Concern is growing that agents dropping Rightmove or Zoopla are opening themselves to possible complaints from existing vendors who suffer because the marketing 'reach' for their properties may suddenly drop.
The issue revolves around agents currently instructed by vendors who have based their choice of agency on a range of factors, including the portals used to advertise properties.
Estate Agent Today has contacted the industry's three redress bodies - The Property Ombudsman, the Property Redress Scheme and Ombudsman Services: Property - to discuss the potential problem.
Two of the bodies are still considering the issues surrounding agents having to drop one major portal in favour of a smaller one - insisted upon by Agents' Mutual - but The Property Ombudsman has replied.
He says that "only advertising on some of the portals promised could be grounds for a complaint."
TPO Christopher Hamer told Estate Agent Today: "The decision as to which portal(s) an agent chooses to market their properties with, is a commercial decision that is entirely at the discretion of the agent concerned.
"However, if a consumer (vendor) chooses to instruct an agent that has promised to market their property on x, y and z portal, then the agent has to duty to do just that and explain the benefits, e.g. market reach.
"Only advertising on some of the portals promised could be grounds for a complaint, in which instance I would review the case independently to see if the agent has misled the consumer in anyway and disadvantaged them by a misleading omission, which would be a breach of TPO's Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations."
It is impossible to know for sure what reach will be achieved by Agents' Mutual's portal, OnTheMarket, until it launches in January.
But many independent City analysts have warned that OTM may have little public support, at least at first.
Jeffries' latest report asks: Will homebuyers rush to view a portal which lists properties from less than eight per cent of the UK's estate agency branches, or will they stick to Zoopla and Rightmove
Credit Suisse has been even harsher, saying in its latest report: "We flag launch delays, poor site usage, weak early traffic and a lack of leads as potential issues.
Estate Agent Today will report on other redress bodies' responses to our enquiries as they arrive.
Comments
Well, the elephant in the room here is estate agents don't really understand the click rate traffic of Rm and Z! And most importantly the profiles of their users. Zoopla appeal to the younger end market the under 30's and RM over 30's because of the age of it. To remove one would be removing a big chunk of your audience and potential viewers of your clients properties. 15m advertising budget to compete with RM and Zoopla, will be burned up in the first 6 months or sooner. After working in advertsing for 20 years both in print and online many I understand the efforts needed to become a household name and 15m will go nowhere, dont forget there are hundreds of tv channels now so messages are very diluted not like wehn there were 3or 4 channels . Agents are squabbling about RM costs but forget how much a full page was 15 years ago with just one picture per property. The internet brings properties to life, and the audience reach per pence is worth every penny. I think this OTM venture will be futile as it has been pointed out it will be Zoopla most agents drop when their gripe is mainly the Rm costs!!
@CP they are still displaying the logos, could it be because THEY'VE PAID FOR IT! and until their notice periods run out and they no longer uploading then why shouldn't they. So this cause for complaint you suggest is going to flood in, why would it, where in any terms of business will it say I will be advertising your property on Z and RM Our mailing list changes its complexion almost fortnightly so why would coming off ONE of the big two be an issue.oh ok you're going to quote me the 38% that use Z only to find property no doubt! One thing that puzzles me about you is that you say you're an agent but you somehow seem desperate for people to listen to you regarding OTM. Surely if you are so convinced in going to fail, or such a bad deal for clients then you should be silently sat there willing your competitors to sign up to it. But you don't.interesting as to what your motives are, unless of course you are married to Anne Robinson!
So why did we try and then ditch Zoopla some time ago (before AM) and only 50% agent take up of Z in our town..
Really We ditched Zoopla and any mention of them a long time ago, but have also removed any reference to Rightmove even though we will be continuing with them (for the time being...)
fair point CP, but as the OTM launch date was only announced today I think that can be expected as agents' have previously not known the date of launch and would be unable to guarantee anything.
