Home Brokers & Agents Onward Kristian Soldiers!

Onward Kristian Soldiers!

45
24
SHARE
Onward to Victory!
Onward to Victory!

The Setup

The talented and lovely Kris Berg is but one of the able spokespersons on the vanguard of a movement I have whimsically dubbed the “Kristians”.  This is an important movement, with very important points to make, and even as I disagree with them on points, I take their arguments seriously.

Essentially, the Kristian position appears to be (and please, feel free to correct me) that the future of real estate lies in The Swarm — small independents, high quality agents, and boutique firms, empowered by technology and social media.  The technology will be provided by third party firms, third party consumer websites, and the like.

Big Brokers, in the Kristian view, are anachronistic dinosaurs stuck back in the days, who provide no meaningful support to high-quality agents.  There is a role for Big Brokerage in the Kristian worldview, but it’s limited to some sort of a training factory to churn through the ranks of inexperienced newbies who aren’t serious about the business of real estate.  A nursery, if you will, for realtors who will go independent as soon as they are able.

In contrast, you have those who believe that the future of real estate will be dictated by Big Brokerage (including Big Franchise, such as Remax, Coldwell Banker, and the like) which I have dubbed The Robnecks.

The Robnecks believe that despite the current buzz being generated by social media, “Web 2.0”, and the like, the fundamental realities of business and the industry will reassert themselves and in the not-too-distant future.  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.

The Robneckian theory posits that there are technology solutions available in the market today — such as enterprise CRM — that are enormously expensive to implement and to operate, but provide lasting institutional advantage.  Given that some of these Big Brokerages have billions in sales, and hundreds of millions in revenues, they will not go gentle into that dark night.  They will fight and rage against the dying of the light.

We believe, therefore, that the future of real estate will be charted by those Big Brokerages who have woken up, seen the light, and have begun to streamline their operations, understanding the critical levers of power in the industry.  Marrying their institutional expertise with infrastructure with significant investment into productivity technology will provide these Big Brokerages with a profit advantage over big competitors and a brand advantage over The Swarm, which will lead to their changing the industry.

The Question

The Talented Ms. Berg
The Talented Ms. Berg

With that background, consider that Kris Berg recently posted a very thought-provoking, and important, article on this topic entitled “Innovation in Real Estate: Are we really different or did we just change clothes“.  I urge you to read it in full.

It continues the debate that began here.  And Kris asks important questions and makes important points.  The most salient, I think, is this:

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.

Admittedly, many agents may not want to think that hard, so there will always be a place for the high-overhead brokerage. But as we march forward in our social evolution, the numbers who will need help grasping technology or will need to be spoon-fed a business plan will diminish. As virtual office space becomes more the norm and less the exception, I believe we will be finding more agents concluding that the shiny office supported by company voice mail and e-mail systems and an administrative staff a dozen deep are “wants” and not “needs.” And when that happens, there will be more resistance to paying for something that is not truly necessary in conducting our business.

So we are left with the true value of the brokerage being in the areas of training and “lead generation.” Training is another topic entirely and for another day. As for lead generation, I see it becoming a footrace of sorts among the competing brokerages to generate the most “leads” (consumer contacts and inquiries) to placate and feed the largest number of agents. More agents equal more money. But then, haven’t we come full circle? Aren’t we back to what we are now? And just where did the customer go in the equation?

Again, read the whole thing in full for the proper context.

Kris is surely correct as things stand today.  I want to stress this point.  As the industry is today, Kris Berg is absolutely correct, and the Kristians have the field.

If Big Brokerage of today is essentially a office-park operation that has gleaming office space and dozens of admins who add little value to the transaction, and they just charge rent (aka, “desk fee”) to the agents, then yes, the savvy agent will see that they don’t in fact need anything that the Big Brokerage provides.

Third party vendors do in fact supply the savvy agent with everything she needs to be successful.

The only value of brokerage, then, in the Kristian vision is “training and lead generation”.  And her question is poignant indeed: “And just where did the customer go in the equation?”

The Answer

The Robneckian answer is un-simple.  Furthermore, it is counter-factual, because I am essentially arguing that the future will be different than the recent past, and the present day.  But I believe this.

