expertise and whatever into getting a single listing in New York? To me, that’s evidence of the extreme long tail of real estate.

    3. And despite all of that, the McMonigle Group only did $10m in annual GCI? I assure you that the NRT, that Old School Real Estate firm that “doesn’t get it” and so on, which aggregates individual brands like John McMonigle, did far in excess of $10m GCI.

    4. And finally, and fatal to your argument, Morgan, is the fact that unless I’m missing something very obvious, McMonigle Group does ZERO (that’s Z-E-R-O) social media marketing. Try as I might, I can’t find the McMonigle blog. So even if we accept, arguendo, that McMonigle has built a valuable personal brand, it does not therefore follow that the average realtor must leverage social media, seeing as how he used no social media tools at all. Rather, he used traditional PR, like getting on TV. That strikes me as an argument to use Old School Media Tricks.

    – The argument that real estate isn’t a commodity cuts too fine a point. Homes may not be exactly the same, but they certainly have similar attributes and qualities that make them more alike than dissimilar. In fact in periods of declining housing values I believe they’re more of a commodity than other things. People shop commodities on price, they shop homes on price. By definition commodities are those items which price is the driving factor. For most Americans price is a driving factor on home sales. This commodity aspect of homes should be exploited by Realtors and leveraged. The tired refrain of “every home is unique” is just that, and it comes from old-world real estate where people live in and pay-off their homes once. Much different than the housing market we see evolve where move-up buyers move inventory and families up through the market.

    1. The definition of a commodity is actually where one good perfectly substitutes for another. Gasoline is a commodity; Exxon gas will run just as well as Mobil gas, and I can even intermingle them. Gold is a commodity. Money is the ultimate commodity. Because they are so perfectly interchangeable, people shop commodities on price, not the other way around. Homes, therefore, are the least commoditizable “item” one can legally purchase in the U.S.

    2. I further disagree that in this down market, consumers are shopping for homes strictly on price. If that were the case, we should see a huge population movement from Orange County into Detroit. We’re not seeing that, precisely because the location is an incredibly important element of a home’s unique value.

    – Passionate community. You say it doesn’t exist because of the long sales cycle. I don’t think long sales cycle has anything to do with it. I think it doesn’t exist yet because no one’s done a good job of it. There are much longer sales cycle industries that have passionate user groups around them and individuals – the real estate profession has just spent too much time in the last 7 years thinking of everyone as a lead to turn as fast as possible instead of trying to grow a true community. With commissions still at 6% even developing a community over 7 years will have positive ROI.

    I can’t think of an industry with a longer sales cycle than real estate that has a “passionate and engaged community”. Commercial airliners maybe?

    But the deeper point is that when I am in the market for a house, I have no shared interest with another consumer also in the market for a house, except that we’re both looking to buy a house. That’s it. That’s the extent of our “communal bond”. And frankly, apart from our need/desire to buy a house, we may have totally different tastes, priorities, etc. I might want a Manhattan loft; he might think I’m a crazy loon for wanting to pay $5m for 1500 sq. ft of space. I drink wine; he drinks beer. I watch baseball; he watches football. We literally have nothing in common, except that we both want to buy a house. In what sense are we a “community”?

    In contrast, wine enthusiasts have magazines, conventions, clubs, and a real shared interest. Same goes for any real community: shared interests. I’m sorry, but real estate consumers… at the end of the day just ain’t that into you.

    – No business like RE business. I disagree. There is nothing special about real estate. All businesses have regulations and peculiarities that make them different. It doesn’t mean that personal brand, transparency and community don’t apply. It just means that you have to make them work for the space. Just because no one has done it doesn’t mean it’s not doable and more important, doesn’t mean it’s not a more viable business strategy in the long view.

    Actually, there is absolutely something special about real estate: each home is unique.

    I know you already said this is tired old-school thinking, but it really isn’t. It’s one of the fundamental, immutable laws of the business. Homes are on pieces of land. Land is unique in location. It can’t be moved.

    Layer on top of that the other peculiarities: real estate is almost entirely a secondary market industry, where an existing consumer owner sells his property to a buyer, with the realtor acting as an intermediary. The realtor has no inventory in the way that say Gary has.

    Add on the Seven Year Cycle, the lack of shared interests, unique laws and regulations — and in the Anglo-American legal tradition, real estate is regulated most heavily closer to home. FHA might have some onerous provisions, but they pale in comparison to state regs which in turn are nowhere near as painful as local zoning ordinances.

    I guess I’m wondering what in my point of view is “old world Real Estate”. I accept that things can change; I rather think I advocate for a lot of change.

    But laws of physics — two objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time — do not change. Longstanding business and economic “rules” — such as the Seven Year Cycle — do not change except at glacial speeds. Human nature that prohibits the formation of a community without shared interests does not change (at least, quickly).

    Therefore, my point is that taking concepts that work in one industry — such as retail — and applying them directly to real estate is a task fraught with pitfalls. I am curious to hear GaryVee’s response, but his Inman talk rather implied that they can. I just disagree in some key respects, while agreeing in many other, that’s all. 🙂

    -rsh

  26. @Morgan – Love the comments bro. Let’s get into ’em. Meaty stuff, those.

    – Realtors absolutely can create and build a personal brand that drives massive amounts of wealth from real estate. National or local or regional coverage all play a role. A great example is the McMonigle group in Southern California.

    A few things.

    1. I would argue that McMonigle group is more akin to a brokerage than an individual agent. His team sold $505m worth of property in 2007. Plus, his team is 19 people. I hardly call that “personal branding”. Or put another way, if you are going to call McMonigle a personal brand, probably should call “Colbert Coldwell” a personal brand too.

    In other words, McMonigle Group to me is precisely the sort of nascent “new-age brokerage model” that someone like @Mizzle has as well.

