Notorious R.O.B.

Matt Dollinger, of @Properties in Chicago, raised a very interesting question at the Leading RE conference that just concluded.  He then raised it again over Twitter (Matt is @mattdollinger) and the discussion threatened to overwhelm the 140-char limit.  It’s time for bloggery.

Matt’s question was this (in essence):

In 2015, with companies like Trulia, Zillow, Roost and others really advancing the technology of real estate search, should brokers have their own search site?

Since the panel was titled “Real Estate 3.0″, it naturally lends itself to these kinds of speculative questions.

This is an important question.  Money is not unlimited.  Brokers have to make decisions today to align their strategy going forward.  And as Matt himself pointed out during session, brokerages are not technology companies at heart.

The answer seemed to be from the panelists that brokers have to do both: create a top-notch brokerage website that is optimized for SEO, has great user experience, and captures leads all over the place, but also send listings to all of the aggregators to drive additional leads, because the big guys have national (global) reach and can grab so many more eyeballs than a single brokerage site could.

Trouble is… that just doesn’t jive logically.

Internet is Not Local

Fact is, while a brokerage may be local, and real estate may be local, the Internet is most assuredly not local.  There is no reason why someone searching for “chicago real estate” from New Jersey would not find a local website.

Granted, @Properties apparently needs some SEO consultancy love, seeing as how it doesn’t appear on page one, two, or three, but other local brokerage sites are right there: Baird & Warner, Rubloff, Dreamtown Realty, etc. all show up.

And Trulia also shows up.

As a consumer, if I go into a local brokerage site like Dreamtown’s, then go into Trulia, there is a world of difference there from a user experience standpoint.

The one has all manner of busy advertising, bullshit marketing messages that I would immediately ignore, and so on.  The other has a clean interface, a nice Google map mashup, and easy to use search filters right there on the page.

For Dreamtown to come up to par with Trulia, it would need to spend a pretty serious amount of money and time.  And the Dreamtown website is actually pretty darn good as far as local brokerage sites go.  Having worked on corporate brokerage sites, I think it is no stretch to say that a top-notch custom-coded website with developers, designers, UI design, SEO, and the like can easily top $250K in cost.

That isn’t even taking into consideration what it would cost to develop something actually new and innovative.  A new kind of search, a totally new way to interface with listings data, etc. could mean literally millions of dollars in R&D costs.

In theory, the aggregators and web portals like Trulia are technology companies first and foremost, and have core competencies in design and development.  They should always be ahead of the brokers in terms of technology and user interface.  (And in theory, they should dominate the brokers in SERPS… though often, they do not.)

Branding & CRM

Matt would argue — and correctly — that a brokerage company still needs a website for branding and CRM purposes.

For instance, you have to have a site where your existing seller clients can go, login, view all activity reports on their listings, see where the transaction is, download paperwork, upload paperwork, etc.  (You all do have this, right?)

And it would be difficult to brand your brokerage and your agents as local experts (since real estate is local, even if the Internet is not) without providing some heavy duty in-depth information and data about your local market.

But neither of these things need a SEARCH experience.

In theory, @Properties could have an awesome local website, filled with information about the area, a series of hyperlocal blogs written by their agents, and so on.  But rather than a search experience, just offer a “Search Our Chicago Listings on Trulia” or some such.

Either/Or?

Of course, most folks would assume that like in all debates, the real answer is a “bit of both” rather than an “either/or”.

So a broker would go invest a few thousand bucks to get a templated site from some low-cost website creator, or frame in a search solution from some IDX search provider, and still spend thousands more to feature listings on Realtor, or on Trulia, or pay for leads from some aggregator.

This is, however, a case of “either/or”. One of the following is true:

1. The money spent on putting in a search into the local broker site is wasted, since consumers would naturally prefer (and only find by year 2015) the tech-sites that emphasize the whole search user experience and functionality, and leads would be sent directly to the broker.  Instead, spend that money on enhancing local info, the brand presence, and the CRM applications.
2. The money spent buying traffic/leads from Third Parties is wasted, since all searches begin with Google anyhow.  The name of the game is to rank higher in Google, and not having search and all those results pages kills you.  Plus, you don’t need super-duper search; you just need good clean intuitive search that connects the consumer to your agent as quickly as possible.