To start, we must begin with First Premises — assumptions that underlie the answer.  In this case, they are:

  • People love money, but people hate losing money even more.
  • He who controls the consumer relationship controls the money; he who controls the money controls the future.
  • Real Estate is the longest of Long Tails.

From these first premises, what I derive is that Big Brokerage has greater incentive to act than pretenders to the throne.  It’s one thing to want to make $150m a year by becoming a third party technology provider to millions of agents.  It’s another thing altogether to lose $150m a year by sleeping on the job.

Lest we forget, some of the people who own these Big Brokerages are folks who have spent their entire lives building up a company from the ground up.  I met some of these people during my time at Realogy.  They may be fatcats now, but not one forgot the struggles they went through as a young man or woman scratching and fighting, building their company one customer at a time, one agent at a time, facing bankruptcies, having wins, and finally breaking through.  They are one motivated group of folks.

Is it really safe to assume that people like that are content to let their brokerage value plummet while third party tech vendors pick off their top producers?

I wouldn’t bet against those people as a group.  Sure, some will be too tired, some will be too set in their ways, some will simply be content to fade away — but most of those successful broker owners are extremely driven, competitive, smart people with a track record of success over the decades.

Second, once those people come to understand that he who controls the consumer relationship controls the business, and that web technology lets institutions control that consumer relationship (see, e.g., zappos.com)… I believe that they will see what this means for their business.  Going from the currently prevailing 3% profit margin to say a 10% profit margin when you’re doing $2B in sales means you achieve massive institutional advantage.

Finally, because real estate is the longest of long tail industries — due to the fact that each and every house is unique and not movable — even the superest of super agents can only occupy a small part of the long tail.  Yes, they can make a very nice living while there (see, e.g., John McMonigle) but as compared to Big Brokerage, these super-teams or boutique brokerages simply lack market power.

Only someone who can aggregate all these different pieces of the long tail into a significant enough chunk can make real money from real estate.  The only two contenders are Big Brokerage or Technology Providers (such as Zillow).

Can Tech Providers win that war?  Of course they can.  Too much arrogance, too short-term vision, or too little nimbleness on the part of Big Brokerage will naturally lead to the Tech Providers winning.  In large part, this is what has happened to commercial real estate in the United States.

However, the Robnecks hypothesize that it will not happen in residential real estate, because here (unlike in CRE), an institution can own the consumer relationship.

Caveat Lector

The caveat: they cannot do it with technology already available to the agent.  No way, no how.  The cost advantages of someone working from home, using Trulia for listings, Google Apps for software, and the like are too enormous.  Big Brokerage can never be the lowest cost provider.

Rather, they have to do it with technology that is yet unavailable to the masses.  Two examples: enterprise CRM, and dynamic content management coupled to anonymous user profiling.  Imagine those deployed cross the NRT.  And that’s just pure technology.  Imagine competing with a Big Broker that has an actual, professional marketing and customer relationship team (again, see Zappos.com) empowered with enterprise software.

Furthermore, the Big Brokers simply cannot do it when loaded down with overhead that isn’t leading to owning the consumer relationship.  Those 20,000 sq. ft. offices have to go.  $15,000 per year desk costs per agent have to go.  Multi-million dollar print ad budgets have to go.  You cannot compete, even with small independents, burdened with useless overhead.

Big Brokers have to adapt many of the techniques of the smaller, nimbler Kristians, then layer the Big Technology on top of that.

And finally (at least for this post), Big Brokers must understand that their brand is what separates them from The Swarm, and that their brand is in the hands of their worst agent.  Without serious focus on quality control, without serious concern about fulfilling the brand promise by every single person who is associated with Big Brokerage brand, it will be impossible to establish lasting institutional advantage over The Swarm.

Without that advantage, you die.  Just a matter of time.

Enter the Customer

While I concede this is counterfactual, consider… imagine, if you will… what happens to the consumer when a fully awake, fully invested, and fully operational Big Brokerage aims to own the relationship with him.

From the moment the consumer goes on www.BigBroker.com, the company knows something about him based on anonymous IP tracking, user profiling, geo-targeting, and the like.  As he interacts with the site, fully realized with something like the Lifestyle Listings Engine, the company knows more and more about his preferences, his life decisions, his economics, and the like.