    2. Despite that, despite being the #1 agent in the CB system, despite his national exposure, etc. in one of the top luxury markets in the country… McMonigle can’t translate his expertise and whatever into getting a single listing in New York? To me, that’s evidence of the extreme long tail of real estate.

    3. And despite all of that, the McMonigle Group only did $10m in annual GCI? I assure you that the NRT, that Old School Real Estate firm that “doesn’t get it” and so on, which aggregates individual brands like John McMonigle, did far in excess of $10m GCI.

    4. And finally, and fatal to your argument, Morgan, is the fact that unless I’m missing something very obvious, McMonigle Group does ZERO (that’s Z-E-R-O) social media marketing. Try as I might, I can’t find the McMonigle blog. So even if we accept, arguendo, that McMonigle has built a valuable personal brand, it does not therefore follow that the average realtor must leverage social media, seeing as how he used no social media tools at all. Rather, he used traditional PR, like getting on TV. That strikes me as an argument to use Old School Media Tricks.

    – The argument that real estate isn’t a commodity cuts too fine a point. Homes may not be exactly the same, but they certainly have similar attributes and qualities that make them more alike than dissimilar. In fact in periods of declining housing values I believe they’re more of a commodity than other things. People shop commodities on price, they shop homes on price. By definition commodities are those items which price is the driving factor. For most Americans price is a driving factor on home sales. This commodity aspect of homes should be exploited by Realtors and leveraged. The tired refrain of “every home is unique” is just that, and it comes from old-world real estate where people live in and pay-off their homes once. Much different than the housing market we see evolve where move-up buyers move inventory and families up through the market.

    1. The definition of a commodity is actually where one good perfectly substitutes for another. Gasoline is a commodity; Exxon gas will run just as well as Mobil gas, and I can even intermingle them. Gold is a commodity. Money is the ultimate commodity. Because they are so perfectly interchangeable, people shop commodities on price, not the other way around. Homes, therefore, are the least commoditizable “item” one can legally purchase in the U.S.

    2. I further disagree that in this down market, consumers are shopping for homes strictly on price. If that were the case, we should see a huge population movement from Orange County into Detroit. We’re not seeing that, precisely because the location is an incredibly important element of a home’s unique value.

    – Passionate community. You say it doesn’t exist because of the long sales cycle. I don’t think long sales cycle has anything to do with it. I think it doesn’t exist yet because no one’s done a good job of it. There are much longer sales cycle industries that have passionate user groups around them and individuals – the real estate profession has just spent too much time in the last 7 years thinking of everyone as a lead to turn as fast as possible instead of trying to grow a true community. With commissions still at 6% even developing a community over 7 years will have positive ROI.

    I can’t think of an industry with a longer sales cycle than real estate that has a “passionate and engaged community”. Commercial airliners maybe?

    But the deeper point is that when I am in the market for a house, I have no shared interest with another consumer also in the market for a house, except that we’re both looking to buy a house. That’s it. That’s the extent of our “communal bond”. And frankly, apart from our need/desire to buy a house, we may have totally different tastes, priorities, etc. I might want a Manhattan loft; he might think I’m a crazy loon for wanting to pay $5m for 1500 sq. ft of space. I drink wine; he drinks beer. I watch baseball; he watches football. We literally have nothing in common, except that we both want to buy a house. In what sense are we a “community”?

    In contrast, wine enthusiasts have magazines, conventions, clubs, and a real shared interest. Same goes for any real community: shared interests. I’m sorry, but real estate consumers… at the end of the day just ain’t that into you.

    – No business like RE business. I disagree. There is nothing special about real estate. All businesses have regulations and peculiarities that make them different. It doesn’t mean that personal brand, transparency and community don’t apply. It just means that you have to make them work for the space. Just because no one has done it doesn’t mean it’s not doable and more important, doesn’t mean it’s not a more viable business strategy in the long view.

    Actually, there is absolutely something special about real estate: each home is unique.

    I know you already said this is tired old-school thinking, but it really isn’t. It’s one of the fundamental, immutable laws of the business. Homes are on pieces of land. Land is unique in location. It can’t be moved.

    Layer on top of that the other peculiarities: real estate is almost entirely a secondary market industry, where an existing consumer owner sells his property to a buyer, with the realtor acting as an intermediary. The realtor has no inventory in the way that say Gary has.

    Add on the Seven Year Cycle, the lack of shared interests, unique laws and regulations — and in the Anglo-American legal tradition, real estate is regulated most heavily closer to home. FHA might have some onerous provisions, but they pale in comparison to state regs which in turn are nowhere near as painful as local zoning ordinances.

    I guess I’m wondering what in my point of view is “old world Real Estate”. I accept that things can change; I rather think I advocate for a lot of change.

    But laws of physics — two objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time — do not change. Longstanding business and economic “rules” — such as the Seven Year Cycle — do not change except at glacial speeds. Human nature that prohibits the formation of a community without shared interests does not change (at least, quickly).

    Therefore, my point is that taking concepts that work in one industry — such as retail — and applying them directly to real estate is a task fraught with pitfalls. I am curious to hear GaryVee’s response, but his Inman talk rather implied that they can. I just disagree in some key respects, while agreeing in many other, that’s all. 🙂

    -rsh

  27. Hi Rob,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am too tired, and am typed out to go in to great depth but here are my responses.

    1. McMonigle group is now a 19-person team, but he started much smaller. The McMonigle name comes from John. In SoCal he is “high-end”. That’s personal brand in my opinion. When someone in SoCal wants to know who to list their multi-million dollar beachfront home people say McMonigle. That’s dominating a niche, a market, what have you. Regardless of the size of the niche vis-a-vis other niches or segments they own it.

