As an real estate agent myself and also a client it is extremely tough to find the right real estate agent who is more concerned about the client then the potential income. I've had some really bad experiences. This is a tough industry but a very rewarding one at the same time.

Giving great customer service to the client is the most important part of being an agent. More success will come your way with referrals and repeat business. =)

I think the quality of the service you provide to your clients is the most important factor, when I chose my brokerage the experience of the conveyancing department was very important.
OkotoksRealEstateTeam

I was doing some research and came across this site. Must say that this information is what I was searching for! Keep up the good info. I just Saved as a favorite, Hope that you'll come up with additional stuff such as that.
My recent post Numbers Released of Homes Represented in Shadow Inventory

Most clients that I deal with are an easy sale. They simply want to a quick process and their wants addressed. I think branding is important to get someone in the door, service is what keeps them there and gets their friends to come too.
My recent post Most Unique Log Cabin Homes

Nice article Jay.

I believe if you are big brokerage you WILL have that advantage of enjoying people's confidence a lot more by virtue of being in business for a long time.
Maybe people will call Shiela next time around and not the brokerage she represents. But, as you very right mentioned, it is to the brokerage's credit that they hired Shiela and will probably keep hiring more like her.
So if not for nothing, the brokerage does have a significance for being a platform where talented people can be easily found. And that is why they do matter.
My recent post So What Is This Whole ‘Lease To Own’ Thing About- Anyways

Michael,

I think I have a pretty good grasp of the difference between "perception" and "reality". And, of course, perception becomes reality.

There is no doubt that some clients go to the brand to find an agent. There is also no doubt that some clients go to the agent regardless of the brand. The goal of the agent should be to associate with a brand that provides the support systems [marketing, administrative, technology and the like] that allow the agent to excel at client service. Then every one is happy, the brokerage, the agent and most importantly, the clients.

I just do not buy the NAR's 3% finding for the reasons stated earlier.

Best,

Tyler

Tyler,

I think you are confusing "perception" and "reality."

The primary focus of this entire dialogue has been whether the public PERCEIVES value in a given brand or brokerage.

I don't know too many people - even at the extreme edges of this debate - who would say that the brokerage doesn't matter. Of course it does.

The $64B question is whether the public chooses agents based upon the logo/the brand on the business card...

Best,

Michael

What Tyler said.

Exactly.

I am uncomfortable concluding the brokerage and the brand do not matter. Seems like an extension of the egomania that permeates our industry . . . you know those high school photos of 50-year old agents on business cards. A brokerage puts together under one roof a group of well-trained and professional agents who provide excellent customer service . . . a brokerage to which clients return to over and over again and send referrals to on a regular basis. And the brokerage gets no credit . . . it's all agents? I don't think so.

The 3% referred to in he NAR 2009 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers that is frequently quoted as resolving the issue . . . remember that the NAR surveyed ""consumers who purchased a home"[we call them "buyers"]. The seller information in that Profile came from "buyers who also sold a home" [we call them people who are really happy with their agent]. Is it really a surprise that when surveyed the respondents are overwhelmingly focused on their agents and not the brokerage.

My opinion: A great agent associated with a bad brokerage will not be as successful as a great agent associated with a great brokerage. Likewise, a bad agent associated with a great brokerage will not do as well as a great agent associated with a great brokerage.

I reckon both the brokerage and the agent matter. Surprise!

A lot of clients come in because we know them. Beyond that I believe a lot has to do with advertising and being visible in your target area. Most people are so excited to be getting into (or out of) a new home that they couldn't care less as long as the person brokering the deal has their best interests at heart. Sometimes that can be the reason people leave a brokerage though.
.-= Brainerd Man´s last blog ..Up North Style – Miles Circle, Brainerd, MN =-.

I see you've all had a couple days off, so I thought I'd pipe in. Ha ha!