My point was more that it can appear that many agents seem to be somewhat deceptive about what portals they advertise on, I agree that in my experience the vendor would be happy with being on RM and Z. I believe in different areas of the country they would have different preferences to these portals (depending on brand recognition) But what of the vendors that aren't so savvy and who would walk into an agency and be told (as I have previously) that they will be advertised on all of these amazing websites, when half of them are irrelevant now or do not exists. Just another example of how the trade can appear dishonest from an outsiders point of view.
James - any complaints will be client led ie., how many clients are know about/are bothered about being on the minor portals compared to how many know RM and Z The answer is clear.
All AM agents in my area as of yesterday are still displaying the Zoopla and PrimeLocatopm logos on their sites even though a 90 day sole agency agreement takes the client beyond the OTM launch date. That is clearly strong grounds for complaint once these clients find out their property have been removed from a huge brand name portal that THEY USE THEMSELVES often as a sole portal of choice.
If AM agents don't need the portal they are going to drop why haven't they erased the logo from their websites Either because they are unprofessional or they are still seeking to hide/delay the truth of the OTM transfer from current valuations and existing clients.
and what of the agents that advertise that they will put your property on findaproperty/globrix/propertyfinder, either through stickers in the window or information displayed on their website. most of these websites have been redirected/offline for 2 years now yet I still see a amazing amount of agents advertising. I wonder if vendors have ever questioned this...
I agree and it will also create a lot of negative publicity for traditional agents and positive publicity for online ones, totally counter productive chocolate teapot
Richard Head - it isn't my opinion that the vast majority of buyers don't happen to land on RM or Z - it's a fact.
The figures I gave - as I stated in my previous post were GOOGLE's figures taken from their search term data - NOT RM or Z's figures. Therefore independent and factual.
How can you can be so arrogant as to define Z only searchers as "not hot buyers" You assume that every hot buyer searches more than one portal - some won't. You assume that every hot buyer thinks that no one portal has all of the property for sale - some won't. You assume that every hot buyer will respond to OTM's advertising - some won't. If you think the answer to each question is "every hot buyer will" you are dead wrong. 100% of the people never did 100% of the thing 100% of the time.
The simple fact is OTM is purely and absolutely motivated and led by EA's who are putting their cost saving interests ahead of any consideration of the interests, wants or needs of buyers and sellers. I want to save every penny in my business that I can, I don't want to pay RM or Z's fees any more than you or any other EA does - but OTM with it's one other portal/no online agent rules is detrimental to the interests of buyers and sellers.
That is why I won't join and predict it will fail - spectacularly.
Oh God, I can see us meeting for a drink next! Like I say, without the exclusivity rule, I have no great problem with the AM concept, I think the ban on non high st business is a bit mean and i would drop it but essentially i agree that agents should come up with an intelligent effective way of controlling the big two. Where we differ is that I could not join AM as it is, I literally would rather change jobs, hopefully I won't have to!
@Simon. Will RM and Z offer the same rates to independent agents, no. The reality Simon is that there is no incentive for them to do so in fact the opposite, the more they believe the market relies on them the more the will squeeze. The only option is a portal they do not control. You even said it yourself in a thread earlier." I would join myself if it were not for the exclusivity clause". You fundamentally know its the right option but pride and your falling out with Ian Springett is now preventing you from admitting that. He will not have the right of veto, most of your business qualifies so you could join as far as I can see. Besides the exclusivity bit is something I can see changing in time, I don't believe you need a physical office in a town even though I do believe you are at a disadvantage not to have one. It all comes down to money, if non physical office companies pay per postcode sector then bring it on in my opinion.
