I read a quote somewhere that you may all have heard (I'm probably slightly paraphrasing here): technology won't replace agents; agents with technology will replace agents without.

Some *great* points and comments made by all, thanks for contributing!

I agree that if we (agents, loan officers, title companies, whoever) provide superior service, then we really have little to fear. Will the "standard" commission structure change? Not if the NAR has their way. Would a change be better for consumers? Probably. And probably for agents as well. (good agents that is)

I know a lot of agents that "fear" technology. Part of it is because they don't understand it, and part of it is because they think it will "replace" them. My feeling is that if an agent can utilize technology, both for himself and the client, then it's a win-win for all involved.

I'm all for technology improvements that will make the tedious and mundane tasks simpler for all. That will allow us to focus on providing extraordinary customer service for our clients.

Jay - thanks for providing links to some great reading material. Without having yet read through all the links on disintermediation, I agree with the above two comments: add value to your service and you'll likely be in good shape. In fact, those who provide real value should welcome some technology-driven shakeups in the industry (as you said you do, Jay) because it will drive out those bad agents who survive on deception.

I'm your newest regular reader, Jay. Keep up the fresh content!

Once upon a time I worked for Charles Schwab - the one-time discount broker, so advertised until it was discovered the message didn't appeal to a wide enough base. The marketing positioning changed in time, but at heart Schwab's was a discount broker ... its existing clients expected it, wanted it and rarely wanted more.

In time, still trying to capture market share, Schwab tried to offer higher value items - portfolio advice, trading advice, relationship-building, all at a lower cost than what the others charged. No longer positioned as a discount brokerage, it still had a discounter's soul.

At the same time, the Merrills and Prus and Dean Witters and the higher-commission brokers remained in business as their value proposition remained attractive to a large portion of the population. Some, like Merrill, offered a lower-service, lower-cost model, but their basic model remained the same.

When the NASDAQ collapsed, it wasn't Merrill or Pru that faced extinction. It was Schwab. Perhaps extinction is too extreme, but when you shed 2/3 of your workforce, and a large portion of your executive structure (including the CEO, who lasted a week longer than me) ... the company clearly was in dire straights.

Two points: one, the brokerage industry also operates on a commission basis - in many places, it's a percentage of the total purchase/sale. Two, those who are able to proof their value are able to charge nearly whatever they choose. There always is a market for high-quality, value-driven service.

I think we are seeing the very same "sky is falling" proclomation that we saw when the "big" Internet companies focused on an industry.

What happened? If the industry could show that it needed that "middle man" to succeed then it survived, if not, then it diddn't. In a recent CE class the prof said, "information is cheap, don't be cheap." The brokers/agents that try to sell themselves on simply the MLS connection and giving information will be replaced by the Internet, but those that have established their value to consumers and have built their "business" on adding value to the transaction will not only survive but thrive in this environment.

I read a quote somewhere that you may all have heard (I'm probably slightly paraphrasing here): technology won't replace agents; agents with technology will replace agents without.

Some *great* points and comments made by all, thanks for contributing!

I agree that if we (agents, loan officers, title companies, whoever) provide superior service, then we really have little to fear. Will the "standard" commission structure change? Not if the NAR has their way. Would a change be better for consumers? Probably. And probably for agents as well. (good agents that is)

I know a lot of agents that "fear" technology. Part of it is because they don't understand it, and part of it is because they think it will "replace" them. My feeling is that if an agent can utilize technology, both for himself and the client, then it's a win-win for all involved.

I'm all for technology improvements that will make the tedious and mundane tasks simpler for all. That will allow us to focus on providing extraordinary customer service for our clients.

Jay - thanks for providing links to some great reading material. Without having yet read through all the links on disintermediation, I agree with the above two comments: add value to your service and you'll likely be in good shape. In fact, those who provide real value should welcome some technology-driven shakeups in the industry (as you said you do, Jay) because it will drive out those bad agents who survive on deception.

I'm your newest regular reader, Jay. Keep up the fresh content!

Once upon a time I worked for Charles Schwab - the one-time discount broker, so advertised until it was discovered the message didn't appeal to a wide enough base. The marketing positioning changed in time, but at heart Schwab's was a discount broker ... its existing clients expected it, wanted it and rarely wanted more.

In time, still trying to capture market share, Schwab tried to offer higher value items - portfolio advice, trading advice, relationship-building, all at a lower cost than what the others charged. No longer positioned as a discount brokerage, it still had a discounter's soul.

At the same time, the Merrills and Prus and Dean Witters and the higher-commission brokers remained in business as their value proposition remained attractive to a large portion of the population. Some, like Merrill, offered a lower-service, lower-cost model, but their basic model remained the same.

When the NASDAQ collapsed, it wasn't Merrill or Pru that faced extinction. It was Schwab. Perhaps extinction is too extreme, but when you shed 2/3 of your workforce, and a large portion of your executive structure (including the CEO, who lasted a week longer than me) ... the company clearly was in dire straights.

Two points: one, the brokerage industry also operates on a commission basis - in many places, it's a percentage of the total purchase/sale. Two, those who are able to proof their value are able to charge nearly whatever they choose. There always is a market for high-quality, value-driven service.

I think we are seeing the very same "sky is falling" proclomation that we saw when the "big" Internet companies focused on an industry.

What happened? If the industry could show that it needed that "middle man" to succeed then it survived, if not, then it diddn't. In a recent CE class the prof said, "information is cheap, don't be cheap." The brokers/agents that try to sell themselves on simply the MLS connection and giving information will be replaced by the Internet, but those that have established their value to consumers and have built their "business" on adding value to the transaction will not only survive but thrive in this environment.