From the minute he presses “Submit a Question” button, the system routes his information to the appropriate expert on the topics he is interested in, and the CRM system gives the agent 5 minutes to respond by phone or email before moving the lead on.  End result: consumer is contacted within 15 minutes.

Throughout the entire transactional process, the Big Broker system is tracking every interaction, the customer service department is following the consumer’s twitterstream, sending out satisfaction surveys, and sending links to helpful articles, vendors, and the like depending on the phase of transaction.

After the transaction, full customer satisfaction surveys are conducted, and if problem spots arise, a customer service rep — perhaps even the owner of Big Brokerage himself — is on the phone with him finding out what went wrong and how they could fix it next time.

This is all possible today.  It is roughly the experience I had buying a Honda.  It is absolutely possible in real estate.

Far From the End

This is not the end of the discussion and debate, of course.  If anything, it is merely the start of the Grand Debate that I believe will be sorted out by realities on the ground over the next 2-3 years.

The Kristians have a strong argument.  Because their version of reality is in fact what exists today.  Most brokers do too little for too few for too much money.  Consumers are left as an afterthought.

But that can change.  And quickly. And all of the incentives are lined up on the side of the existing players who have far, far too much to lose.  Once awake, they have the resources to make things happen awfully quick.

I for one am not betting against them.

-rsh

24 COMMENTS

  1. r-

    I am too distracted by your unfortunate decision to embed the Barbie photo in your post to craft a winning rebuttal. Once I have recovered (and attended to more than a few work items this morning), I will attempt to offer a thoughtful response. In the meantime, this is the most important utterance on the topic I have read yet:

    >their brand is in the hands of their worst agent

    Amen, and for a model dependent on numbers, good luck with that.

  2. r-

    I am too distracted by your unfortunate decision to embed the Barbie photo in your post to craft a winning rebuttal. Once I have recovered (and attended to more than a few work items this morning), I will attempt to offer a thoughtful response. In the meantime, this is the most important utterance on the topic I have read yet:

    >their brand is in the hands of their worst agent

    Amen, and for a model dependent on numbers, good luck with that.

  3. Wow. This is some serious thinking my man. I’m all covered up too, I intend to revisit and comment, but it will take some wattage and time to consider the ins and outs you’ve meticulously identified.

    Thanks

  4. Wow. This is some serious thinking my man. I’m all covered up too, I intend to revisit and comment, but it will take some wattage and time to consider the ins and outs you’ve meticulously identified.

    Thanks

  5. Rob, another excellent post. I trend towards a Robneckian view, especially regarding how many BigBroker companies were not christened BigBroker at their inception; indeed many were started over a fold-up coffee or kitchen table and built up not by sheer happenstance. Many of these entreprenuers are fighters willing to make significant changes to ensure marketshare stability and gains. These changes include embracing–and enacting–the technical recommendations you touch on where a major key to success is technical scaleability coupled with a decentralized approach concerning office space and agent empowerment issues. If a BigBroker works through 2009 and into 2010 with an eye towards implementing scaleable and agile technical infrastructure and product development processes (where such considerations include consumer-centric crowdsourcing components), there’s no reason, in my opinion, why such a brokerage will not dominate a market, even a “boutique” market. Many agents lack the technical know-how and preseverence it takes to build, maintain, operate, and succeed in a networked, Web 2.0 world. It took more than a business card and a couple of Country Club cocktails for agents to significantly grow their businesses in the 80s and 90s, and it’s relatively the same issue today: it’ll take infrastructure. Yes, motivated and technically proficient agents will utilize the infrastructure provided by Google, Twitter, WordPress, etc to grow their business, but savvy BigBrokers will empower 20% of their most productive agents with Web 2.0/social media/consumer engagement infrastructure–ala your xplusone example–that’s magnitudes better than “free” while at the same time empowering these agents with tools that leverage this infrastructure so these agents gain consumer mindshare over their competition’s attempts at such. This, in turn, grows the agent’s business along with the broker’s. This latter point has particular salience to your aphorism that a BigBroker’s “brand is in the hands of their worst agent”.