@CP. Isn't it interesting how anyone who disagrees with you " doesn't have a clue". You were implying that without being on Z you would be losing that 38% you mentioned. You wouldn't of course because as I stated, they are not exactly hot buyers if they only happened to look on Z. They would have looked on RM as well and just emailed an enquiry from whichever site they were on at the time. You can quote whatever figures Z head office tells you, but the bottom line is if the majority of stock leaves RM or Z, more likely the latter, then that is where the buyers will be found, and as more agents join in that will only grow. As for the few stickers in a shop window, I have no idea who you have been talking to, but I think a 15M advertising budget buys a little more than that. Of course all of this is a sideshow really because it sounds like being on RM and Z is the lifeblood of your business, I only need them to add additional enquiries when I list a property. I would suggest that if they are anymore than that to you, then you have some more serious problems to worry about than whether other agents advertise on OTM.
Florid but on the money!
Richard, just occasionally you say something I agree with, I agree that the current situation is not good, I agree something should be done about it, I simply disagree that OTM as proposed is the answer, I think it will take its members out of the frying pan into the fire. If I were asked I could come up with several ways of attacking Zoopla and RM without using the blunt instrument of the exclusivity rule. I would take a much more patient, more subtle approach that would I'm sure have a much better chance of success. Of course Ian Springett felt the best thing to do was to ban me from coming to meetings merely for voicing early concerns, exactly the kind of reaction I would expect from someone I would never follow. PL was a product of its era, an era that is long past, this feeble attempt to recreate its glory days, days that were not even that glorious will, in my view, probably end in tears, or if not in indifference.
Richard Head you say - @guestCP. I'm interested by your figures. You say that 62% of your enquiries came through RM and 38% through Z. But unless you are also suggesting that both portals have EXACTLY the same stock then 32% who came through Z and didn't go onto RM are hot prospects aren't they! I think you figures tell you nothing other than which site enquiries just happen to land on. Its meaningless.
I haven't got a clue what you mean by your 'hot prospects' statement.
And I have to say you haven't got a clue when you say "I think you figures tell you nothing other than which site enquiries just happen to land on. Its meaningless."
Errr ... no. Buyers don't "just happen to land on" on RM or Z. The vast majority will either search for RM or Z by name - Google keyword tool shows 9,140,000 and 3,350,000 average MONTHLY searches for RM and Z respectively. Plus, 1000's more will have either RM or Z or both on their tool bar or in their favourites. The days when buyers/visitors "just happened to land on RM and Z" are long long, gone. Your statement is meaningless - not mine.
Take note of that Z figure - 3,350,000 direct searches by name a month - and I can tell you that is only for the exact search word 'zoopla' - add in those who search for 'zoopla estate agents' 'zoopla estate agents in X town' 'properties for sale in X town on zoopla' etc., etc., and there with be 100s of 1000s more. And some of these buyers ONLY search on Z - and that's a fact. Just as some buyers only search on RM.
Agents who expect that by sticking OTNM signs on their windows/advertising plus an initial flurry of yet to be seen AM advertising will lead to millions of searchers googling OTM are in for one hell of a shock. It won't happen - as anyone with a professional understanding of marketing will tell you.
PrimeLocation has just 368,000 average monthly searches and is the 3rd most visited portal - if OTM beats that within three months I'll eat my hat. And if it doesn't I expect EA's to desert OTM faster than from a sinking ship.
Jenkins, try reading what i write and then commenting, again its a logic lesson. ! have made it clear that signing up is a bad idea for various reasons, mainly stemming from the exclusivity rule, without which I would probably support OTM. But I have accepted that some have signed up and it looks like a launch will happen. I think it will be a PR disaster and the actual numbers involved will be much lower than you think, basically I think I have won the argument with most people, time will tell, I expect to eat humble pie if I am proven wrong. Even if OTM is a raving success in terms of members it won't make the exclusivity rule right though. Moving on, for those agents who have signed up i am making the point that they should really drop RM not Zoopla or the whole thing becomes an enormous chocolate teapot
You seem to have forgotten the original article.