    2. I chose McMonigle not because they used social media (they are, as you point out one of the most traditional marketing orgs out here) but because John appears nationally even though in your argument it would appear that in your estimation he should avoid national publicity because he can’t use it outside his licensed area. Which I cede, but it DOES help him INSIDE his area. The national doesn’t just help across the country – it helps right at home. When someone sees John on GMA showcasing an $80 million listing they think – I want that guy to sell my manse. Again, to the social media point, just because no one has used it to build massive wealth in real estate to date doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Real estate is notoriously behind in technology. Look at blogging. You’d think it’s 2004 with the way everyone’s all geeked over it now.

    3. There are 5 definitions of commodity in Merriam Webster and I would argue that homes as they stand now are very much a commodity. The argument that people would move from OC to Detroit for a home ignores many other important factors such as, say, the local economy, but many people move within local areas from homes to homes not for the plot of land that they reside on but for commodity (common, easily replaceable) elements like square footage, bedrooms, oh, and price.

    Finally, I don’t think that you are a product of old world thinking – I simply think that believing that new media techniques of building a real estate business are irrelevant are short-sighted. If someone told you 10 years ago that people would buy houses from a web site purely made of text-links from a guy named Craig you would have laughed in my face. If you would have told me three years that you can sell something using text messages on the Web people would laugh. I think it is too easy to sit and look at the reasons things won’t change, then to consider the opportunities that exist for those that do change.

    I know you’re a forward thinker which is why I decided to comment on this particular post – it seemed almost intentionally contrarian. Good bait, I guess. 🙂

    I agree, btw, that being romanced in to doing social media all day is a profoundly easy way to find yourself without food on your table. What I don’t agree with is that pushing for high-quality ideals is ever a bad thing, in spite of the limitations (perceived or real) imposed on whatever industry you happen to find yourself in.

    Wow – I need to sleep 🙂

  28. Hi Rob,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am too tired, and am typed out to go in to great depth but here are my responses.

    1. McMonigle group is now a 19-person team, but he started much smaller. The McMonigle name comes from John. In SoCal he is “high-end”. That’s personal brand in my opinion. When someone in SoCal wants to know who to list their multi-million dollar beachfront home people say McMonigle. That’s dominating a niche, a market, what have you. Regardless of the size of the niche vis-a-vis other niches or segments they own it.

    2. I chose McMonigle not because they used social media (they are, as you point out one of the most traditional marketing orgs out here) but because John appears nationally even though in your argument it would appear that in your estimation he should avoid national publicity because he can’t use it outside his licensed area. Which I cede, but it DOES help him INSIDE his area. The national doesn’t just help across the country – it helps right at home. When someone sees John on GMA showcasing an $80 million listing they think – I want that guy to sell my manse. Again, to the social media point, just because no one has used it to build massive wealth in real estate to date doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Real estate is notoriously behind in technology. Look at blogging. You’d think it’s 2004 with the way everyone’s all geeked over it now.

    3. There are 5 definitions of commodity in Merriam Webster and I would argue that homes as they stand now are very much a commodity. The argument that people would move from OC to Detroit for a home ignores many other important factors such as, say, the local economy, but many people move within local areas from homes to homes not for the plot of land that they reside on but for commodity (common, easily replaceable) elements like square footage, bedrooms, oh, and price.

    Finally, I don’t think that you are a product of old world thinking – I simply think that believing that new media techniques of building a real estate business are irrelevant are short-sighted. If someone told you 10 years ago that people would buy houses from a web site purely made of text-links from a guy named Craig you would have laughed in my face. If you would have told me three years that you can sell something using text messages on the Web people would laugh. I think it is too easy to sit and look at the reasons things won’t change, then to consider the opportunities that exist for those that do change.

    I know you’re a forward thinker which is why I decided to comment on this particular post – it seemed almost intentionally contrarian. Good bait, I guess. 🙂

    I agree, btw, that being romanced in to doing social media all day is a profoundly easy way to find yourself without food on your table. What I don’t agree with is that pushing for high-quality ideals is ever a bad thing, in spite of the limitations (perceived or real) imposed on whatever industry you happen to find yourself in.

    Wow – I need to sleep 🙂

  29. Hi Rob,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am too tired, and am typed out to go in to great depth but here are my responses.

    1. McMonigle group is now a 19-person team, but he started much smaller. The McMonigle name comes from John. In SoCal he is “high-end”. That’s personal brand in my opinion. When someone in SoCal wants to know who to list their multi-million dollar beachfront home people say McMonigle. That’s dominating a niche, a market, what have you. Regardless of the size of the niche vis-a-vis other niches or segments they own it.

    2. I chose McMonigle not because they used social media (they are, as you point out one of the most traditional marketing orgs out here) but because John appears nationally even though in your argument it would appear that in your estimation he should avoid national publicity because he can’t use it outside his licensed area. Which I cede, but it DOES help him INSIDE his area. The national doesn’t just help across the country – it helps right at home. When someone sees John on GMA showcasing an $80 million listing they think – I want that guy to sell my manse. Again, to the social media point, just because no one has used it to build massive wealth in real estate to date doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Real estate is notoriously behind in technology. Look at blogging. You’d think it’s 2004 with the way everyone’s all geeked over it now.

    3. There are 5 definitions of commodity in Merriam Webster and I would argue that homes as they stand now are very much a commodity. The argument that people would move from OC to Detroit for a home ignores many other important factors such as, say, the local economy, but many people move within local areas from homes to homes not for the plot of land that they reside on but for commodity (common, easily replaceable) elements like square footage, bedrooms, oh, and price.

    Finally, I don’t think that you are a product of old world thinking – I simply think that believing that new media techniques of building a real estate business are irrelevant are short-sighted. If someone told you 10 years ago that people would buy houses from a web site purely made of text-links from a guy named Craig you would have laughed in my face. If you would have told me three years that you can sell something using text messages on the Web people would laugh. I think it is too easy to sit and look at the reasons things won’t change, then to consider the opportunities that exist for those that do change.

