As some of the commenters on my original thread have already surmised, Aybaf is not a real company. It is a thought experiment that came about as the result of my hours-long conversation with an executive at one of the top web real estate companies. My first thought was to call this new concept Trillow, but thought that would be too obvious.
The initial question that Mr. Executive (who wishes to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons) and I were tossing back and forth was this:
“Suppose this Trillow were to launch a virtual brokerage, backed up with all of the tools and resources currently available. How does a traditional big broker or big brand compete?”
Hence, Aybaf (All You Brokers Are F***ed).
I do thank many of you for your thoughtful comments, and apologize for misleading you. It was for a good cause.
Analyzing the Threat
Contra some of the commenters, I do believe that a Trillow Virtual Brokerage would take an enormous bite out of numerous brokerages as they are today.
I have on good authority that the vast majority of agents are more than happy to pay for actionable leads, as long as they are paying upon close. Most people are much happier with a “pay-per-transaction” model than they are with any other, whether pay-per-click, or pay-per-lead, or pay-per-impression. 15% is not too high for a broker to charge for “house leads” because I know of several that are doing it, and their agents aren’t complaining — they’re happy.
Mr. Executive and I looked at the “desk fees” of a completely virtual brokerage, and they are negligible. $19.95 a month easily covers the cost of a data center (which Aybaf would need to have in any event) and some of the software involved. Liability insurance was the biggest line item, but at about 15,000 agents (about a tenth of what the NRT has today), that cost is easily covered. Plus, transaction analytics coupled to risk management systems means you can continually prune the ones who pop up as a high-risk.
Finally, liability and screening are much less of an issue when you go after the experienced top producers who are already on 90/10 type of splits, already have their own operation setup, and already are disenchanted with the services they are receiving from their brokerage (or brand). Sperry Van Ness has done this successfully in commercial real estate, an industry where big brand matters far more than it does in residential real estate. They don’t need to “manage” their agents, because their agents are proven self-starters who “manage” themselves and their staff just fine, thank you.
2 million unique visitors a month is about the average between Trulia, Zillow, and HomeGain. 15,000 actionable leads is less than 1% conversion rate from that traffic.
This can absolutely happen. Do not think it can’t.
So the question for brokerages and brands is, “How will you compete?”
What Aybaf points to is the significant institutional disadvantage that brokerages and brands have in today’s real estate industry. As Kris Berg points out, the old economies of scale do not work anymore:
It seems like only yesterday that I needed a company brand for credibility. I needed the resources of a big company, both the fixtures and the systems, because there was an economy of scale which I couldn’t touch on my own. Today, I can work from anywhere. I don’t need the desk and computer bank and copiers; I have my own. I don’t need the listing feeds; I can place my listings any place my broker might, and in doing so all roads lead back to me. I don’t need the brand; I long ago branded myself. Group print advertising rates which used to be a huge benefit of associating with the 1000 pound gorilla are now an antiquated concept. [Emphasis added.]
So the current brokerages of all stripes are stuck with the costs of operating an institution that generates economies of scale that don’t matter anymore to the experienced, producing agents.
I spoke with the Director of Technology for a very large brokerage operation who told me flat out that the facilities costs for his offices are crushing their P&L and balance sheets. The annual rent for 15,000 sq. ft. of office space no longer makes any sense when 80% of agents are working from home, or better yet, working from their local Starbucks using mobile communications and laptops more powerful than the computer that sent Armstrong to the moon.
Plus, as any organization grows in size, there is inevitable overhead from bureaucracy. Jay Thompson may be able to hand-route leads to his small team of agents, but once the agent count gets to a couple of hundred, and the lead count gets to hundreds a day, he’s going to be spending all of his time hand-routing leads. So someone (human or machine) has to do that work for a large operation.
In my analysis, part of the institutional disadvantage that many brokers face today is the result of investment decisions made during the Roarin’ 00’s when real estate started to bubble. I touched on this topic at some length on this post on OnBlog. When you’ve spent years investing three-and-a-half times as much on dead-tree advertising instead of on your web operations, while the new generation of real estate players were investing 100% into the most powerful marketing and communications medium since television, you are going to end up with an institutional disadvantage.
Why? Because technology improves productivity; dead-tree advertising has never, does not, and will never improve productivity.