I love this conversation. Brokerage definitely matters but in no way is it everything. I used to work for a sexy, independent, recognizable brand that attracted many of its clients because of that... Then I went to another local brokerage that's more down-to-earth and team-focused. We may not have the same brand recognition, but I can assure you I'm better supported and educated here and, accordingly, offer more to my clients. Almost all of my clients wanted to transfer with me. One felt really torn as the brand was always important to him. At the same time, he's still a great referral for me.

With the Sotheby's example above.... the brand (powerful!) may matter for some sellers, but if the listing agent is doing his/her job right, would it really matter to the buyer pool? If not, wouldn't that imply it wouldn't really matter for the seller either?

As for education.... does a standard real estate education prepare people to help clients make potentially one of the biggest decisions in their lives? No. I was not impressed by much of what I witnessed in my original licensing classes. That being said, I haven't experienced many agents like that in the field.

PS Congrats Sheila on a job well done! :)
.-= Laura "Ole" Olesen´s last blog ..File your Homestead Exemption now =-.

Great topic! IMO the bottom line is that people care about brands. And good brands do matter. Harry Clark and Danny Fernandez did a terrific job of selling our home. And on top of that - I was psyched to see that Zephyr sign out front because that brand says quality and SF market expert to me as a consumer.

Actually Tina, my comment #236 answers that question.

RE/MAX was a brand that mattered when they only hired experienced agents. A Brokerage with a FIRM no exceptions policy of only hiring well qualified and experienced agents, would be a Brand that mattered. It would matter to agents, as they would get fewer questions when they went into the office. It would matter to consumers because they can be assured that any agent they pick from that company will be a step above many agents from other brokerages.

The only other "branding that matters" seems to be about commission cost. So the original RE/MAX concept of strict hiring practices that they have since strayed from, is still the best example of a brand that matters.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Don't mean to be a party pooper, but can we get back to talking about the brokerage "brand" mattering?

I would like to hear what some of your thoughts are on what a Brokerage brand can do to matter. What kinds of things would make the brand matter to agents? to consumers?
.-= Tina Merritt´s last blog ..VideosByAddress – How to Sign Up! =-.

Correction to my previous post dated March 30, 2010. As of this date, NAR has 1,094,300 members.

Ardell, I agree with your response, “My professionalism doesn’t seem to change whether I am a Realtor or not.”

Correction to my previous post dated March 30, 2010. As of this date, NAR has $1,094,300 members.

Ardell, I agree with your response, "My professionalism doesn’t seem to change whether I am a Realtor or not."

I wanted to include this exchange - because it is germane to Jay's original post here - between Marc Davison and me that took place today on my blog at http://p1fran.com/2010/03/the-brand-illusion-part-....

This was Marc's comment following the original blog post:

Very telling video. There is one more question I’d like to see Todd ask and film. Like this: If you were selling your home and had to choose an agent between one of these 5 brokerage or an agent from no name brokerage (Acme Real Estate) which would you choose and why.

I submit that while those big brands might not be distinguished from one another, hence not brands at all, they are names people recognize and therein might reside trust build based on that.

I was told this yesterday by an agent who lives in one of the most upscale neighborhoods in Northern California whose husband owns a 50-year old real estate brokerage – a neighbor listed his $14,000,000 home with Sotheby’s never giving her a shot at a presentation. Her personal reputation is known in the neighborhood – a neighborhood dominated by the wealthy – but to the neighbor, the only firm he believed could sell and represent his home globally would be the brand Sotheby’s.

Point is, brokerage brand does matter. Maybe only one in America does. And maybe because the brand has 366 years of meaning behind it. Point being, it has meaning. If can mean something, I believe others can too if they actually did the things necessary to earn that meaning.

And here is my response:

Marc,

Thanks so much for your comment!

I think you raise a great point re the $14M home being listed with Sotheby’s.

As I already wrote somewhere else in this long-running conversation regarding branding which now covers multiple blogs and a myriad of posts, I agree with you that Sotheby’s IS a great example of a brand that matters.

Having said that, the exception does not disprove the rule.

And the hard reality is that Sotheby’s – for the most part – dominates a mico-niche of the greater real estate market that is very far removed from the bread and butter, sweet spot of the industry: the average Joe or JoAnne looking to buy a home between $100K and $500K on Main Street USA.