@Simon. You keep saying you don't need OTM, you are right we don't. But we do need some vehicle to regain control of a market that is being run by the corporate estate agents via the other two portals. They pay half of what we do to advertise on RM and Z, and yet in almost every town in the country it is the independent estate agents that are the preferred choice of sellers. So we need to change that. We will continue to make money for Connells, LSL (18M from share sales was it) and Countrywide until we stop relying on their portals. OTM does that. More importantly though, their future is not our future so while I have a choice about what additional marketing I do ,then I will opt for the portal that does not subscribe to what is best for the other firms corporate shareholders and nor should you.
It appears that now the 'exclusivity rule' argument has been crushed, Simon is focussing his line of attack to;
1) Any agent that signs up (or has signed up) risks having their reputation tarnished and being attacked in the press,
2) An OTM agent will be attacked by it's competitors,
Your tenacious I give you that, but what your forgetting Simon is that your not trying to appeal to school children or junior negs, your dealing with seasoned entrepreneurs who are going to see your rants for what they are. If anything you are just going to give more incentive to people to sign up as they already have done in their 1000's.
You aren't compelled to give Zoopla money and you don't need AM
Thanks Simon, I used to recruit and train financial advisors back in the day! As you have raised the point, think about this. If you are a market leader, why would you risk your business and your reputation on an unproven strategy Even if the local competition are weak, joining AM opens up the door for criticism and a line of attack and all for what A few pounds in savings Not even that because they are free to drop one of the big two anyway. The most ludicrous thing is many are going to drop Zoopla and keep RM what a waste of time
2+2=4 is simplistic, you can't get more simplistic but it is also correct. I agree you don't need two major portals but you don't need OTM either, what you need is control over your marketing strategy, you don't need to give that control away to an organiseation that has not even launched yet
Sorry mark but in my opinion no, it won't. On the plus side you do only need one major portal and many sales do occur without portal help. The problem you have is that again in my opinion, you will be attacked on two fronts, by your competitors and by the negative attention OTM is likely to attract in the press, where I think it will be seen as a sitting duck.
Correct. The vast majority of sales/purchases in our area is between locals. Online agent listings make up about 1% of total listings in our local area. Only 50% of local agents are on Zoopla. We have stripped back any mention of Rightmove in our offices or on our advertising. When we fill that void with On The Market promotion next year, including in our local newspaper advertising (private joke - ed.), and all over our brochures and offices, won't OTM slip into the consciousness of our local customers
@Simon. I assume you were trying to be funny but the profanity filter blocked it out. Shame really we could have both had a real laugh about that. I agree right now they can as I pointed out to CP the guy you were bigging up earlier, but in January whether you like it or not, there will be three portals of note. Your analogy is too simplistic. Buyers don't just suddenly arrive, or are already subscribers of RM and Z we have to convince to jump ship. Most will come from the local area to the property, as is backed up by the low percentage of sales currently seen by the online only agents who just use the portals to market property, or they are likely to have sold through a local agent and therefore will be directed to OTM. Others simply won't have taken any notice of the portals until its time for them to want to move/buy at which point they will look around generally. If OTM has the stock buyers will look there, period.
A quick search of all properties listed for our home town. Rightmove 806. Zoopla 355. Why as a consumer would I feel the need to search on Zoopla Why as an agency should we feel compelled to hand Zoopla money
To Simon Shinerock
I work in the industry just not as an agent but am affected as I work as a freelance financial adviser for 3 different companies of which only one has signed up to OnTheMarket. In the area I am based in, there are roughly 14 branches and rumour has it that 4 of the leading 5 agents have definately signed up. The other 9 branches have about 20% of the stock. But the leading 5 are long established and been around for years. the other 9 just pick up the dribs and drabs from the leading 5 and try to keep up.
All I'm saying is that in some areas including mine, some of the vendors/landlords are going to ask why 4 of the 5 leading agents are on this site and the other smaller agents are not.
I don't even know if it will work to be honest I can't really be bothered.