  6. Rob, another excellent post. I trend towards a Robneckian view, especially regarding how many BigBroker companies were not christened BigBroker at their inception; indeed many were started over a fold-up coffee or kitchen table and built up not by sheer happenstance. Many of these entreprenuers are fighters willing to make significant changes to ensure marketshare stability and gains. These changes include embracing–and enacting–the technical recommendations you touch on where a major key to success is technical scaleability coupled with a decentralized approach concerning office space and agent empowerment issues. If a BigBroker works through 2009 and into 2010 with an eye towards implementing scaleable and agile technical infrastructure and product development processes (where such considerations include consumer-centric crowdsourcing components), there’s no reason, in my opinion, why such a brokerage will not dominate a market, even a “boutique” market. Many agents lack the technical know-how and preseverence it takes to build, maintain, operate, and succeed in a networked, Web 2.0 world. It took more than a business card and a couple of Country Club cocktails for agents to significantly grow their businesses in the 80s and 90s, and it’s relatively the same issue today: it’ll take infrastructure. Yes, motivated and technically proficient agents will utilize the infrastructure provided by Google, Twitter, WordPress, etc to grow their business, but savvy BigBrokers will empower 20% of their most productive agents with Web 2.0/social media/consumer engagement infrastructure–ala your xplusone example–that’s magnitudes better than “free” while at the same time empowering these agents with tools that leverage this infrastructure so these agents gain consumer mindshare over their competition’s attempts at such. This, in turn, grows the agent’s business along with the broker’s. This latter point has particular salience to your aphorism that a BigBroker’s “brand is in the hands of their worst agent”.

  7. At the risk of sounding like a broken record… Man, I love your blog!

    The problem with your Robneckian view is that the technology keeps getting cheaper|better|faster. CRM and profiling may be trailing behind listing syndication, etc. but there is no reason why these tools can’t work for us Kristians (btw, I prefer JesusFreak myself).

    I feel certain that google analytics and others can do everything I need (on rev 2011) in terms of anonymous IP tracking, etc.

    PLUS, as Redfin is finding out now, it’s all about relationships with actual people. No way big brother will ever have control of that.

  8. At the risk of sounding like a broken record… Man, I love your blog!

    The problem with your Robneckian view is that the technology keeps getting cheaper|better|faster. CRM and profiling may be trailing behind listing syndication, etc. but there is no reason why these tools can’t work for us Kristians (btw, I prefer JesusFreak myself).

    I feel certain that google analytics and others can do everything I need (on rev 2011) in terms of anonymous IP tracking, etc.

    PLUS, as Redfin is finding out now, it’s all about relationships with actual people. No way big brother will ever have control of that.

  9. Hey Rob-

    You are definitely stirring up the conversation. Thank you for that.

    From my background with Keller Williams, I observed an organization that ostensibly puts the agents brand first take some of the best producers out of the robnecks time and time again. I’ve spent the last three years consulting and coaching our recruiters on doing this, and based on that experience the perspective I’ve developed is that the top agents will recognize long term whether a brand is giving them value or not – and if the value isn’t there, the value of the brand name itself is not worth sticking around for.

    I do think that some of the strong regional brands have a chance at moving their model to make themselves of more use to the agent, but even that requires a shift in both economics – and this is trickier – philosophy – about their agents. The moment the top agent figures out that they are really only as good as their last transaction, that they are actually the ones bringing in the business, and that all they are doing by sticking around is helping someone else build their business – they are out. Sometimes this is less obvious to them than I would think – a credit to the robneck team.

    I know the folks that have built the strong regional players are tough minded entrepreneurs. Are they tough enough to toss out their entire business model as it exists today, to invest in a new set of value propositions (high tech agent tools, online lead generation, leadership of their top agents, and great training), and to augment their philosophy about “controlling the consumer” with “attracting and serving the _best_ agents”?