    I know you’re a forward thinker which is why I decided to comment on this particular post – it seemed almost intentionally contrarian. Good bait, I guess. 🙂

    I agree, btw, that being romanced in to doing social media all day is a profoundly easy way to find yourself without food on your table. What I don’t agree with is that pushing for high-quality ideals is ever a bad thing, in spite of the limitations (perceived or real) imposed on whatever industry you happen to find yourself in.

    Wow – I need to sleep 🙂

  30. Rob,

    I love how you just drop thought bombs and then preside over the wreckage. 🙂

    There is a lot in your post that begs for response, but I am running out to take some listing photos. I’m going to create a separate post as a response.

    The only brief things I will say now is that: 1) I think you are right on the money about aggregators, but most brokerages are afraid to do it, for reasons that we have discussed before, not the least of which is their business model.

    2) Passionate communities organized by a Realtor need not necessarily be about the real estate transaction. I also think that hasn’t really be explored yet, either.

  31. Rob,

    I love how you just drop thought bombs and then preside over the wreckage. 🙂

    There is a lot in your post that begs for response, but I am running out to take some listing photos. I’m going to create a separate post as a response.

    The only brief things I will say now is that: 1) I think you are right on the money about aggregators, but most brokerages are afraid to do it, for reasons that we have discussed before, not the least of which is their business model.

    2) Passionate communities organized by a Realtor need not necessarily be about the real estate transaction. I also think that hasn’t really be explored yet, either.

  32. Rob, Rob, Rob. I SO disagree with you ( but I really appreciate the PR you gave me here, so thanks for that).
    I DEFINITELY have a community following from my online marketing so I know it can be done. It doesnt end with the sale of a house. If you provide home sale stats monthly the homeowners keep coming back. If you become the “expert” on the micro market in your area and keep your community informed on what’s going on and talk about the local happenings, they keep coming back. Past clients are a huge part of that community too, so the 7 yr housing cycle has absolutely nothing to do with building a community.

    This, combined with a strong follow up system is powerful stuff with the consumer. As long as you show your personality and don’t come off like a dish rag, then people dont remove themselves because you’re providing something of value to them on THEIR community.
    As a matter of fact, when I call people who have been in my online community, they’re happy to hear from me and they actually appreciate the checking in call because they feel like they know me. I think that is Gary’s point. I met Gary and ran up and hugged him when I had never met him. To me he’s my neighborhood wine guy so I felt connected with him that way.

    Similarly, you and I met through “twitter” and then in person at the Active Rain party, when we met for the first time, it was like we were old friends! You yelled ” Sue Adler, you’re my local realtor!” and we hugged and started instantly arguing like an old married couple. ( Jack Miller and I definitely won that argument by the way)
    My point is, these are all micro communities, whether with other social media people or within our own local communities, or on a national level, depending on where you want to take it.

    I thought Gary’s speech was perfect, and I can also tell you that when you do what you do on a daily basis like this, great things CAN happen and you CAN get national recognition, even as a realtor.

  33. Rob, Rob, Rob. I SO disagree with you ( but I really appreciate the PR you gave me here, so thanks for that).
    I DEFINITELY have a community following from my online marketing so I know it can be done. It doesnt end with the sale of a house. If you provide home sale stats monthly the homeowners keep coming back. If you become the “expert” on the micro market in your area and keep your community informed on what’s going on and talk about the local happenings, they keep coming back. Past clients are a huge part of that community too, so the 7 yr housing cycle has absolutely nothing to do with building a community.

    This, combined with a strong follow up system is powerful stuff with the consumer. As long as you show your personality and don’t come off like a dish rag, then people dont remove themselves because you’re providing something of value to them on THEIR community.
    As a matter of fact, when I call people who have been in my online community, they’re happy to hear from me and they actually appreciate the checking in call because they feel like they know me. I think that is Gary’s point. I met Gary and ran up and hugged him when I had never met him. To me he’s my neighborhood wine guy so I felt connected with him that way.

    Similarly, you and I met through “twitter” and then in person at the Active Rain party, when we met for the first time, it was like we were old friends! You yelled ” Sue Adler, you’re my local realtor!” and we hugged and started instantly arguing like an old married couple. ( Jack Miller and I definitely won that argument by the way)
    My point is, these are all micro communities, whether with other social media people or within our own local communities, or on a national level, depending on where you want to take it.

    I thought Gary’s speech was perfect, and I can also tell you that when you do what you do on a daily basis like this, great things CAN happen and you CAN get national recognition, even as a realtor.

  34. Rob, Rob, Rob. I SO disagree with you ( but I really appreciate the PR you gave me here, so thanks for that).
    I DEFINITELY have a community following from my online marketing so I know it can be done. It doesnt end with the sale of a house. If you provide home sale stats monthly the homeowners keep coming back. If you become the “expert” on the micro market in your area and keep your community informed on what’s going on and talk about the local happenings, they keep coming back. Past clients are a huge part of that community too, so the 7 yr housing cycle has absolutely nothing to do with building a community.

    This, combined with a strong follow up system is powerful stuff with the consumer. As long as you show your personality and don’t come off like a dish rag, then people dont remove themselves because you’re providing something of value to them on THEIR community.
    As a matter of fact, when I call people who have been in my online community, they’re happy to hear from me and they actually appreciate the checking in call because they feel like they know me. I think that is Gary’s point. I met Gary and ran up and hugged him when I had never met him. To me he’s my neighborhood wine guy so I felt connected with him that way.