And THERE – and I would argue that we’re talking about 95% of the transactions done year in and year out – is where I believe branding does not matter.

This debate should not be had at the extreme margins of the industry, where it is difficult if not impossible to draw any conclusions that apply or even matter to the mainstream.

And please don’t overlook this: this isn’t theory or conjecture on my part. I have LIVED this for 20 years.

As I’ve already blogged ad nauseum, my clients haven’t cared one whit where I’ve worked – little regional company, RE/MAX or Keller Williams (my actual resume) – it’s all the same to them.

I’ve never gotten a buyer or a listing simply because I worked at RE/MAX or Keller Williams. Never, not once.

And, to my knowledge, I’ve never lost a buyer or a listing because I no longer work at one of these brands.

And every agent that works at my company will tell you the same story.

And I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that every agent at Jay Thompson’s company will agree.

For the bulk of the industry, when the rubber meets the road, branding does not matter.

As you saw in the video, people consistently said “I’d base my decision on the AGENT, NOT the BRAND.”

Regarding your question about creating a video that asks “If you were selling your home and had to choose an agent between one of these 5 brokerage or an agent from no name brokerage (Acme Real Estate) which would you choose and why,” I don’t need to shoot that video to tell you how it would go: the people would OBVIOUSLY choose one of the name brands – even I would answer the question that way!

But here are the problems with that question: (1) it’s a leading question, and (2) it’s not representative of how these decisions are made in real life. In real life, people ask other people for referrals, or they have already have an existing relationship with a Realtor.

So, EVEN IF someone were to do such a survey, and EVEN IF 100% of the answers came back “of course I’d use a “big 5? brokerage over a “Joe Schmoe Brokerage,” it wouldn’t move me one iota off my position, because that’s just not how people make this decision.

If you want credible support for this assertion, watch our video again and listen to the last comments made, which went something like this: “”If I had to, I might go to one of these known brands, but I don’t know how comfortable I would be. I would still want references first.”

Remember, this is from someone who has never bought or sold a home. And I would argue that this is a PERFECT illustration of what a person does in real life. I think it’s clear that at least this one person is saying “brand may have some value, but at the end of the day, I need validation about my choice and would prefer a referral from someone I know and trust.”

All that being said, that’s NOT to say that brands can’t matter. They can, and they will.

I created Professional One SPECIFICALLY because I couldn’t find a brand that mattered, and I spent 15 years of my life looking. Will we be successful? Only time will tell.

But meeting Jay Thompson and hearing his story – and, remember, our concepts are almost IDENTICAL – gives me great hope that brands like ours can rise up and take market share away from the “big boxes” that are declining and failing all around us.

We like our chances…

Best,
Michael
.-= Michael McClure´s last blog ..“Big Box” Brouhaha =-.

Jay,

While the Code is national...the interpretation is local. Most mls and board fines are no where near what we have here, were the norm is $5,000. I don't mind pushing an envelope for a small fine...but when Redfin got fined $100,000 for trying something new, that was very ZOMG!!! I'd rather have a sign rider blow torched than a $100,000 fine :)

We all know the poor lady who got fined $5,000 for not calling first for a showing was not the first or only one who ever did that.

There's plenty of room to say no big deal to your friends in the business who happen to work in the big companies, and fine the newer "upstarts". The "good old boy" network is alive and well when five people meet to decide if that was a violation...or not, or to give a warning vs a fine, etc... Whether or not they like you or your business model can often impact the final decision from 'The Grievance Committee".
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

RE/MAX used to be awesome and they had the slogan "It's the Experience". An agent used to "graduate" to RE/MAX from other traditional brokerages. Originally they only hired the best and experienced agents. I think they still use that slogan on the hot air balloon logo, but now take new agents that have never sold a house.

That is an EXCELLENT example of a "brand" that used to mean something.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

True confession: I have not read all the comments here. What I skimmed was very interesting.