Both cannot be true as a matter of logic.

Traffic vs. Lead

An important distinction here is between ‘traffic’ and ‘leads’.  Louis Cammarosano of HomeGain is fond of pointhing this out.  A broker or agent, in his view, could care less about a site sending him a billion visitors if all of them are bored-ass tirekickers who wouldn’t convert to a customer anyhow.  They would rather that HomeGain (or whoever) send them ten people who are solid ready-to-buy or ready-to-sell consumers.

In theory, the third-party sites can send enormous amounts of traffic to the spiffy brokerage site with a great search experience.  Since these are just random visitors, the brokerage site would need to do a lot more — including offering a search experience — in order to convert them to actual leads.  And it is possible that these sites could send millions of visitors, not one of whom will ever hit “Request More Info” or “Request a Showing” or pick up the phone.

That traffic, however, is sourced more or less from Google, which brings us right back to “SERPS are what matters, not SEARCH”.

Or, the third party sites are sending enormous amount of leads, which are consumers asking to be contacted.  In which case, they’re past the whole “search for a home” deal and into the “I need more information” deal.  And the brokerage’s spiffy new search technology is completely bypassed.

Real Estate in 2015

So let’s fast forward.  2015.  Hard to make assumptions based on technology today, with our rapid speed of change.  But let’s go with it.  Let’s assume that search technology is so advanced by 2015, and computing has totally changed, with multi-touch computing the norm.

What happens to search-based broker/agent website then?  The answer is directly related to what happens to the big aggregators by then.  And where search technology is by then.

As the fast and furious twitterstream on this topic indicates, this is a bigger issue than one might think initially, with implications across the entire spectrum of online real estate.

I’m looking forward to the discussion and exploration.

-rsh

Just a brief note from the Leading RE Show going on right now in Scottsdale, AZ.

I got to sit in on a great session earlier today with a speaker who I gather was a luxury marketing consultant.  He actually had some great points to make and great things to say.

However, a theme he sounded throughout the session grated with me.  It goes something like this:

Companies should invest heavily in CRM, and segment their clients to identify their “best customers” and then cater to them in order to drive customer satisfaction, which drives referrals, new business, and loyalty.

Now I happen to agree with the general thrust here.  I’ve already written that I think CRM is the killer app for real estate, and that real estate companies need to do a better job with segmentation and targeted marketing.

But applying principles of luxury marketing from the worlds of hospitality and retail and whatever else to real estate doesn’t readily jive with me.  Because of the Seven Year Cycle.

I just think it’s borderline irresponsible for marketers to talk about CRM or whatever without addressing this fundamental fact about real estate: consumers go seven years in between transactions on average.

I don’t know if that frequency changes with luxury buyers — maybe they can and do buy the $20m estate in Beverly Hills, then buy a $10m condo in NYC, and then a $15m villa in Lake Como, Italy.  So it makes sense to treat them as one might treat any luxury buyer of luxury consumer goods.

But if that isn’t the case, and even luxury buyers don’t go dropping $20m plus on a house every other year… then any discussion of CRM has to take this fundamental cycle into account.

That real estate is unique, and the practice of real estate marketing is as a result unique as well, are things I’m learning and relearning every day.  Absolutely non-commoditizable product (real estate) married to hugely commoditized service (brokerage services) with a seven year cycle and independent contractors operating in a significantly regulated industry constitute a truly unique set of factors and challenges for the marketer.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned from other industries.  There are best practices that can and should be adopted.  But adoption requires adaptation to the unique fundamentals of this industry.

Call it a pet peeve, but it sure would be nice if more consultants and speakers and panelists considered not only what is similar between real estate and other industries, but also what is unique and different.

-rsh

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

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

So let’s say that some brave soul out there has decided to gamble away his life at the urgings of a certain blogger who works for a certain data company in New York City. To him, I offer my deepest sympathies.

But courage! If this works, please do remember to look down upon us peons as you fly overhead in your Gulfstream G650. (Damn, even the website for that plane looks like it cost more than I make in a year.)

This brave soul would have gone forth, found rainmaking partners, installed an institutional CRM system, and is ready for business!

Well, not quite… there are still more steps, more things to consider.