So let’s come back to 2009. Numerous large brokerages have thousands upon thousands of agents, but the smart, productive ones have figured out long ago that the broker isn’t providing enough value to them. They’ve gone out on their own, followed gurus telling them to brand themselves, and to leverage social media to build their own following, and realized, “Hey, I can make more money doing this myself, with cheap or free technology tools!”
Result: the big brokerages are inefficient, behind in productivity, saddled with costs from the old economies of scale days, burdened with masses of unproductive, unprofessional agents who continually degrade the firm’s brand, and are watching their consumers transfer their loyalty to either Big Web or individual agents.
I Ain’t No Chicken Little McNugget
Enough with the doomsaying and the sky-is-rapidly-descending talk. As regular readers of this blog know, I am a believer in Big Brokerage as the future of real estate:
Robnecks hold that Big Brokers are not dinosaurs doomed to extinction as much as they are sleeping giants. Some will never wake up, and end up being devoured by the Swarm; but those who do wake up have established business models, established brand, established infrastructure, and most importantly, have the resources to invest in to technology.
It is not too late for brokerages and brands to turn things around. Decades upon decades of success have built a cushion for Big Brokerages. But it’s getting there, and the clock is ticking, and the forces of Kristiandom are not resting. You cannot survive eating into the brand endowment that your predecessors have built up; you’ve got to start replenishing it.
The key lessons that Big Brokerage must learn in order to turn things around are these:
- Technology gives an institution the ability to control the consumer relationship.
- Institutional advantage is built on productivity and brand.
- You reap what you sow.
The full discussion of these is probably going to have to wait for another 9-million word post, but let’s briefly touch on these.
Consider Home Depot. As a homeowner, I have a relationship with Home Depot, not with the contractors who show up to install the windows I bought there. If I need to have new doors, I’ll go to Home Depot, and never even think about the independent contractor who shows up to install the doors.
For a services business, technology gives you the ability to know consumers, to relate to consumers directly, to build feedback loops with consumers, and to drive the entire consumer relationship cycle. Look at Amazon.com and what it has accomplished — though they are in retail, so caveat lector.
Rather than outsourcing your consumer relationship efforts to your agents, you need to take ownership of that effort, and be responsible for it. That will certainly mean more than software; it will mean reforming your customer relationship process, customer service philosophy, and perhaps finding resources to handle service. It is critical to your future survival.
Productivity and brand — these two thing dictate institutional advantage.
Productivity simply means more units per unit of labor — more sides, more revenues, per agent/employee. Every single piece of technology you implement must improve productivity or it’s a waste of money. Enhanced productivity leads to increased profitability which leads to cost-structure advantages.
In today’s economy, this means finding new economies of scale. The old “group discounts on dead-tree advertising” isn’t cutting it. Listen to your best agents, watch the industry, and understand where the new economies of scale are. They will be, I’m guessing, in areas of CRM, content generation and management, and web-based productivity tools.
Keeping in mind that your brand is in the hands of your worst agent, consider how that changes the way you would approach recruiting, training, discipline, and brand enforcement.
In concert, these two things yield lasting institutional advantage. At least until things change again, and you have to adapt or die again.
Finally, and you know this already, you reap what you sow. Continue to invest in print over web on a 3:1 ratio, and you will reap the rewards of that. Continue to ignore your brand equity in favor of short-term revenues from “more bodies, more desk fees” and you will reap the rewards of that.
At the end of the day, I renounce Aybaf. For much the same reason that Keith from the comments mentions:
Brokerage is not about being cheap, or about providing web leads, it is about oversight and policy.
Where he says “oversight and policy”, I hear “total consumer experience”. A broker who understands not only the past of the industry but the future as well, will be a major force for positive change. They will drive customer benefit, while enforcing discipline required to build true brand equity.
Aybaf (or any model like it) may make a ton of money, and may be the low-cost solution for a variety of independents. It may even win the overall war, as has happened in the travel industry for example. But it cannot, in my view, help to improve the industry as a whole.
Renunciation, of course, is not the same thing as denial. Aybaf can happen. Trillow can happen. And that fact should raise the original question for those responsible for brokerage companies and real estate brands today:
How will you compete?