I deleted your first comment, as per your request.

I think you raise some really interesting challenges.

As Jim said, each layer has to consider who its customer is….every one, except for the agent, needs to consider the layer above it(or below in your illustration), even more-so than it should consider the consumer in its social media efforts.

NAR for example, needs to nail down it’s value proposition to those it serves even more than it needs to prove anything to consumers. The same goes for the franchise, the company and the team.

One of the big issues this raises is the fact that except for the franchisor, pretty much everyone else in the brand-layer-cake has the Agent as the consumer. And we can now add web-based brands such as Redfin and BlueRoof to the mix.

But unless NAR goes totally silent, it has no choice but to impact its members via the public. It’s such a visible entity, and is in the news, and so on, that any missteps by NAR will reflect on all realtors (capital R or no). Same with any appropriately large entity, like Realogy or RE/MAX.

I suppose a question would be to someone like you, Lisa:

What would YOU want from each of the overbrands above you?

And how much are you willing to pay to each of them for whatever it is that you want from them?

-rsh

>But being a well known name does not make a brand. A brand is something different. Its backed by specific promises it keeps, trusts it forms that creates an identity that distinguishes it from others.

Thank you for saying that so well.

While the study cites C21 as the most well known brand, I will argue that it’s the most well know name in real estate. But being a well known name does not make a brand. A brand is something different. Its backed by specific promises it keeps, trusts it forms that creates an identity that distinguishes it from others.

I would argue that C21 has not built that cache of brand value in the consumer world, it has hardly done it inside real estate.

But I do agree its the most recognized name in real estate. But ask any of the respondents of that survey to tell you what makes C21 different from ERA or Remax or anything and they would be hard pressed.

I take exception to your illustration-the point of the pyramid should be at the top, pointing to the consumer, with the rest of the layers providing the foundation to the agent who is the ultimate point of contact with the consumer.

As Jim said, each layer has to consider who its customer is….every one, except for the agent, needs to consider the layer above it(or below in your illustration), even more-so than it should consider the consumer in its social media efforts.

NAR for example, needs to nail down it’s value proposition to those it serves even more than it needs to prove anything to consumers. The same goes for the franchise, the company and the team. Ultimately, no one can offer the consumer value or prove our worth to the public better or more easily than the agent in the field. So, the supporting layers need to offer value and support to the next layer to allow the ultimate goal of meeting consumer needs to happen. As you said, doing that without interfering with the next layer’s efforts is the art of it.

Being a few months in to joining a Better Homes and Gardens franchise, I am pleased at how this particular Brand has integrated social media in to their plan…offering all the tools and support it can to help the affiliates navigate the new world of real estate while being very aware of its role to the franchisee.

More tricky is defining the role of the franchisee, which struggles to balance the needs of the older mindset of agent that expects the company to generate leads, etc, to the new, self-supporting agent of the future…the path of the social media ’sell’ to the folks on the ground is rocky, in our area at least.

But now I’m starting to ramble and probably thinking too much of my own particular little world here. Thanks for bringing this conversation up, I’ve been thinking about this in my own confused way and you have helped to organize my mind a bit

I saw that study by Millwar-Brown And those are some impressive brand awareness/preference numbers.

That isn’t what I questioned, though. (Nor, do I think you’re a ‘flack’ for whatever that’s worth, heh.)

What I’m questioning is whether the 60% “preference” number actually translates to action when the rubber meets the road. If it does, then you guys should have at least anecdotal evidence from your agents — collect enough of those and you’ve got real evidence of something.

Send out a questionnaire to your 130,000 agents and ask them, “Tell us about a recent deal in which the consumer said he/she chose you over others because of the C21 brand.”

The 60% preference number simply reflects consumers saying that they would. But what’s that saying in RE? Buyers are liars?

FWIW, and I guess I can only speak to my own motivations while at Realogy, in response to what you said about supporting the Brokers and Agents… I know that a huge part of MY motivation for working as hard as I did at CBC was that I really respected our affiliates. Really. These are men and women who have sacrificed so much, struggled through decades of hardships building a successful business, with ups and downs and war stories aplenty. I always felt a sense of responsibility to them to help them be more successful because of their association with CBC.

