You make some good points, many of which I was not actually saying differently.

And I was simply comparing the model of licensing a C21 (or other) brand with the BlueRoof brand and was not, and am not, saying that they are the same in consumer awareness.

Best of luck to you in 2009…

BlueRoof is a terrific, wait for it…”Local” brokerage in Utah.

A “Proven Brand’ is one that has a “proven system” that can be scaled anywhere by almost anyone (i.e. Starbucks, McDonald’s or in this case C21 or Re/Max etc…)

As Rob pointed out a good website does not guarantee “Brand Extension.” Add the fact that Brokerage sites will continue to improve (slow and cheaply, but they will) what is your benefit to an agent long term?

Partnering with agents who sell a lot of homes, does not mean they provide the “Best service” or are accountable. “World Savings Bank” sold tons of mortgages which Wachovia acquired and the 4th largest bank went under with “Bad Lending.” I am going to guess there was some “Bad selling” in there as well from some “Top Agents.”

Am I getting this right? It is a BlueRoof brand under a “McGuire Team” brand (fill in any name) under Keller Williams, right? Where is the brand there again and where does the brand loyalty lie for the agent first? Talk about confusing the customer base which is the EXACT opposite of BRANDING.

Bottom Line: You have a cool website that you license out to some agents who have money, but do not have the time or intelligence that they could create the same site for less in 2009 and get a cool BlueRoof email address.

Just because you say something (“A great brand that is proven”) doesn’t make it true. It reminds me of those tacky & annoying mailers from real estate agents that I receive at home.

Nor does quoting Steve Jobs on your site make your product better or proven.

Either way I want to help brokers and agent get away from relying on third party listing aggregation websites for their online business and help them get away from using template websites.

I think I love this comment thread as well. Thanks.

Okay, so basically, it seems to me that BlueRoof (and by extension Redfin to some extent) is a new model of the Franchisor, rather than a new model of brokerage. Effectively, what you are providing is more or less identical to what C21 or RE/MAX provides to its brokers and agents.

The differences are fairly minor — you grant franchises to agents, while most RE franchisors only work with brokerage companies; you probably don’t have a ton of printed materials or training programs, but your website is a damn sight better. For now.

The legal liability issue is a bit of a red herring, as I mentioned in the original article. It isn’t so much that I think you or Redfin’s partner agents will be sued; it’s more of an extreme case to examine the degree of accountability that you and Redfin are willing to take on as part of these ‘marketing programs’. (Although, FWIW, I think you may want to double check the franchising laws in your state and the various states of the agents… I remember the Realogy legal folks getting pretty specific about some of the issues. One of them was third party liability. And you may be subject to franchise laws even if you don’t call yourself a franchise; depends on how the business is structured. Right now, based on your description, it sure sounds like a franchise to me.)

What I’m not clear on is why you, of all people, say that Brokers need to build their OWN brand identities. Isn’t that the precise value YOU are offering them with your admittedly excellent website?

-rsh

I appreciate the dialogue…

The agents who license BlueRoof have E&O insurance and their own, very respectable, brokers. They are not BlueRoof Realtors- they are Keller Williams (both happen to be Keller Williams agents) agents who license the BlueRoof technology and brand to offer value to, and generate business from, home buyers and sellers.

BlueRoof, as a brand, is accountable in the same way that any brand is accountable- by reputation and the business that we generate (or don’t) through our brand.

The reality is that me and my team have sold about 1000 properties in my career and haven’t been in court with a client once. Of course it happens, but as I have said for years (as the owner of my own real estate company, as a managing broker for Prudential California, Coldwell Banker in Utah and Better Homes and Gardens in Colorado, and as a licensed real estate instructor) the only real protection and accountability lies with those who have contact with, and represent, the client. That is the agent.

The brokers, and BlueRoof as a brand, are better off putting their effort into finding the right agents than in figuring out how to deal with being sued because they hired the wrong agents to represent them.

Brokers today have a unique challenge because they are essentially diminishing their own brands by feeding their listings to third-party listing aggregation websites (Realtor.com, Trulia, Frontdoor, Zillow, etc). So they are empowering these national websites to use their listings to enhance their own brands and build equity in the mind of the consumer, at the expense of their own brands.

You’ve written beautifully about this topic before, as have I. If a buyer goes to Trulia and finds an agent the next time they want to buy they will go back to Trulia and most likely will find a different agent because the brand they know and like is Trulia, not the brokerage.

Brokers need to build their OWN brand identities online and give web users compelling reasons to use their website and technology.

Giving agents ownership in BlueRoof protects me and the brand by empowering the agents to build and grow the brand as though it were their own brand, which it is.

I appreciate the explanations I’d just like to explore this a bit more, as I think this is critical.

“The accountability piece is accomplished through our agreement, but more importantly, the agents are paying a substantial amount in marketing every month (which is required by our license agreement) to promote the brand in their markets, they have BlueRoof branding on all of their marketing and use BlueRoof email addresses. They OWN BlueRoof in their markets and are completely invested in the brand because it IS their brand.”

So by this, it appears that the agents are (in effect) BlueRoof franchisees — they pay a marketing fee, they own the brand, use BlueRoof email addys, and have the BlueRoof branding on their marketing.

If a BlueRoof agent gets sued, do you provide them with E&O liability coverage?

If you get sued by a consumer for misrepresentation, professional malpractice, and fraud, etc. because of something that the BlueRoof agent did (or failed to do), and must pay damages to the consumer, does the agent indemnify you? Or does that get covered by your own E&O insurance?

Do you or would you assert a defense of non-agency (i.e., you are not the broker, and are not responsible for the actions of the agent)?

In short, I get that under your system, the agent is accountable; how accountable is BlueRoof to the consumer?

-rsh

With my model I have interviewed the agents who are representing BlueRoof in their markets. They are top agents (selling more than $12Million in sales/year) who have track records of excellent client service for years.

The accountability piece is accomplished through our agreement, but more importantly, the agents are paying a substantial amount in marketing every month (which is required by our license agreement) to promote the brand in their markets, they have BlueRoof branding on all of their marketing and use BlueRoof email addresses. They OWN BlueRoof in their markets and are completely invested in the brand because it IS their brand.

That’s as accountable as you can get.