    What is going to keep a top performing agent in an organization where they don’t get to really build their own business? Once an agent learns to lead generate on their own, online or offline, why would they give up 10-30% of their commission to a big broker? Once they have the “basics” down, they all head to outside organizations for training/coaching/consulting anyway; how is a robneck broker going to continue to appeal to and lead them? When a smart agent team can sign up for sales force and customize it for their RE practice, why do they need some big broker’s CRM system? These are critical questions that I would try to address if I were a robneck right now. Finally, how do the robnecks handle the fact that year in year out, NAR polls of consumers show that less than 4% decide to work with an agent because of their brand! (See NAR profile of buyers and sellers for the last _8 years_ for reference)

    Plenty of empires are crumbling right now due to the proliferation of tools, the internet, and consumer demand for more value for less money (publishing industry being the most notable at the moment) – you’ve got to convince me that there is something really different about established real estate brokerages than everybody else.

    And you know what? It’s okay if these empires fall. What emerges is better anyway – and I have no doubt that some former robnecks will emerge with better business models that make them more money, are more fun, and create more value for both the consumer AND the agent. We are evolving the industry to a better place.

    Your thoughts, my friend?

    Jack

  10. Hey Rob-

    You are definitely stirring up the conversation. Thank you for that.

    From my background with Keller Williams, I observed an organization that ostensibly puts the agents brand first take some of the best producers out of the robnecks time and time again. I’ve spent the last three years consulting and coaching our recruiters on doing this, and based on that experience the perspective I’ve developed is that the top agents will recognize long term whether a brand is giving them value or not – and if the value isn’t there, the value of the brand name itself is not worth sticking around for.

    I do think that some of the strong regional brands have a chance at moving their model to make themselves of more use to the agent, but even that requires a shift in both economics – and this is trickier – philosophy – about their agents. The moment the top agent figures out that they are really only as good as their last transaction, that they are actually the ones bringing in the business, and that all they are doing by sticking around is helping someone else build their business – they are out. Sometimes this is less obvious to them than I would think – a credit to the robneck team.

    I know the folks that have built the strong regional players are tough minded entrepreneurs. Are they tough enough to toss out their entire business model as it exists today, to invest in a new set of value propositions (high tech agent tools, online lead generation, leadership of their top agents, and great training), and to augment their philosophy about “controlling the consumer” with “attracting and serving the _best_ agents”?

    What is going to keep a top performing agent in an organization where they don’t get to really build their own business? Once an agent learns to lead generate on their own, online or offline, why would they give up 10-30% of their commission to a big broker? Once they have the “basics” down, they all head to outside organizations for training/coaching/consulting anyway; how is a robneck broker going to continue to appeal to and lead them? When a smart agent team can sign up for sales force and customize it for their RE practice, why do they need some big broker’s CRM system? These are critical questions that I would try to address if I were a robneck right now. Finally, how do the robnecks handle the fact that year in year out, NAR polls of consumers show that less than 4% decide to work with an agent because of their brand! (See NAR profile of buyers and sellers for the last _8 years_ for reference)

    Plenty of empires are crumbling right now due to the proliferation of tools, the internet, and consumer demand for more value for less money (publishing industry being the most notable at the moment) – you’ve got to convince me that there is something really different about established real estate brokerages than everybody else.

    And you know what? It’s okay if these empires fall. What emerges is better anyway – and I have no doubt that some former robnecks will emerge with better business models that make them more money, are more fun, and create more value for both the consumer AND the agent. We are evolving the industry to a better place.

    Your thoughts, my friend?

    Jack

  11. Hi Rob,

    I agree with the following:

    “There is a role for Big Brokerage in the Kristian worldview, but it’s limited to some sort of a training factory to churn through the ranks of inexperienced newbies who aren’t serious about the business of real estate. ”

    However, I wouldn’t really call it a training factory. Its more of a brainwashing factory that teaches these new agents that they are NOTHING without big broker.

    An interesting story – I was with Re/Max in PA before moving up to NJ and was used to building my own brand. When I moved up to NJ, the options were very limiting so I interviewed with the corporate head of a “big broker”. I remember asking ” So you’re telling me that if I list my neighbor’s house and want to leave big broker, that I’d have to leave the listing with big broker because the only reason they listed with me was because I was with big broker? And she looked me in the eye and said “yes”. And I really think she believed that!

    I soon after opened up a Keller Williams office. If you leave Keller Williams, you take your listings with you because the difference is, the Keller Williams philosphy is that the company is successful because of the agents. Big broker’s philosophy is that the agents who are successful couldn’t do it without the company. I find this interesting because whenever I ask any agent affiliated with Robneck how much internet lead generation training & how much business they get from their company, and then of course the big question- Is it worth giving big bro the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? They do the math and every time say “no way worth it”.

