Zoopla boss Alex Chesterman has hit out at the exclusivity offering that is set to underpin the challenger portal proposed by Agents’ Mutual.
Chesterman said it was not in the public’s interest. He also expressed concern about agents making a long-term commitment to an unproved business.
Agents’ Mutual plans to allow agents who commit to it to advertise on only one other portal.
Chesterman said: “We welcome competition in the marketplace but believe that for any competition to be good for the industry and result in a net improvement in return on investment it needs to stand on its merits and the value that it delivers.
“So as an agent I would be somewhat concerned about making a long-term commitment to pay for something where the return is not yet proven.
“More importantly, however, is that exclusivity prevents an agent from optimising their marketing spend and maximising their competitive advantage by choosing where to advertise at any point in time.
“It is also interesting to look at exclusivity from the consumer side: consumers want single destinations where they can find as much inventory (choice) as possible in one place, which is one of the factors that have led to the huge audience growth of portals.
“Exclusivity harms the consumer experience, which cannot be a good thing for the industry.”
In a wide-ranging interview with EAT, Chesterman also firmly rejected any suggestion that Zoopla would one day accept private listings, and said that social media such as Facebook would not replace the portals.
He said: “Property search is quite personal and in some cases quite competitive, so people tend not to share the homes they are looking to buy or rent.”
Chesterman also staunchly defended Zoopla’s prices, although he did not answer specific questions as to how much is being paid on average, and what percentage of agents will have their prices hiked next year.
For the full must-read interview, see today’s blog section.
* Chesterman was named as a winner of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year 2013 Award for the London & South region at an awards ceremony.
The awards are based on a number of criteria, including entrepreneurial spirit, innovation, strategic direction and social responsibility, and are voted on by a panel of business leaders.
As a regional winner, he will now go forward to compete for the overall UK Entrepreneur of the Year 2013 Award which will be announced at the annual awards gala at the Hilton, Park Lane, on October 7.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
Remember how the Yellow Pages rep visited each year,with news that splitting directory into two,meant pay double,but prices had risen.
We came out,with no effect.Yellow Pages history!
We are not on Rightmove,but use traditional selling mehods,however we have 30 branches,so save £100,000's.
If Rightmove and Zoopla are replaced by agent owned portal,would Zoopla not be wise to sell thier site to agents co-op now.
Sorry if you have shares in Rightmove,but that is life!
You could ask your brokers advice,or think YP!
Insurance companies,banks and building societies were going to rule in 1987!
Surely you can quit,alcahol,cigarettes,any adiction with will power.
I see Rightmove as the drug dealer,and their agents who complain but are dependent as addicts,accepting abuse of power.
Some see problems,I see opportunities.
If all serious agents publicised MA,and removed other portals,there would be no need for advertising.
Sorry but newspapers dead too,and TV,with record/playback.
We watch programmes half hour after they start,and skip ads,sorry if you think Downtown Abbey primetime!
The name could come from ideas,rhubarb,would be the choice by the cynics,but maybe the word good,wise include in the trading name or Real agent..
I think f the agents got together regionally,like Round Tables,say 20 regions,discussed,distributed minutes,then had say an elected Councillor attend national get together,
report back,things could happen.
I am wary of self interst,but if there were say a council of 20,elected each year,with a vice councillor as understudy to attend say quarterly meets,and a national chairman and vice chair to serve only a year,momentum would be generated,and costs contained.
I have other ideas,if you want to hear,ask for PART TWO!
,
It was neither brave nor foolish to insist that my property was 'sold' If I am paying someone to do a job I am more than capable of doing myself but either time, location or economics makes it good sense to ask someone else to work for me, then I can ask the job to be done as I would do. Mine was an executor sale and being married to a beneficiary meant that paying an Agent ensured fairness to all and the Agent's independence and subjectivity meant there could be no bias in any part of the process.
I and the 3 agents valued the property to the same figure and that is what we achieved after Agent's fees were paid. There wasn't a blanket ban on internet advertising just a stipulation they could not use Rightmove.