I am currently selling my home to and will buyer a "downsized" home.

To be honest, I am not sure who my agent works for. I think it is remax. Or maybe Century21. I don't really care. I like her, and I think she knows what she is doing. She probably gets some of that from her brokerage but I didn't hire her because of who she works for.

Aren't all the major brokerages independently owned and operated? So how much influence does the corporate brand have anyway? Does a remax for example tell all the people who own remax offices how to hire agents or do they have "corporate policies" that office owners have to comply with?

ARDELL wrote, "My best blog posts have been written when I was not a member, and I do feel constrained as a blogger when I am a member. Given blogging is my #1 source of business…best to stay out of the fray. I get a lot more business from blogging than I ever got from “a Brand” or from being “a member”.

I've always been an NAR member. I don't have a choice if I want MLS access (don't get me started on how wrong that is).

Blogging is my #1 source of business too, but I've never felt constrained in what I write because I'm a NAR member. In fact, I had an entire blog at one point dedicated to nothing but some of the silliness that comes out of the NAR. Several posts right here on TPREG call out poor practices in real estate (not *individual* poor practices).

And I've had multiple clients tell me those posts are some of their favorites, and why they chose us to represent them.

Being a member in the NAR (or any local or state association) will never constrain what I write. My old C21 broker tried to constrain what I wrote, and that was a major factor in opening my own brokerage. Incidentally, my old broker's office is now out of business. Coincidence?

Michael said, "Here’s the first sentence of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics: “REALTORS® shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communications and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations.”

If I write a blog post that says, "There are FAR too many lousy photos in the MLS. This is a bad thing... Sellers, make sure your agent uses good photos..."

That IS being honest and truthful in my real estate communications... That's not a CoE violation.

Now if I say, "Realtor Joe Blow's listing photos suck", that is a CoE violation.

At least that's my interpretation of the CoE. And Lord knows I've written plenty here and elsewhere about bad and stupid real estate practices.

Michael said: "I couldn’t find a brand that mattered, and I spent 15 years of my life looking."

That's the cold, hard truth people. Weep for that.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Erica,

The not so funny part is an agent pulled up in broad daylight and blow torched the rider on the sign in front of kids playing ball in the street. The owner of the house told me it was "missing" until the day of closing when he handed me the melted remains of the name rider.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

I am right on board with Ardell's last comment. Different from us = BAD.

I once had someone complain because my business card was "too good." Her words, not mine. She told me never to leave one of my cards in her house again (after a showing) because she didn't want her sellers to see how good my cards were. My background is marketing. I owned a local magazine and had full color, high end cards printed up. Not the standard company cards. It was in compliance state-wise, and approved by my broker. I even called the legal hotline and the lawyer laughed and told me to keep printing those cards. Her argument was on side 1 was my contact info and on the back I printed all my credentials (degrees, business awards, designations). She said that my card made the rest of us look bad. Ha!

That is the mentality we are up against.

Sherry's point is right on. But too many brands are "me too." Despite what they say, most provide the same/similar services to clients and to agents with a slight twist here and there. The consumers cannot differentiate amongst the brands and why 1 is better than another. It's the AGENTS themselves who provide stellar service, or not.

A so so agent at a great brand is still a so so agent. A star will stand out and deliver top notch service no matter where he/she is.

Jay,

I think Erica answered that question. Lots of agents are whiney babies who like to file ethics complaints. I think their rationale is "I'm not happy so someone must be violating the Code of Ethics."

My best blog posts have been written when I was not a member, and I do feel constrained as a blogger when I am a member. Given blogging is my #1 source of business...best to stay out of the fray. I get a lot more business from blogging than I ever got from "a Brand" or from being "a member".

I like to think out of the box and DO out of the box. Many times over the years when I have been the first to try something, (like put my name and phone number on a rider on the Company sign), the complaints to the Board ensued. 50 calls to the Board the first morning my name rider was on the sign. Even though I had not broken any rules, I was asked to remove the name rider. because they were tired of all the phone calls. LOL! Now everyone has a name rider.