I rather suspect that quite a few people working at Big Franchise feel the same way. Whether they’re effective or not is a separate question; their motivation, however, is really to help the affiliates. That much, I can attest to.

-rsh

Here is a link to the Millward-Brown survey data that was posted by our good friend on the West Coast as soon as it was released: http://waves.wavgroup.com/century-21-is-rated-highest-real-estate-brand-by-consumers-for-9th-straight-year

The study was conducted by a third party, Millward-Brown, a global market research organization. C’mon, I might be a flack, but I wouldn’t push information into the blogosphere without appropriate backup.

To Teri’s point, I agree that the business is won on the ground. We can only support the environment in an effort to create a competitive advantage for our Brokers and Agents, via training, marketing, advertising and business consulting.

The brand of a listing broker may not mean a thing to you, but it does to 60% of the Millward-Brown survey respondents.

Rob your questions are spot on and only time will tell. It is an exciting time to be in real estate marketing at any level.

Keep up the great work. I’ll be watching.

Best Regards,

Matt Gentile
(SCMR) Same as it Ever Was

Sarcastic, yes. It’s a gift.

Belittling? No. There will always be ways for me to provide more value in my own backyard, using sm, and also create a brand for myself, in my own backyard, than C21, or Trulia or R.com for that matter, ever will.

Conversely, however, you can create a worldwide awareness of a brand, and there’s where you focus lies. My view is ground level, “marginalized” as you say. I’ll take that, and build the best damn marginalized brand I can, by offering each individual client the best damn service I’m capable of. You can’t do that. And my saying that, even sarcastically, is not meant to belittle, but to point out the fundamental differences in focus.

Rob-

> I don’t know that the brand of the listing broker means a thing to me.

>The same goes for buy-side; one study I read showed that some huge majority (80+%?) of consumers work with the first agent to call them back. Hardly a recommendation for brand value.

Exactly.

@Eric -

I think you’re right on that an overbrand SM strategy cannot be traditional ‘command&control’. And that Jim’s insight re: people, not technology is an important one.

I’m looking at some ideas and concepts right now that might propose a solution to the conundrum, but that’s a big project. It’ll take me a while to sort that one out.

So what’s LeadingRE’s SM strategy — I’m thinking the new blog would be a great place to expound your thoughts on the subject. (hint, hint)

@Matt -

As is fairly obvious by now, I’m in the Robnecks camp of “Big Brands are meaningful” But I think you do have to acknowledge that despite 97% brand awareness, that 60% brand preference number is highly suspect.

Do you have any studies or data to show (perhaps from polling your own agents) that consumers choose to list with a C21 agent over a CB agent or a RE/MAX agent because of the brand? Just speaking for myself, unless I’m in the ultra-luxury market where Sotheby’s or Corcoran or some such might be meaningful, I don’t know that the brand of the listing broker means a thing to me.

The same goes for buy-side; one study I read showed that some huge majority (80+%?) of consumers work with the first agent to call them back. Hardly a recommendation for brand value.

This is the basic issue that Marc Davison points out all the time, and I think is accurately reflected in the Multi-Layer pyramid: brand awareness is inversely correlated to brand value.

Now I happen to love the confirmation that you provide that every major RE brand is launching or seriously planning a Social Media strategy. Of course you are; knowing some of the bright minds at 1 Campus, I have no doubts on it. I mean, this post was inspired by a meeting that NAR — the so-called stodgy, doesn’t-get-it, NAR — held to understand social media strategy more. I know that’s happening.

So the real questions, I think, are:

(1) Will Big Brands gain brand value commensurate with brand awareness through social media or not?
(2) If gain, then will that gain by the over-brands come necessarily at the expense of the under-brands, or is there a strategy by which everyone benefits?
(3) What would such a strategy look like?

As an aside, the debate between you and Teri is awesome. And it points to the tensions that will need to be resolved as every overbrand pursues SM strategies.

-rsh