One of the things this brave soul and his partners must do is to think about redefining the profession of “realtor”. [ED: Oh, is that it? I was worried they might have to do something hard.... /rolleyes]

Keep in mind that by going the institutional route, the Firm has taken on a very different cost structure than traditional brokerage. Instead of commissioned 1099 independent contractors, the Firm has 1040 salaried employees with benefits (which are costly). It has to take on the cost of CRM, of support staff, and of support professionals in IT and marketing that a traditional brokerage simply does not have. As older and wiser heads have pointed out, the Firm forgoes the very sweet IRS rules treating real estate agents as Statutory Nonemployees.

The 1099-based approach rewards brokerages that unleash a horde of low-training, low-skill agents to go forth and blanket the marketplace. They will make up in volume what they lack in quality, because even the worst agent will probably get her sister to list with her, at least once. Since the 1099 doesn’t actually get paid until some sort of transaction has closed, the brokerage could have nearly an unlimited number of such agents running around. For that matter, it almost appears as if some traditional brokerages have become de-facto landlords to their agents based on some of the desk cost oriented business model.

The 1040-based approach simply cannot compete with this low-cost, low-skill, high-turnover model on the same basis. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the 1099′s simply cannot compete with the high-cost, high-skill, low-turnover model of the 1040-based Firm on its home turf.

Therefore, for the Firm, it becomes necessary to shift the grounds of competition. If your thoroughbred can outrun any other horse running in a straight line, you don’t take him to a steeplechase competition. You take him to the Kentucky Derby. Read the rest of this entry »

In Part 1 of this series, I put forth the notion that a real estate company built on the law firm model — rainmaking partners + salaried associates + support staff — could work. The main requirement is that there is some sort of a competitive advantage that arises from the structure of the partnership such that individual rainmakers would want to pool their resources.

But how does such a competitive advantage arise? In this and succeeding parts, I hope to explore some ideas on how it might be possible.

———————

The similarity between legal practice and the post-Internet real estate brokerage is remarkable. In both cases, you have service providers who provide what is essentially a commodity service in all but the extremes, and yet are of varying qualities as professionals.

The typical lawyer does not do only the extremely complex, novel questions of law that end up before the Supreme Court. The average attorney does run of the mill contracts, wills, real estate transactions, incorporations, and typical lawsuits — the so-called “slip and fall” cases, or breach of contract cases, or some such. There isn’t much to that practice — the law is more or less settled in most of the situations, and all that the attorney is doing is to represent his client in the most favorable light possible. Yet, there is no question that some lawyers are simply better than others. They are more knowledgeable about the law; they are better writers, better researchers, and better negotiators. Some speak better than others, and are more effective in litigation. Still others are just smarter, and can help their clients more than another attorney can.

Similarly, in the post-Internet real estate brokerage, where simply matching buyer to property is no longer seen as particularly valuable, real estate brokerage is a fairly commodity service (except at the extremes). Brokers help sellers list a house, market it using various techniques, price the house in order to move it, coordinate various activities with third parties (lawyers, inspectors, government, etc.), and promote the listing in various ways. For buyers, brokers do inventory searches, work with third parties, negotiate on their behalf, advise them on various subjects, and educate them about the real estate process, about the local market, and so on. Again, there are clearly brokers who are more talented than others, smarter, more informed, better educated, and so forth.

In both cases, the consumer is confronted with a conundrum: How do you select a professional for something of which you yourself have very limited knowledge, but the importance of which is extremely high? Pick the wrong lawyer, and you could end up going to jail. Pick the wrong realtor, and you could end up stuck for years in a house built on top of a toxic waste dump.

In both cases, consumers often end up going with either (a) brand names, (b) recommendations, or (c) gut feelings.

For all three — branding, recommendations, and emotional connection — there are enormous advantages to institutionalization for a service provider. In Part 1, I listed five things a real estate firm (“The Firm” hereafter) must do:

• Institutional CRM: The Killer App
• Systemic Brokerage: Learning from Bill Belichick
• Redefine the Profession: Shifting the Grounds of Competition
• Specialization for Domination
• Outsource Everything But Profit Centers

Three of the five are directly related to institutionalization: Customer Relationship Management, Systemic Brokerage, and Specialization. In this part, let us cover CRM: The Killer App.