    Similarly, you and I met through “twitter” and then in person at the Active Rain party, when we met for the first time, it was like we were old friends! You yelled ” Sue Adler, you’re my local realtor!” and we hugged and started instantly arguing like an old married couple. ( Jack Miller and I definitely won that argument by the way)
    My point is, these are all micro communities, whether with other social media people or within our own local communities, or on a national level, depending on where you want to take it.

    I thought Gary’s speech was perfect, and I can also tell you that when you do what you do on a daily basis like this, great things CAN happen and you CAN get national recognition, even as a realtor.

  35. Hi Sue 🙂 Disagreement among friends is the essence of the appeal of blogging (with comments, of course). I mean, how boring would it be if we all sat around going, “I agree” and “I agree with you” and “I agree”. Diversity is the spice of web. So let’s get into it.

    Again, this may be semantics, but I don’t think so, so I’m going to stress it.

    You do not have a “community” following your online marketing; you have a bunch of individuals, a number of “followers” if you will. That is a far cry from a “community”.

    Think of it another way. If you stopped blogging, sending out home stats, twittering, calling people — heck, if you moved to Azerbaijan tomorrow, would your “community” stay together? Is there anything binding your “community” besides Sue Adler? I don’t think so.

    Now, as it happens, when it comes to real estate, there are further details. The residents of an area are in fact a community — because they share the common fate of living in that town/neighborhood/etc. Even if I have little in common with my neighbor, we are affected by the same taxes, same regs, same economy, same pothole, etc. So local blogging is a tremendously effective way for an agent to gain a following — I’ve never denied that, and if anything, I’m a big proponent of it. Look at Teri Lussier for example.

    The unfortunate thing, however, is that because Teri is a realtor, she simply cannot compete with a true “community site”. For example, Baristanet. I wrote about that phenomenon on this post on the OnBlog.

    So the best that Teri (and you) can aim for is authenticity, not transparency. And even in the “community” making, I do feel that while realtors can get followers, get respect, get acknowledged as a local expert, I don’t know that realtors can really address a true community.

    I know — some of this does sound like splitting hairs, but the impact of properly understanding what is and is not a community, what is and is not transparency, is important in my view. Which is why I stress it. 🙂

    I do want to note that I loved Gary’s speech. There were tons of things in there that were useful, inspirational, entertaining, and thought-provoking (obviously). It’s just that once you listen to the whole, sit back and try to absorb the main points, I’m not convinced they apply directly to real estate.

    -rsh

  36. Hi Sue 🙂 Disagreement among friends is the essence of the appeal of blogging (with comments, of course). I mean, how boring would it be if we all sat around going, “I agree” and “I agree with you” and “I agree”. Diversity is the spice of web. So let’s get into it.

    Again, this may be semantics, but I don’t think so, so I’m going to stress it.

    You do not have a “community” following your online marketing; you have a bunch of individuals, a number of “followers” if you will. That is a far cry from a “community”.

    Think of it another way. If you stopped blogging, sending out home stats, twittering, calling people — heck, if you moved to Azerbaijan tomorrow, would your “community” stay together? Is there anything binding your “community” besides Sue Adler? I don’t think so.

    Now, as it happens, when it comes to real estate, there are further details. The residents of an area are in fact a community — because they share the common fate of living in that town/neighborhood/etc. Even if I have little in common with my neighbor, we are affected by the same taxes, same regs, same economy, same pothole, etc. So local blogging is a tremendously effective way for an agent to gain a following — I’ve never denied that, and if anything, I’m a big proponent of it. Look at Teri Lussier for example.

    The unfortunate thing, however, is that because Teri is a realtor, she simply cannot compete with a true “community site”. For example, Baristanet. I wrote about that phenomenon on this post on the OnBlog.

    So the best that Teri (and you) can aim for is authenticity, not transparency. And even in the “community” making, I do feel that while realtors can get followers, get respect, get acknowledged as a local expert, I don’t know that realtors can really address a true community.

    I know — some of this does sound like splitting hairs, but the impact of properly understanding what is and is not a community, what is and is not transparency, is important in my view. Which is why I stress it. 🙂

    I do want to note that I loved Gary’s speech. There were tons of things in there that were useful, inspirational, entertaining, and thought-provoking (obviously). It’s just that once you listen to the whole, sit back and try to absorb the main points, I’m not convinced they apply directly to real estate.

    -rsh

  37. @Rob

    “it isn’t 100% clear that social media wins out over more traditional concepts like “sphere of influence””

    Social media is simply a communication medium for connecting with and expanding your sphere of influence.

    In the old mantra ‘send-call-see (your sphere)’, social media is simply an alternative predicate acting upon the noun Sphere, NOT a Thing itself. Conflating the two amplifies the effect of us looking for The Next Big Thing.

    Regarding real estate as a commodity or not: how you categorize the property doesn’t matter. Agents don’t sell property. They “sell” their ability to manage a complex process. There is a large perception gap between what the public perceives the (good) agent does and their process in reality and this is where transparency is most desperately needed.

    Radical Transparency involves exposing the truth about that process, not necessarily a call to rupture fiduciary duty or break fair housing laws. If we had full transparency regarding what most agents do (or don’t do) in managing the marketing and transaction process, the value of the good would be more apparent (and the bad would more quickly be forced to exit the business).

    re: community, you said:

    “But the deeper point is that when I am in the market for a house, I have no shared interest with another consumer also in the market for a house, except that we’re both looking to buy a house. That’s it. That’s the extent of our “communal bond””

    With all due respect, you are thinking like a ‘dude’ on this one (and dudes, don’t buy homes, ladies due). My wife came home the other night from a School function, wherein she related the story of 7 or so stay-at-home moms *passionately* discussing (for over an hour), their likes and dislikes regarding a local companies real estate website redesign. They all use the site daily looking at real estate ‘for fun’.