I find it easier to think and do out of the box...while being out of the box.

Can you imagine 50 agents calling about a name rider? Today they call about something else, but the mentality is the same. "She's doing something different than us; no fair" LOL!
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Sorry for not responding for so long...out with clients.

Ira - Because our mls is owned and operated by and for the Brokers, there is no Board Connection. No Board Forms (all are mls forms). No Board Store (the store is operated by the mls). No Board Supra connection (managed by the mls).

When I first arrived in Seattle in 2004 I walk across to the Board Office and asked what they did, given the mls office seemed to do everything the Board did in other States I have worked in. They had no answer :)

At one time I insisted on being a member, but that forced everyone in my Company to be a member. When we walked in and handed them $10,000 so that I could be a member, I felt selfish and clearly couldn't explain to others in the Company why $10,000 was worth it. I asked the Board again what they did for that $10,000...still waiting for an answer. LOL!
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Jay,

I think you blog has become so popular, I'm going to suggest that Inman hold ICSF on this summer instead of the Hilton at our next Connect meeting.

:)

The first rule of Realtor Club: you don't talk about Realtor Club...
.-= Michael McClure´s last blog ..The Brand Illusion :: Part 2 =-.

Actually some think ANY venting agents vs. other agents is against COE. I posted a members only post on AR about lack of professionalism amongst the ranks and another member told me not to publicize negative press about other agents (no one was named, and it was a members only post) because that makes us all look bad. He said it was a COE violation to "air our laundry in public".

ARDELL wrote: "given speaking about industry weaknesses can be construed as a violation of the Code of Ethics."

How so? Assuming I don't disparage another Realtor by name, I see no possible Code of Ethics violation in speaking about industry weaknesses...

Toni,

My professionalism doesn't seem to change whether I am a Realtor or not...at present I am not...six months ago I was. I have been a Realtor for maybe 15 of my 20 years in this profession, and I personally so no difference except that I can speak my mind better when I am not a member. Change from without seems to happen more easily than change from within, given speaking about industry weaknesses can be construed as a violation of the Code of Ethics.

You said: "A person doesn’t become ethical by joing a membership, they just are if they take their profession seriously." I don't think there's an agent on the planet who takes this business more "seriously" than I do...and I am not a member at present...so no, I don't agree with that statement. Truth is that most areas pretty much make it mandatory to be a member to function...Seattle is not one of those areas.

Until membership is purely by agent choice, vs mandatory if your broker chooses to be a member, or mandatory in order to get a Supra Key...it's all a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. Make membership voluntary...purely voluntary on an agent to agent basis, and we'll know its true worth. In fact, it will raise the bar, as it will need to become an association worthy of people choosing it...that would be a change for the better.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Jay, Marc, Tina, et al -

I don't know how we got to this place where we are somewhat sheepish or apologetic about using the "E" word - education (gasp!) - in the real estate space. But here we are.

I think it's like some sort of perverse political correctness that's crept up on us.

I'm always reminded of the kids' soccer league where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.

Real estate is the “just show up and get a trophy” business.

Tina, you wrote "There are thousands of other professions that require a bachelor’s degree to even be considered for employment. Why should real estate be any different? The base education of economics, finance, marketing, management and English is all something that is needed in the day-to-day workings of our business."

Bravo, my friend! Perfectly stated, and I agree 100%. I count my education as the most valuable asset on my personal balance sheet. The biggest things I learned: how to be objective (or at least try to be!), how to problem solve, how to prioritize, how to compete and excel, how to handle pressure and, probably most importantly, how to critically reason. All of those things are invaluable skills that have without question helped me to excel in real estate.

And those benefits are ABOVE AND BEYOND the things I learned in college that have DIRECT applicability to the conduct of my job on a daily basis: accounting, finance, business law, marketing, psychology, English, etc.

Here's what kills me: I've never been to Paris. So why would I feel comfortable telling anyone, "Don't go to Paris; it's overrated and a waste of your time."