[CAVEAT: Before we begin, I feel it is imperative to stress once again that in real estate -- as in law, or any professional service -- the commoditization of the service and therefore the institutional advantage fades. Meaning, if you absolutely MUST have the best criminal defense attorney for your death-penalty trial, you really won't care whether he's with Big Law Firm or a solo practitioner. If your company is involved in some ridiculously complicated international tax case, you are going to seek out the absolute best specialist -- institution be damned. Same with real estate. If you're trying to list a $50 million condo, there just aren't that many people who can service your needs -- finding buyers for a $50m house is in and of itself a valuable service. Traditional "transactional" brokerage based entirely on personal relationships may be the best solution when you're in an extreme situation.

These posts are not intended to address the exceptional cases. They are, rather, intended to discuss the vast majority of non-exceptional brokerage.] Read the rest of this entry »

It must be zeitgeist, a change in the real estate weltanschauung. I wrote a long post back in March of 2008 having a conversation with Mike Farmer on his original Biz 2.0 post on the Bloodhound Blog. He then responded with some additional thoughts. I had a 1500 word draft that wasn’t even halfway finished, then life got really busy.

Fast forward to Inman Connect SF. I’m having lunch with Joseph Ferrara of Sellsius fame, who is also an attorney, and I say to him, “You know, Joe, I’ve been thinking alot about brokerage business models — why couldn’t it replicate how law firms work?” Joe and I talk about this for a pleasant half hour or so. I end up talking to people about the idea of the “Bill Belichick Brokerage” (more on that later). Then I get back home and I see these two great posts by Sean Purcell on Bloodhound Blog on this very topic: Disbrokeration and Super-Teams.

There’s something in the air.

In any case, Sean’s posts are worth reading in full. Disbrokeration strikes me as a decent review of what’s wrong with the brokerage industry today — some of those weaknesses are being revealed by the impact of technology. In Super-Teams, Sean lays out his vision:

Our Goal Model Defined
Yes, greed must be accounted for if we are to design a blueprint for the industry as a whole. Even more importantly, we must acknowledge the premier ingredient in creating real estate success: lead generation. The broker is no longer germane. The ability to create leads is THE most important factor and defines the primary actors in the model that will take us forward. But we are looking for more. If we wish to create a model for the future, let’s charge it with an even higher level of responsibility. Let’s create a model that also rids the industry of loafers and under performing “shoe salesmen“. Let’s create a model that sustains its growth by success rather than law. Let’s create a model that generates its own need and reward for education. Let’s create a model that allows any to enter, but demands dedication and professionalism for success. Let’s create a model without help from rigged tax laws and a “loose” interpretation of independent contractors. Finally, and most important to universal portability, let’s create a model that is achievable now and with our current skill sets. The Basic Real Estate Team model fails right from the beginning. It takes into account almost none of our needs and few of our desires. What about Super Teams?

Super Teams
They look like this: one or possibly two agents are the Team Leaders; they are the Rain Makers (RMs). Beyond the RMs there may be nothing more than a part time administrator; or there may be multiple buyers’ agents, listing agents, lead coordinators, customer service managers, marketing directors and so on. What makes them unique is the fact that they all work on the RMs’ team and directly for the RMs. They may bring in some business of their own (and the splits on that business may be higher) but the primary responsibility of those that work on the Super Team is to benefit the RMs. The entire team exists to enrich the RMs; to help them in their mayoral marketing – to help them become mayor for life. Super Teams do allow for change. If someone on the team decides they can be an RM too, they are free to start their own team (and well trained for it too). But for a great many, the idea of enjoying the profession of real estate without all the messy marketing and concerns over a commission lifestyle makes the Super Team a cozy home.

This model certainly accounts for the greed aspect and literally defines the importance of lead generation. It also quite adequately rids us of loafers and water cooler whiners (RM’s would have short patience for someone not pulling their weight). After that though, this model begins to fall off.

My initial thought was, “Didn’t I write something that is directly on point to this already?” My second thought was, “Oh yeah, but I never published it, did I?”

So here it is, the 1,500-word essay that is swiftly heading towards like 3,000 words. Read more at your peril. You have been warned. Read the rest of this entry »