    While I couldn’t agree more that companies are in a much better position than individual agents to create a resource around which this community can congregate, it IS a community. Folks are more passionate about sharing stories about their home (or potential dream home) than almost any other subject save kids and dogs. Much untapped potential here.

  38. @Rob

    “it isn’t 100% clear that social media wins out over more traditional concepts like “sphere of influence””

    Social media is simply a communication medium for connecting with and expanding your sphere of influence.

    In the old mantra ‘send-call-see (your sphere)’, social media is simply an alternative predicate acting upon the noun Sphere, NOT a Thing itself. Conflating the two amplifies the effect of us looking for The Next Big Thing.

    Regarding real estate as a commodity or not: how you categorize the property doesn’t matter. Agents don’t sell property. They “sell” their ability to manage a complex process. There is a large perception gap between what the public perceives the (good) agent does and their process in reality and this is where transparency is most desperately needed.

    Radical Transparency involves exposing the truth about that process, not necessarily a call to rupture fiduciary duty or break fair housing laws. If we had full transparency regarding what most agents do (or don’t do) in managing the marketing and transaction process, the value of the good would be more apparent (and the bad would more quickly be forced to exit the business).

    re: community, you said:

    “But the deeper point is that when I am in the market for a house, I have no shared interest with another consumer also in the market for a house, except that we’re both looking to buy a house. That’s it. That’s the extent of our “communal bond””

    With all due respect, you are thinking like a ‘dude’ on this one (and dudes, don’t buy homes, ladies due). My wife came home the other night from a School function, wherein she related the story of 7 or so stay-at-home moms *passionately* discussing (for over an hour), their likes and dislikes regarding a local companies real estate website redesign. They all use the site daily looking at real estate ‘for fun’.

    While I couldn’t agree more that companies are in a much better position than individual agents to create a resource around which this community can congregate, it IS a community. Folks are more passionate about sharing stories about their home (or potential dream home) than almost any other subject save kids and dogs. Much untapped potential here.

  39. @Rob

    “it isn’t 100% clear that social media wins out over more traditional concepts like “sphere of influence””

    Social media is simply a communication medium for connecting with and expanding your sphere of influence.

    In the old mantra ‘send-call-see (your sphere)’, social media is simply an alternative predicate acting upon the noun Sphere, NOT a Thing itself. Conflating the two amplifies the effect of us looking for The Next Big Thing.

    Regarding real estate as a commodity or not: how you categorize the property doesn’t matter. Agents don’t sell property. They “sell” their ability to manage a complex process. There is a large perception gap between what the public perceives the (good) agent does and their process in reality and this is where transparency is most desperately needed.

    Radical Transparency involves exposing the truth about that process, not necessarily a call to rupture fiduciary duty or break fair housing laws. If we had full transparency regarding what most agents do (or don’t do) in managing the marketing and transaction process, the value of the good would be more apparent (and the bad would more quickly be forced to exit the business).

    re: community, you said:

    “But the deeper point is that when I am in the market for a house, I have no shared interest with another consumer also in the market for a house, except that we’re both looking to buy a house. That’s it. That’s the extent of our “communal bond””

    With all due respect, you are thinking like a ‘dude’ on this one (and dudes, don’t buy homes, ladies due). My wife came home the other night from a School function, wherein she related the story of 7 or so stay-at-home moms *passionately* discussing (for over an hour), their likes and dislikes regarding a local companies real estate website redesign. They all use the site daily looking at real estate ‘for fun’.

    While I couldn’t agree more that companies are in a much better position than individual agents to create a resource around which this community can congregate, it IS a community. Folks are more passionate about sharing stories about their home (or potential dream home) than almost any other subject save kids and dogs. Much untapped potential here.

  40. Great post. Social media is another channel for message distribution. There are intangible benefits to participation. Not everyone has the charisma to pull off alternative funding streams outside of theire core business like Gary Vee.

    That does not mean that REALTORS should not use social media to drive eyeballs to their listing inventory. It is an ends to a means for most and for the talented few, it could mean a whole new career. I agree with R.O.B’s point with regard to the wine business being completely different from real estate.

    However, if I were still basking in the sunshine in Florida, you bet I’d be out there using social media to become the golf course community real estate expert. Whatever your social interests are make them your niche in the new social media environment and build social networks to build your business.

    Matt Gentile, Director of PR
    CENTURY 21 Real Estate

  41. Great post. Social media is another channel for message distribution. There are intangible benefits to participation. Not everyone has the charisma to pull off alternative funding streams outside of theire core business like Gary Vee.

    That does not mean that REALTORS should not use social media to drive eyeballs to their listing inventory. It is an ends to a means for most and for the talented few, it could mean a whole new career. I agree with R.O.B’s point with regard to the wine business being completely different from real estate.

    However, if I were still basking in the sunshine in Florida, you bet I’d be out there using social media to become the golf course community real estate expert. Whatever your social interests are make them your niche in the new social media environment and build social networks to build your business.

    Matt Gentile, Director of PR
    CENTURY 21 Real Estate

  42. Great post. Social media is another channel for message distribution. There are intangible benefits to participation. Not everyone has the charisma to pull off alternative funding streams outside of theire core business like Gary Vee.

    That does not mean that REALTORS should not use social media to drive eyeballs to their listing inventory. It is an ends to a means for most and for the talented few, it could mean a whole new career. I agree with R.O.B’s point with regard to the wine business being completely different from real estate.

    However, if I were still basking in the sunshine in Florida, you bet I’d be out there using social media to become the golf course community real estate expert. Whatever your social interests are make them your niche in the new social media environment and build social networks to build your business.

    Matt Gentile, Director of PR
    CENTURY 21 Real Estate

  43. @morgan –

    Hope you had a good night’s sleep. 🙂

    I think there’s another possible misunderstanding between us. I’m not attacking social media — clearly, I blog, I twit, I use all the social media tools myself. I believe in the power of social media when appropriate.