See, I WOULDN'T say that - because I have no intellectually defensible position for talking about something about which I do not know.

AND YET...the real estate space is full of folks who are more than happy to tell you that "we don't need no education" (sadly, I think we already have the thought control!).

Now, mind you, MOST of those people didn't get an education themselves...but somehow they feel qualified to tell YOU that education is overrated and not really applicable to real estate.

I’ll stop there. If the absurdity and the irony of that doesn’t hit you straight between the eyes, another 1,000 words of soapboxing likely won’t give sight to the blind.

Jay, you wrote "The debate on whether to require a college degree to get a sales license really is a moot point. It will never happen. The NAR and the state associations and DREs won’t ever buy into that. They aren’t about to cut the length of the dues paying list that significantly."

That is so, so, SO sad. And very likely entirely correct. That’s the anchor that will likely forever hold real estate down: the common thread that connects most of the big franchises and NAR itself: dependency on agent count.

Shifting directions slightly, Jay, my company mirrors yours to an almost eerie extent. We have 6 MBAs, 3 CPAs, a former state representative, and a number of other people with degrees. And a RE/MAX Hall of Fame member (grin). And a linguistics expert who speaks five languages fluently from Moscow (Russia) State University. Our "percentage with degrees" is about the same as yours.

What's most encouraging to us is that we don't have a requirement that agents have a degree (at least not yet), but our concept - which is predicated ENTIRELY on professionalism (hence the name of the brand) - has ATTRACTED those people.

I don’t tell my agents to recruit...but they do...and they recruit people just like themselves. Be still, my beating heart.

I wrote a bit about this at http://p1fran.com/2009/12/want-professionalism-rai....

Just last night, I interviewed an experienced agent (at HER request). Talking about our focus on professionalism and our desire to be the anti-"Big Box" was the moment when we won her over, I believe.

“Like attracts like.” It’s why I couldn’t survive in that big box environment where 90% of the people sold 1.2 houses per year. It was the nadir of my 20 years in the biz. That “any warm body” environment actively repelled me out the door. I couldn’t stand being associated with that philosophy.

Marc, you wrote, "In real estate you don’t see degrees flaunted because many don’t have it and agents are, for some bizarre reason, taught to flaunt dog, kids, platitudes or some other vestige of emotional indulgence to prove their humanity. Which begs the question did real estate once have an issue with being over populated by space aliens that it became incumbent on agents to show their humanity?"

Once more, you call it exactly correctly. If any of my agents advertised dogs, kids or platitudes, I'd show them the door. Our purpose is be a legitimate professional services firm, like a law firm or a CPA firm. Dogs, kids and platitudes are the very antithesis of that mission.

And don’t get me wrong - I LOVE dogs and kids (but not platitudes!), but what do they have to do with “professionalism” and “excellence” and “client service?” Absolutely nothing, that’s what.

One of my former agents (emphasizing word “former”) used to send out postcards with a picture of him and his dog on them. The first time I saw that, I called him in and said,”Explain the dog.” He said, “I walk my dog every day. People in my neighborhood know me from that.” I said, “Do you want to be thought of as “That guy who walks that dog past my house every day,” or as “A professional who sells real estate?””

He was completely flummoxed. It was as if I was speaking Mandarin. It was then that I realized we were not at all on the same page in terms of vision, and we continued to lock horns until he found his way over to a big-box brand a little bit later. They were delighted to have him and his Irish Setter on their team.

We proudly leverage our credentials (the six MBAs, three CPAs, etc.) in all of our promotional activities and all of our literature - and it works. We compete against people who - literally - used to sell furniture and used cars for a living.

I’m not knocking furniture and used car salespeople.

What I AM saying is that I believe a thinking, rational, professional buyer or seller (and that is the baseline demographic of my market) absolutely prefers being represented by a “perceived peer” (that is, someone with a similar background, experience and education) than by - as you wrote so brilliantly, Marc - someone "winging it or reciting it off a Mike Ferry script."

Marc, you also wrote "And then we realized, the most important financial decision we are ever going to make in life is represented by people with some experience and a lapel pin."