@Richard Head
Dear Dick
You don't mind being called Dick do you I think you will find that in Chess parlance I have you in check mate, let me explain why. Lets say you are a buyer and you know that if you look at RM you will see most of the properties and that if you look at RM and AM you will see some more properties but, in order to see all the properties you will then need to look at Zoopla as well. Or, you could just look at RM and Zoopla and see them all anyway, check mate, mate :-)
Sorry but I totally disagree, I think most people will be totally unaware of and unimpressed with OTM however much they spend, as you are not an estate agent why are you so interested
Just commenting as someone who is not an agent but more an independent observer I believe that we are going to see an interesting few months for the estate agency industry.
It is now being acknowledged by many commentators that there will be around 5000 branches at launch. It is also likely that in some areas there will be more listings on OnTheMarket that on of the current two and that in those areas it will instantly become the 2nd portal based on listings.
OnTheMarket will no doubt launch with a big fanfare in January with most of it's proposed 15m marketing budget allocated for the launch.
I believe that if you are in an area that has some leading independents on this new site and not on another then it could potentially put other agents in an interesting position on a valuation as the vendor/landlord will want to know why you are not on the new site when many of the leading independents agencies are.
I genuinely watch this with interest!
I'
@Simon. So buyers will look at RM and Z and not OTM Thats just plain daft, If I were a buyer and I knew that their would be property I might be interested in on another site I would look wouldn't I! I can answer that for you, of course they would.
Talked about for the wrong reasons
@CP, Mark Walker et al
As you know, I believe AM/OTM is a misconceived idea that will fail and in the process cause member agents a lot of anxiety as well as the industry a lot of negative publicity. That said, I also understand the sentiments behind wanting to create a viable alternative to RM. However, Zoopla already did that and now AM agents want to kill it and establish RM, illogical and self defeating. Mark you are right in saying that portals are not the only way people find property and you don't need to be on two major portals covering the same market. You and other agents have proved this by dropping Zoopla or RM, in your case Zoopla with no detriment. However, if AM gets its 5000 offices and they all drop Zoopla the outcome will be disastrous because AM will still be smaller than Zoopla and RM will have had its position reinforced. At the moment the public can look at either RM or Zoopla to see most of the properties on the market. Post AM they will have to look at two portals and they will choose RM and Zoopla because they know them and they have the most property. They won't look at OTM and if they do they won't go back. Plus, my guess is OTM will lack even the basic functionality of RM and Zoopla, it will probably look worse and once the public understand what it represents they will avoid it on principle. So, the best thing you can do is avoid AM, if you are signed up then drop RM as by weakening the market leader and relatively strengthening Zoopla you are self evidently creating a much stronger negotiating position with both. Zoopla is also gaining on RM, is cheaper, has better functionality and has not been gouging their clients. Even if you have not signed with AM I agree you only need one not both.
@guestCP. I'm interested by your figures. You say that 62% of your enquiries came through RM and 38% through Z. But unless you are also suggesting that both portals have EXACTLY the same stock then 32% who came through Z and didn't go onto RM are hot prospects aren't they! I think you figures tell you nothing other than which site enquiries just happen to land on. Its meaningless. Further you have one of the most successful firms in the country in Romans, who have just sold for 50M, who were only ever on one portal and yet charged and got amongst the highest fees in there area. If you think dropping one portal, keeping one and adding a replacement is going to cost agents anything then I would say think again. I would also add to that by saying that with a budget on 15M for marketing, OTM will hit the national press, news stations, as well as being promoted through thousands of local offices and you think buyers won't take a look Personally I am going to using as an instruction getter. "So Mr/s Seller I can offer you a premium listing but wouldn't you rather see your property in the spotlight launch of a new portal that is going to be the most talked about one in the industry for the next few months!"
CP you seem to have made the assumption that the ONLY way people find or look for houses for sale is via Zoopla and Rightmove, something you failed to address in this reply to my original comment.
People actually come in to our offices and ask us what we have for sale. They ask us to proactively keep them up-to-date on anything new coming to the market. They drive past properties with our boards on and call us about them. Active purchasers are not a creature simply sitting at home flicking through the internet.