    As Gary himself said, Twitter is a tool, like a yellow marker or a fax machine. You don’t get a medal because you have a Twitter account. It’s what you actually DO using tools that matters, right?

    So I’m looking at the underlying business (and reality) assumptions. Whether one does those things using one tool or another is, in a way, irrelevant. Tools might make doing something easier but that’s all.

    So the three points of disagreement for me with Gary are:

    1. Transparency
    2. Passionate Community
    3. Personal Branding

    These have little to do with the tools at hand, and everything to do with what I perceive to be fundamental realities of this industry: laws and regulations, lack of shared interest, and extreme long tail resulting from the uniqueness of real property as a “product”.

    I am all for applying the proper tools to the proper tasks, against a background of strategic analysis based on the realities on the ground. In many cases, I’ll be wrong about the realities on the ground; in some cases, I won’t be. And the tools to be brought to bear need to be assessed in light of those strategic priorities and realities on the ground.

    So I’m not hating on social media; nor am I seduced by it. It’s just another tool in the business arsenal. It is very appropriate in some ways (e.g., establishing expertise) and very inappropriate in other ways (e.g., radical transparency).

    -rsh

  44. @morgan –

    Hope you had a good night’s sleep. 🙂

    I think there’s another possible misunderstanding between us. I’m not attacking social media — clearly, I blog, I twit, I use all the social media tools myself. I believe in the power of social media when appropriate.

    As Gary himself said, Twitter is a tool, like a yellow marker or a fax machine. You don’t get a medal because you have a Twitter account. It’s what you actually DO using tools that matters, right?

    So I’m looking at the underlying business (and reality) assumptions. Whether one does those things using one tool or another is, in a way, irrelevant. Tools might make doing something easier but that’s all.

    So the three points of disagreement for me with Gary are:

    1. Transparency
    2. Passionate Community
    3. Personal Branding

    These have little to do with the tools at hand, and everything to do with what I perceive to be fundamental realities of this industry: laws and regulations, lack of shared interest, and extreme long tail resulting from the uniqueness of real property as a “product”.

    I am all for applying the proper tools to the proper tasks, against a background of strategic analysis based on the realities on the ground. In many cases, I’ll be wrong about the realities on the ground; in some cases, I won’t be. And the tools to be brought to bear need to be assessed in light of those strategic priorities and realities on the ground.

    So I’m not hating on social media; nor am I seduced by it. It’s just another tool in the business arsenal. It is very appropriate in some ways (e.g., establishing expertise) and very inappropriate in other ways (e.g., radical transparency).

    -rsh

  45. @morgan –

    Hope you had a good night’s sleep. 🙂

    I think there’s another possible misunderstanding between us. I’m not attacking social media — clearly, I blog, I twit, I use all the social media tools myself. I believe in the power of social media when appropriate.

    As Gary himself said, Twitter is a tool, like a yellow marker or a fax machine. You don’t get a medal because you have a Twitter account. It’s what you actually DO using tools that matters, right?

    So I’m looking at the underlying business (and reality) assumptions. Whether one does those things using one tool or another is, in a way, irrelevant. Tools might make doing something easier but that’s all.

    So the three points of disagreement for me with Gary are:

    1. Transparency
    2. Passionate Community
    3. Personal Branding

    These have little to do with the tools at hand, and everything to do with what I perceive to be fundamental realities of this industry: laws and regulations, lack of shared interest, and extreme long tail resulting from the uniqueness of real property as a “product”.

    I am all for applying the proper tools to the proper tasks, against a background of strategic analysis based on the realities on the ground. In many cases, I’ll be wrong about the realities on the ground; in some cases, I won’t be. And the tools to be brought to bear need to be assessed in light of those strategic priorities and realities on the ground.

    So I’m not hating on social media; nor am I seduced by it. It’s just another tool in the business arsenal. It is very appropriate in some ways (e.g., establishing expertise) and very inappropriate in other ways (e.g., radical transparency).

    -rsh

  46. I still don’t have quite enough time to address this fully, but I’ve been following the comments, so. . .

    Michael Rahm seems to be most in line with the way that I look at this situation. Social media (which I think has become an abused misnomer) is not the goal, it is one of the tools.

    Rob,

    As far as your semantics debate goes, I think that you are going to have to share your definition of community. Honestly, I’ve read your post and comments, and I still can’t determine what you think a community is. I guess my issue is this, you seem to be conflating the biological definition of a community with the sociological definition of community (which, by the way, has long been debated).

    I guess my point is this, I don’t think that the semantics are that important (which is unusual for me), if I am talking about the same thing you are talking about, but you call it a “following,” and I call it a “community,” so what? Honestly, I fail to see why the nomenclature is so important; and, being an English Major, I am typically a stickler for precision.

    On second thought, perhaps we should all just agree to use Seth Godin’s term– tribe. That sounds like it might be a more accurate description.

  47. I still don’t have quite enough time to address this fully, but I’ve been following the comments, so. . .

    Michael Rahm seems to be most in line with the way that I look at this situation. Social media (which I think has become an abused misnomer) is not the goal, it is one of the tools.

    Rob,

    As far as your semantics debate goes, I think that you are going to have to share your definition of community. Honestly, I’ve read your post and comments, and I still can’t determine what you think a community is. I guess my issue is this, you seem to be conflating the biological definition of a community with the sociological definition of community (which, by the way, has long been debated).

    I guess my point is this, I don’t think that the semantics are that important (which is unusual for me), if I am talking about the same thing you are talking about, but you call it a “following,” and I call it a “community,” so what? Honestly, I fail to see why the nomenclature is so important; and, being an English Major, I am typically a stickler for precision.

    On second thought, perhaps we should all just agree to use Seth Godin’s term– tribe. That sounds like it might be a more accurate description.