Umm...yep. Exactly. And the "some experience" part is not guaranteed. I think "A pulse and a lapel pin (and a trophy?)" would have been more appropriate.

On the topic of “designations,” none other than Stefan Swanepoel had some very interesting things to say on our #RTB on the Radio show about the value and validity of such “credentials.” If you have any interest in hearing what he had to say, go to iTunes, search “RTB” and download that podcast. His perspective - and, in my opinion, no one has a better basis for an opinion on this than Stefan - is eye-opening and enlightening.

Finally, Marc, I don’t think you are “reaching.”

I think you are PREACHING.

And the real estate congregation desperately needs to hear your sermon!

Can I get an “AMEN” and a “HALLELUJAH!”

May this thread never die (someone needs to convert this into a book...I am serious!),

Best,
Michael
.-= Michael McClure´s last blog ..The Brand Illusion :: Part 2 =-.

So there is no confusion to the NON-real estate person that reads this blog. Definition of REALTOR® :

A real estate agent is a REALTOR® when he or she is a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, The Voice for Real Estate® -- the world's largest professional association.

The term REALTOR® is a registered collective membership mark that identifies a real estate professional who is a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® and "subscribes" to its "strict" Code of Ethics. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they were so strict, would we?

Founded in 1908, NAR has grown from its original nucleus of 120 to today's 720,000 members.

NOT all the aforementioned 720,000 member REALTOR®s abide by the membership standards and uphold to their utmost highest standards in abiding by Ethics. I said most! Abiding by Real Property Laws in the State the Licensed professional is matters most. According to licensing you DO NOT have to become a member of an association. A person doesn't become ethical by joing a membership, they just are if they take their profession seriously. An attorney automatically has a Broker's licenses and NOT all are tied in with RE Associations and/or MLS systems.

If I am wrong then please, with all due respect correct me.

Jeffrey said, "I think that what a Great Brand would do is sometimes get you that call."

The crime and the shame of it is that companies could do much, much more for their clients, the buyers and sellers of homes. But most deem their "customer" to be the agent, and not the people that agent represents.

If it is mostly about "getting the call", then I would say the days of the big brokerage are numbered. They need to offer more for the buyers and sellers of homes, because a really good agent doesn't need the Company to get "the call".

I'm wondering how impressed a buyer or seller would be if you told them "My Company is GREAT because they helped me get you to call me!" LOL!
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

Ardell, so happy to hear your voice on this discussion, I always respect your views.

I think that what a Great Brand would do is sometimes get you that call - it's still up the the REALTOR® to build a trusting relationship with the Client.

The magic is to find that symbiotic relationship between Broker & Agent that benefits the Clients in every way!

And yes the argument has gone on for 20 years, isn't it time for less talk and more action?
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..17th Annual Sicilian Festival Coming To Little Italy =-.

What bothers me most about this question, and clearly I have heard the "argument" ad nauseam for going on 20 years, is it always seems to be about "pick me!". "How can I get people to 'pick me' and will Company Brand help me get them to pick me.

The nano second I believe that a big brand name will benefit my clients in any way shape or form, I would do that, and pay whatever it costs to that Company, to get that advantage for my client. Until and unless the Company delivers an advantage for my seller client or my buyer client, they are irrelevant.

Clearly if a buyer or seller hires a substandard agent, they are better off with a substandard agent at a top notch company than a substandard agent who is a one man show. But a top notch agent gets little in the way of added value for his/her clients...from the brand.

I literally have no competition. I always get the listing...unless I don't want it. I never lose buyer clients to other agents. I change companies like some people change their underwear, and it disappoints me that I can't put on a name brand, and with it offer some added value to my clients. I wish it did. Most often I head back to my own company, because I can always add more value for my clients without the "rules" of the big brands. I can do whatever I deem needed for my client's best interest without a "brand" worrying if their "image" is intact.