    At Keller Williams, since the commission to the company is capped, the consumer wins because we have more money to spend marketing our listings. I could never do what I do for my lsitngs if I were at a big broker company and my sellers know that.

    I do feel however that there will always be a place for the Robnecks of the world because some agents just don’t know what they don’t know and some agents just aren’t comfortable getting out of their comfort zones. Those agents should stay at big broker because you definitely have to be a motivated, learning-based person to survive and thrive in Kristiandom, and not every agent is a soldier. Many agents stay with Robneck because they’re comfortable and fear change.
    I guess they haven’t read “Who moved my cheese?”

  12. Hi Rob,

    I agree with the following:

    “There is a role for Big Brokerage in the Kristian worldview, but it’s limited to some sort of a training factory to churn through the ranks of inexperienced newbies who aren’t serious about the business of real estate. ”

    However, I wouldn’t really call it a training factory. Its more of a brainwashing factory that teaches these new agents that they are NOTHING without big broker.

    An interesting story – I was with Re/Max in PA before moving up to NJ and was used to building my own brand. When I moved up to NJ, the options were very limiting so I interviewed with the corporate head of a “big broker”. I remember asking ” So you’re telling me that if I list my neighbor’s house and want to leave big broker, that I’d have to leave the listing with big broker because the only reason they listed with me was because I was with big broker? And she looked me in the eye and said “yes”. And I really think she believed that!

    I soon after opened up a Keller Williams office. If you leave Keller Williams, you take your listings with you because the difference is, the Keller Williams philosphy is that the company is successful because of the agents. Big broker’s philosophy is that the agents who are successful couldn’t do it without the company. I find this interesting because whenever I ask any agent affiliated with Robneck how much internet lead generation training & how much business they get from their company, and then of course the big question- Is it worth giving big bro the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? They do the math and every time say “no way worth it”.

    At Keller Williams, since the commission to the company is capped, the consumer wins because we have more money to spend marketing our listings. I could never do what I do for my lsitngs if I were at a big broker company and my sellers know that.

    I do feel however that there will always be a place for the Robnecks of the world because some agents just don’t know what they don’t know and some agents just aren’t comfortable getting out of their comfort zones. Those agents should stay at big broker because you definitely have to be a motivated, learning-based person to survive and thrive in Kristiandom, and not every agent is a soldier. Many agents stay with Robneck because they’re comfortable and fear change.
    I guess they haven’t read “Who moved my cheese?”

  13. @Sue –

    Hi Sue — so great to be having this conversation with you online and in public. We do need to get together IRL….

    FWIW, I completely believe your story; and believing it, I agree with the path that you’ve taken. It is difficult to justify giving anyone hundreds or tens of thousands of dollars a year for the service an experienced agent is receiving from the average Big Brokerage.

    My point is simply that from the perspective of a Big Broker, the question will need to be, “How do I get Sue Adler to come back and to see value? What do I need to do?” Even if you never go back to that, for their survival, Big Brokerage has to think about that very hard. The corporate head of “big broker” is, IMHO, delusional; but he needs to work to make his statement true: the only reason your neighbor listed with you is because you are with Big Broker.

    That will, obviously, never be the case. But then, you’re not going to be hugely successful if you’re listing only your neighbor’s house either.

    -rsh

  14. @Sue –

    Hi Sue — so great to be having this conversation with you online and in public. We do need to get together IRL….

    FWIW, I completely believe your story; and believing it, I agree with the path that you’ve taken. It is difficult to justify giving anyone hundreds or tens of thousands of dollars a year for the service an experienced agent is receiving from the average Big Brokerage.

    My point is simply that from the perspective of a Big Broker, the question will need to be, “How do I get Sue Adler to come back and to see value? What do I need to do?” Even if you never go back to that, for their survival, Big Brokerage has to think about that very hard. The corporate head of “big broker” is, IMHO, delusional; but he needs to work to make his statement true: the only reason your neighbor listed with you is because you are with Big Broker.

    That will, obviously, never be the case. But then, you’re not going to be hugely successful if you’re listing only your neighbor’s house either.