Rightmove has become a Dumbo’s feather and Agents believe they need RM to sell property; I simply proved to one agent they could sell without it. In fairness Peebee this particular sale was never going to be anything other than textbook perfect, every single thing from valuation to completion was done exactly how it should be. A dentist shouldn’t extract their own teeth but obviously knows how it should be done.
'Recent vendor'...
I don't know whether to take my hat off to you or shake my head in disbelief. Was this a brave, or foolish, move on your part - I'm not certain. Whether YOU believe in the power of RM or not, you were directly paying for it and therefore in order to get your full 'moneys worth' out of your Agent (and in order to give the widest possible coverage to the buying public - who in the main love RM's accessibility) you should use whatever resource is being offered to you. You may in fact have been cutting off one artery supplying leads - and whilst the Agent apparently 'did the biz' to your satisfaction, a warning siren is going off in my head that two viewings, resulting in at least one offer, within only five days gives me a feeling that you hardly allowed the property to be exposed to any real market.
Don't get me wrong - sometimes the first offer is the best offer, and your Agent may well have done a brilliant job and be every bit as on top of their local market as you suggest - BUT you do not state whether you achieved the asking price, in excess of it, or took a 20% hit; whether your asking price was realistic, optimistic, or giveaway; and most importantly what and where you are selling - this latter point alone could indicate that instead of earning their fee as you believe to be the case, your Agent simply flogged you off quick and probably cheap.
Interestingly, you have stated that you did not want the Agent to upload to RM - but no mention about their own website, or other portals. Did you impose a total 'net embargo?
You state "...once you have owned and sold a property you will understand that Rightmove hardly figures in the public perception and is a micro consideration when choosing an agent." I would say that this statement is absolutely correct... in YOUR thought process. I would respectfully suggest however that in the opinion of countless others in your situation you couldn't be further from reality. It is for those that RM etc exists.
I would also respectfully suggest that it is Agents who 'sell' properties on a daily basis and therefore they - we - are in a far more informed position as to the public perception of RM. Indeed, WE created and fed the perception for the portals to the extent that they are now the tail that wags the dog - hence this and a multitude of other articles that bring out the ire everytime they feature.
You talk about "DIY applicants". Sorry - aren't they ALL? Applicants have to look somewhere; start the process by getting off their @$$es or onto the phones and contact Agents - so in that case RM et al is THE easiest shop window for them to look in.
I am all for Agents proving themselves - I set out to do it every day. If there was no portals - then we would work with the tools available - like we did back in the day. But to NOT use ALL of the tools available is to not expose our clients' properties to the full market and like it or not, that is what we should be doing or we are failing in what we set out to do before we start.
Couldn't agree more.
I think it is about time agents gave the vendors the option to opt out of listing with portals and then reflected that opt out in their pricing.
But of course to do that you have to prove you don't rely on the portals to sell, because if you do then why would I bother with you. I could do it with an online agent and save myself about 85% in fees.
There seems to be so much moaning on this site about we are stuck, we have no choice, we have to stick with the two main portals in order to satisfy our clients.
It seems to me that attitude is a cop out for those who stick a listing on RM then sit back and hope someone will contact them.
And I agree, most vendors are more worried about which agent they should advertise with in their local area, who is selling the most, who gets of their arse and is pro-active rather than reactive. These are the main considerations when selling your house.
If I were a vendor and you said to me we'll put it in the window and list it on RM and charge you two grand for the privilege, the door would be closing behind me before you'd finished the sentence.
@ '@'
I told my agent I did not want them to use Rightmove. I considered paying them a commission was worth more that just sticking it on the internet. The agent had to do the job I was paying them to do. They had to demonstrate that they knew their applicant base, knew who was hot and who was not and could sell my property.
If I want to list on Rightmove and leave it to DIY applicants to find a property from themselves I would have saved myself the £2000 + vat I thought the agent was reasonably going to charge.
2 viewings, sale agreed in 5 days, money in the bank for both of us.
@ once you have owned and sold a property you will understand that Rightmove hardly figures in the public perception and is a micro consideration when choosing an agent. The agent with reputation for agreeing sales, the agent with sold slips on their boards is what vendors want and they certainly do not want their Agent to rip them for commission when all they are doing is sticking the property on Rightmove.