So I ask this of the agents who consider this question, have you EVER had to say to a client "I can't do that because my Company's Policy is..." Have you every had to offer less to a client because of your "brand". If the answer to that is yes, you should not be there. Would your client be better served if you didn't pay the Broker? I find that answer to be yes. I have more room to set a fair price with home buyers and home sellers without the brand name, and paying that same amount to the brand instead of my client, gets nothing additional for my client.

What does the "brand" do for your client who is trying to sell his house? What does the "brand" do for your client who is trying to make a wise choice as to which home to buy, and what to pay for it? If you chose the "brand" so that more people might pick you...wrong reason.
.-= ARDELL´s last blog ..Real Estate Prices in King County Will Go Down in 2010 =-.

I just wanted to be the 200th comment on this amazing post.

That is all... :)
.-= Michael McClure´s last blog ..The Brand Illusion :: Part 2 =-.

I am someone who has been with a no brand, local brand, and on my second Realogy brand. Both agent branding and International brand matter especially as the price point of the transactions grow.

Sellers in my market want to know how I represent them as an agent as well as what Sotheby's offer. Int he 4 years Sothbey's has a made a name in my local market, the perception from sellers seems to be that Coldwell Banker is "Macy's" and Sotheby's is "Neiman Marcus". It definitely matters at the $500,000 plus price point but even sellers with lower bracket properties appreciate the perception they are getting premium marketing.

Over the last year I have seen so many 1-10 person brokerages joining the "brands" in our market. When I have asked them why. The answers are usually 2 fold. They cost of marketing(I think most don't understand what marketing is right now) and losing listings to the "brands".

What makes up a brand and a brokerage is so complex now it is a blog in itself.

With all that being said, I have to agree with @MIRealestate. As global as it gets, real estate is still primarily local.
.-= Andrea Geller´s last blog ..The Open House Debate Revisited =-.

You have me all fired up now. We can only change what we have control over: OUR OWN FIRMS.

One at a time, raising the bar.

Love the comment above about pets and kids and platitudes. Our advertising promotes our PROFESSIONALISM. I've been accused by other agents in other firms of putting down other agents by implying we're the only professionals in town. We don't say that. We say "we are a firm of full time professionals who set the bar for standards..." and then we list our credentials, what makes us different from the rest, and we finish up with testimonials from -- big gasp -- other well known professionals in our area: doctors, lawyers, businessmen/women who use our firm exclusively. Boy this pisses off the other guys.

I have had complaints about my ads (I don't put down other agents, but promote OUR services and why we are great!) and even hate mail. I think that means I'm doing something right.

Any comment that can reference Pink Floyd in context deserves an Amen and Hallelujah!

But the rest of it is really good too....

It all goes back to the broker.

I am a big fan of education. I just hired a newbie (new license) and he has a Bachelor's Degree in Business and has years of experience in sales/marketing. He's been with me 3 months and he's gonna ROCK!

I hesitate to state you MUST hire only college grads, but I'm encouraging it in my hiring. And I am also requiring agents to CONSTANTLY take CE and encouraging designation classes (GRI,CRS) on a schedule to keep up "above the fray".

Until we stop the "fog the mirror" test and hire RIGHT, this won't stop.

I just check my notebook and I interviewed 7 agents in the past 6 months, and hired 1. (I am in a small rural area). I am not out there actively recruiting. I just told 1 agent who called me I was not hiring at the moment. The truth is I've seen her in action . I don't want her. She was flabbergasted. "What do you mean you're not hiring?" I repeated the phrase and told her "thank you for calling but we just don't have room on the team right now for someone in your niche." She had no clue what I meant and didn't ask. She just hung up, confused. Her niche? Unethical, sleezeball, do anything to step on anyone to get a deal done. I am sure she'll find a home across town at another firm, no problem. But she's not playing on my team.

As we all know, even good agents can have bad days and to generalize about the quality of a firm's agents based on one glowing (or negative) letter is always a bad position. Any agent can drop the ball like one of their (AH) top agents did a few years ago with me at the 11'th hour...
.-= Doug Francis´s last blog ..Real Estate short sales may just start your headache =-.