  48. I still don’t have quite enough time to address this fully, but I’ve been following the comments, so. . .

    Michael Rahm seems to be most in line with the way that I look at this situation. Social media (which I think has become an abused misnomer) is not the goal, it is one of the tools.

    Rob,

    As far as your semantics debate goes, I think that you are going to have to share your definition of community. Honestly, I’ve read your post and comments, and I still can’t determine what you think a community is. I guess my issue is this, you seem to be conflating the biological definition of a community with the sociological definition of community (which, by the way, has long been debated).

    I guess my point is this, I don’t think that the semantics are that important (which is unusual for me), if I am talking about the same thing you are talking about, but you call it a “following,” and I call it a “community,” so what? Honestly, I fail to see why the nomenclature is so important; and, being an English Major, I am typically a stickler for precision.

    On second thought, perhaps we should all just agree to use Seth Godin’s term– tribe. That sounds like it might be a more accurate description.

  49. @Daniel –

    I just defined community in the comments above as a group of people with shared common interests.

    The reason why I stress about this in this particular case is that oenophiles are most definitely a community. I have friends who subscribe to magazines, read product reviews, go to wine tastings, and schedule vacations around winery tours. It’s a hobby for them, a lifestyle, and they interact widely (in both physical and virtual realms) with other wine enthusiasts.

    While I do recognize that there are some people who just love houses and homes, for the most part, real estate consumers do not share an interest. Michael’s point is a valid one, but… (and this is where things get a bit squirrelly) that community he described is NOT a real estate consumer community. It is, rather, a PTA Moms community; his wife went to a SCHOOL function (implying local, in his actual geographic community) and met 7 other stay-at-home moms (who share a great deal in common interest) and they happened to get on the topic of local realtor sites.

    Wine enthusiasts at a wine tasting can get into a discussion of real estate prices; that doesn’t make them into a “real estate consumer community”. Does that make any sense?

    Michael’s points re: transparency of process, etc. are spot on. I guess now we’re into word games, because to me, that would be “authenticity”.

    -rsh

  50. @Daniel –

    I just defined community in the comments above as a group of people with shared common interests.

    The reason why I stress about this in this particular case is that oenophiles are most definitely a community. I have friends who subscribe to magazines, read product reviews, go to wine tastings, and schedule vacations around winery tours. It’s a hobby for them, a lifestyle, and they interact widely (in both physical and virtual realms) with other wine enthusiasts.

    While I do recognize that there are some people who just love houses and homes, for the most part, real estate consumers do not share an interest. Michael’s point is a valid one, but… (and this is where things get a bit squirrelly) that community he described is NOT a real estate consumer community. It is, rather, a PTA Moms community; his wife went to a SCHOOL function (implying local, in his actual geographic community) and met 7 other stay-at-home moms (who share a great deal in common interest) and they happened to get on the topic of local realtor sites.

    Wine enthusiasts at a wine tasting can get into a discussion of real estate prices; that doesn’t make them into a “real estate consumer community”. Does that make any sense?

    Michael’s points re: transparency of process, etc. are spot on. I guess now we’re into word games, because to me, that would be “authenticity”.

    -rsh

  51. @rob – I agree with you. Everything is really a tool when it comes down to it. I guess what I’m advocating is that the barriers to these types of tools have brought being able to connect, be transparent and build community to anyone who wants to leverage them in a way that helps them build their business.

    I’m not suggesting that they will be able to make everyone a millionaire, but I do believe that they are tools of change that can be embraced to improve your business.

    Like you and Gary said, if its a yellow marker yesterday and Twitter today and who-knows tomorrow they are just tools to reach an end.

    What I’m advocating is that people don’t just say “we’re different, it won’t work here” and instead look for ways _to_ make it work in the industry for the good of everyone involved.

  52. @rob – I agree with you. Everything is really a tool when it comes down to it. I guess what I’m advocating is that the barriers to these types of tools have brought being able to connect, be transparent and build community to anyone who wants to leverage them in a way that helps them build their business.

    I’m not suggesting that they will be able to make everyone a millionaire, but I do believe that they are tools of change that can be embraced to improve your business.

    Like you and Gary said, if its a yellow marker yesterday and Twitter today and who-knows tomorrow they are just tools to reach an end.

    What I’m advocating is that people don’t just say “we’re different, it won’t work here” and instead look for ways _to_ make it work in the industry for the good of everyone involved.

  53. dude I am so sorry ..I just did an interview and got into it, I will also get to a blog post as soon as I can, sorry dude, but I have some stuff for u 🙂 lol! Stay healthy and happy peeps

  54. dude I am so sorry ..I just did an interview and got into it, I will also get to a blog post as soon as I can, sorry dude, but I have some stuff for u 🙂 lol! Stay healthy and happy peeps

  55. @Gary –

    No worries mate 🙂 I think the RE.net is holding its collective breath to see what you have to say. Just let us know when you do followup — there are a LOT of folks who respect your views on social media.

    -rsh

  56. @Gary –

    No worries mate 🙂 I think the RE.net is holding its collective breath to see what you have to say. Just let us know when you do followup — there are a LOT of folks who respect your views on social media.

    -rsh

  57. Heh, thanks Gary, but honestly… some of the folks in the responses here (like Russell Shaw and Jay Thompson) have forgotten more about this space than I ever knew. 🙂 I’m just a scribbler, really, THEY are the experts.

    But again, thanks, and looking forward to your next!

    -rsh

  58. Heh, thanks Gary, but honestly… some of the folks in the responses here (like Russell Shaw and Jay Thompson) have forgotten more about this space than I ever knew. 🙂 I’m just a scribbler, really, THEY are the experts.

    But again, thanks, and looking forward to your next!

    -rsh

Comments are closed.