Just stick with the devil we know, rightmove its qwhat vendors want. Full stop, everything is just noise.
“So as an agent I would be somewhat concerned about making a long-term commitment to pay for something where the return is not yet proven." MANY OF US DID THIS WITH ZOOPLA all is fair in love and war. Good luck to Agents Mutual
Sorry for the second post this is what I wanted to post but was a bit thrown by BL's insomnia.
Alex Chesterman is not correct about it not being in the public interest for Agents Mutual to put a restriction on who their user Agents can and can not also advertise with; the public will not see its effect or know about the restriction. Two main portals is two main portals, three portals is three; Applicants don't think about such things, they just sniff out property wherever it is being advertised or discussed. If Alex were worried about the public having access to as many portals as possible perhaps he should dust off all the portals that over the years have rolled up into what is now just one portal; Asserta, Propertyfinder, Think etc
Big Leg- No-one should be thinking about this in the middle of the night. Let it go! Time to quit whatever job it is if you are doing it at 3 am! No-one will thank you for it.
This is actually very clever promotion of Agents Mutual, once again we have a Monday story about Agents Mutual but it does not look like it is coming from Ian Springett. This one is dressed up as an Alex Chesterman 'comments on' story.
Un-wittingly Alex (possibly Ros although I doubt it) have done a bit of PR about Agents Mutual. This is an 'engineered objection' which can be left in place or removed last minute depending on what goes at the time or can be tailored to each individual Agent negotiation. Engineered objections are designed as negotiation points that can be given away with little or no harm but have a greater role getting folk all hot under the collar discussing/raising them. This is positive- negative PR.
Listen to these agents harping on about the evils of restricted trade practices. How quickly we forget about the likes of Fish4homes that was sunk by agents who wouldn't work with a portal unless they agree to work ONLY with agents, and not with vendors.
My god, Alex was forced to defend his 'agents only' position in the same article in which he points out that exclusivity is 'not in the public interest'. Truly bizarre double standards by agents here. Am I the only one recognising any hypocrisy?
I will happily pay Agent Mutual something when I see how it performs and it starts delivering value to my business.
To agree to pay now would be madness and I will not be agreeing to pay a penny until then. I dont spend my hard earned cash on promises.
There are a dozen portals I could have given money to in the last 3 years that i have chosen not to since they deliver zip/zero/nada.
And I won't be giving up either of the main portals. And when I tell Agent Mutual that I wont leave the others, they will not turn me away. The exclusivity doesnt stand a prayer. Basic business - keep your options open.
the polish girls have Biiiiig minders, if you don't pay you ain't going home in one piece.
Does that answer your question?
I could say why pay anybody anything? ....... but I won't.
Hmmm....
Can't see this working actually.
Shame
Mark South London agent.
Possibly the most blatant 'vested interest' post I've ever seen!
Hi all
A few reasons why it won't work:
Agent Mutual won't have enough listings to provide a compelling consumer experience for some time.
In their presentation they confirmed that they "are not here to provide a better search experience than the current portals" therefore it will be good for trade (and paying Ian Springett's salary as CEO) but not for the consumer.
It will fail up North due to the mindset of the agents setting this up.
They will never have the support of the corporates without giving away shares and improved voting rights and therefore will never have critical mass of stock anywhere but particularly central London.
As this is to be funded 100% from agency loans they will never raise enough money to buy market share.
Not enough agents will buy into the 9 year business plan (dream).
Sensible agents will wait to see what they do first which means it cannot work.
To create something successful in this sector you need to do what Right Move and Zoopla have done and what Property Network and the others are trying to do now:
Create something new and different for the consumer (not the agent).
Raise money.
Strategically build awareness and demand.
Alex Chesterman is completely correct in his assessment. Agents Mutual have not demonstrated anything at the 2 presentations I have attended and therefore I for one will not be wasting my money.
Mark
South London Agent
Oh dear - here we go again.
Points to remember:
1. The only reason there is this 'duopoly' you refer to is that YOU all created the situation you all now bemoan by feeding these animals in the first place.
2. The animals are now, thanks to your excellent feeding and grooming, show-winners and, like Lassie, better known and loved than their keepers.