    -rsh

  15. Rob, I never get into NYC during the day but call me even last minute and we can grab lunch in Millburn if you’re around. BTW, congrats on the wyoming jitney to maplewood train station. Did you have something to do with that?

    Anyway, back to topic – I really see the bind you’re in. I can tell you’re torn and may possibly even be in therapy over this inner struggle you’re dealing with. 🙂 You work for big broker so a part of me thinks your backing them is all for show. However, you are so brilliant, and must feel such frustration with the whole corporate heirarchy mindset( delusional – your word, not mine). Are you stirring up this conversation to make a point to them so that they will read it and see the light?

    I just don’t see how Big Broker could ever win me or other top producing agent teams back because the top agents dont need big broker to lead generate, and the commission structure doesn’t work with top agent teams at Big Broker. Furthermore, we have access to all of the education, models & technology out there to grow our teams and market ourselves and our listings, so how will big broker ever be able to convince top teams that the only reason their neighbor listed with them was because you’re with big broker?
    Brings to mind the American Auto industry trying to fool the consumer with the slogan ” We’re not your daddy’s car.”

  16. Rob, I never get into NYC during the day but call me even last minute and we can grab lunch in Millburn if you’re around. BTW, congrats on the wyoming jitney to maplewood train station. Did you have something to do with that?

    Anyway, back to topic – I really see the bind you’re in. I can tell you’re torn and may possibly even be in therapy over this inner struggle you’re dealing with. 🙂 You work for big broker so a part of me thinks your backing them is all for show. However, you are so brilliant, and must feel such frustration with the whole corporate heirarchy mindset( delusional – your word, not mine). Are you stirring up this conversation to make a point to them so that they will read it and see the light?

    I just don’t see how Big Broker could ever win me or other top producing agent teams back because the top agents dont need big broker to lead generate, and the commission structure doesn’t work with top agent teams at Big Broker. Furthermore, we have access to all of the education, models & technology out there to grow our teams and market ourselves and our listings, so how will big broker ever be able to convince top teams that the only reason their neighbor listed with them was because you’re with big broker?
    Brings to mind the American Auto industry trying to fool the consumer with the slogan ” We’re not your daddy’s car.”

  17. @Sue –

    If I find myself working from home, I promise to call you. 🙂

    As for the topic, I used to work for Realogy, it’s true, but my struggle is purely intellectual, I assure you. 🙂 The only therapy I need is the monetary kind, I think, heh.

    But yes, a part of it is that the Big Brokerages need to wake up. I know some people see the issues — Pam and Sherry are just two examples. But too many still take the approach that it’s business as usual, and all you gotta do is batten down the hatches. I just don’t believe that.

    In terms of Big Broker never winning you or other top producers over, as things are today, they cannot. As things could be tomorrow, with an awake, empowered, and once-again-hungry big gorilla in your marketplace… I’m not convinced. But again, I’m arguing counter-factuals, so that makes my position far weaker as compared to the Kristian position. 🙂

    -rsh

  18. @Sue –

    If I find myself working from home, I promise to call you. 🙂

    As for the topic, I used to work for Realogy, it’s true, but my struggle is purely intellectual, I assure you. 🙂 The only therapy I need is the monetary kind, I think, heh.

    But yes, a part of it is that the Big Brokerages need to wake up. I know some people see the issues — Pam and Sherry are just two examples. But too many still take the approach that it’s business as usual, and all you gotta do is batten down the hatches. I just don’t believe that.

    In terms of Big Broker never winning you or other top producers over, as things are today, they cannot. As things could be tomorrow, with an awake, empowered, and once-again-hungry big gorilla in your marketplace… I’m not convinced. But again, I’m arguing counter-factuals, so that makes my position far weaker as compared to the Kristian position. 🙂

    -rsh

  19. I think I’m the one who needs the therapy. I spend way too much time being sucked into these conversations 🙂

    Your blog is so addictive, Rob. I’ve never followed a blog like I do yours.

  20. I think I’m the one who needs the therapy. I spend way too much time being sucked into these conversations 🙂

    Your blog is so addictive, Rob. I’ve never followed a blog like I do yours.

Comments are closed.