3. Once these animals reach a point in their development, they are able to dictate WHEN and HOW MUCH you feed them.
4. People pay to go to zoos, circuses, dog shows etc to see the ANIMALS, not their keepers. (...if anything, they secretly hope to see the animals bite the keepers...)
5. This new animal is hardly in a position to dictate terms to its potential keepers - yet it sees what the other animals are doing and fluffs up its feathers in an attempt to look as well-fed. Good on it for having the cojones to try (Agents should try growing a pair sometimes, methinks...) - if it works then the keepers only have themselves to blame for their hands being bitten at any future opportunity.
6. On the subject of growing a pair - if your subs to these portals go up year on year, what do your sale fees do?
Your office heating bills go up 10 - 20% per annum. Do you make such a song and dance about this? Having a well-lit, warm office gains you NO MORE instructions or leads than a cold, dim one!
I'm sorry - but bemoaning the success of another business simply highlights the inadequecies of your own.
I'm just trying to imagine lettings and sales in this country the Agents' Mutual way.... If enough agents back this, it will be a case of the public not being able to rely on Rightmove or Zoopla for a full and comprehensive listing; instead, the public will have to visit the site being promoted by us agents: Agent's Mutual.
Given the amount of complaining we all do about the cost of listing with RM and Zoopla, isn't that what we want? As PaulH indicates below, if we were getting fair pricing from the portals carrying OUR data, there would be no Agent's Mutual.
All of that said, I don't like the idea of being dictated to in such general terms either. Tell me I can only have one of RM and Zoopla, fine, but don't tell me I can't have a presence anywhere else at all!
Guys wake up you made RM what it is dont do the same again! Anyone who dictates likes this should be avoided.
And Ed, foodm suppliers do just waht you said!
About time someone had the courage to put this silly idea to bed. Imagine this happening in any other industry: Kellogg's telling Morrisons they can't stock their cornflakes unless they stop selling Quaker's Oats. Pah. Neither Rightmove or Zoopla would lose out more, the two portals are more successful in different areas of the country. So it may be a good idea to drop the less successful according to your own experience, but certainly not for the benefit of Agents Mutual. Does anyone know what the little quip about social media is regarding? Property Network?
I had the Zoopla account manager here twice in the first 5 months of 2013 to tell me that their prices were going up with a total price rise of 81%. I complained but was told I either accept the price rise or leave.
The value of these portals has been created by our listings and yet they charge us what they like. But their value goes quickly into reverse if they don't have a comprehensive offering as consumers only want to look in one place. Have a look at the Rightmove profit margin (73.3%) if you are in any doubt about how much these companies make. http://hsprod.investis.com/ir/rmv/pdf/Full_Year_Results_Presentation_2012.pdf
Our choices as agents are to continue to bent over a barrel or to do something about it.
Game over before they have even started then.
"You can only be a customer of ours if you aren't also a customer of X"
I'll do what I bloody like that you, and given the two competitors have years of track record and are market leaders, and you are unproven and unheard of by my clients, I think I know where I will be placing my money.
I applaud you both, I really do. Best of luck.
I have to agree with Chesterman. The general public will be worse off from the exclusivity which means the industry will be hurt. The few agents leading the agents mtutal do not seem to really understand the market very well. Blind leading the blind rings true for me having heard the presentation. The exclusivity will never survive which means the agents mutual will never survive. Anyone who signs up to it will break the exlcusivity very quickly, will carry on with zoopla and rightmove and will then be locked into paying the agent mutual an absurd fee for five years. So both the publuich and the industry will be far worse off. Or at least those agents who sign up to the agents mutual will be far worse off.
Quagmire, we are also dropping Rightmove, zoopla are proving as many leads and cost loads less.
Quagmire....I'm going to drop rightmove.
IMO Zoopla are the ones who stand to lose the most out of this. If you have to pick, then its rightmove who win....unfortunately.
Sorry but I don't follow,
It is in the public interest to have a duopoly but not in the public interest to have a new duopoly where one of the existing duopoly is excluded.
To Alex....
It's very simple, offer a good service at a fair price and your customers will be happy.