We dumped Zoopla whilst Agents Mutual was a speck on the horizon, not because of Agents Mutual because of the complete lack of use that any of our offices found it in actually sourcing purchasers. We have lost no vendors nor instructions for not being on Zoopla or coming off it in the first place and we had even fewer complaints to the TPO.
Now please stop writing like the stressed out Chief Executive of RM / Z with an eye on your share price.
Mark Walker you say "Joe you have Rightmove abusing the hands that feed it. Without enough agents on Rightmove, it ceases to be of use to people and they will have to go elsewhere."
But - if you remove a clients property from RM or Z without any other logical explanation other than "I'm sick of paying their big advertising bills" you are abusing the hand that feeds you.
There absolutely NO advantage whatsoever to a client having their property taken off an established brand name portal each with millions of visitors every month to be placed onto an unknown, untested portal set up purely to save EA's money.
The naivety of thinking that Joe Public will just 'go elsewhere' because fewer properties are on RM or Z shows a huge ignorance - or a refusal to accept - that it takes XXXMillions for a brand to bludgeon its way into Joe Public's mind and as RM and Z have and in turn get them using their portals in their millions every month by habit.
As guest Joe says, no way will Joe Public drop that habit simply because another portal has emerged with properties on it.
Ask yourself this question - how will a buyer searching on RM and Z from 1st January KNOW that there are fewer properties listed You will know, I will know, and every EA ion the country will know. BUT JOE PUBLIC WON'T. They won't count them before 1st Jan and after!
This last point is a massive hole in the "they'll just go elsewhere" theory.
OTE in my opinion will be a total non event for Joe Public and will have as much impact as the ill fated launch of nicotine free cigarettes 30 odd years ago.
Joe Public didn't want or need nicotine free cigarettes - and they don't want or need OTM either.
That's why OTM it will fail.
Joe you have Rightmove abusing the hands that feed it. Without enough agents on Rightmove, it ceases to be of use to people and they will have to go elsewhere. It is only a .com at the end of the day.
I saw this in the car market, big independent car dealers with millions behind them tried to oust Auto trader, considering it is always in the top ten of google traffic each week takes some doing, even portals with money behind them like the AA portal motors.co.uk they still dominate the market, just like RM will do. The hardest part is getting the consumers to use it, and that will be just as hard as trying to get people to forget google and use another search engine, I will watch with interest but they will need millions in marketing to get this any where near 2nd place in the market.
Yes, my observation at the outset of our offices signing up to AM was that Zoopla would be crushed and Rightmove would have a temporary boost as the "other" portal of choice.
But since our Rightmove rep visits us but once a year to tell us how much our fees are going up by, it seems a gamble worth taking to finally free us of the Rightmove addiction.
CP you get 100% of all your sales from Zoopla and Rightmove
You don't have your own website You don't have for sale boards You don't have a mailing list
You don't sound like an estate agent worthy of the name. Or you are making it up as you go along.
Guest (CP) I think your comments are bang on, I think the (mainly silent) majority of agents have not taken AM seriously because they instinctively recognise what you have highlighted. Just as bad, Ian Springett told me AM intends to target Zoopla as the weaker player when, as Morgan Stanley has pointed out, this tactic if successful, will reestablish RM as a monopoly, so bizarre. I will write more in this soon
Graham, to start with I must unreservedly apologise if you think me rude, that is certainly not my intention, amusing yes, even if I fail to amuse, rude no. Please also forgive me for saying this but there is a bit of pot calling kettle black in your post, am I right
The reason I did not address the points you made directly was because, and I need to be careful here, in my view they were a bit confused, trivial and plain wrong.
My experience of lawyers in no way makes your qualifications a surprise, that is not meant personally, it just means I have been unimpressed with many of the lawyers I have dealt with, perhaps I have been unlucky.
However as you have called me out on this, I will try to address the points you make more directly, I again apologise to other readers, it's going to be painful.
You said
'The issue over an agency moving from one portal to another would apply just as much in any other scenario'
Maybe but we are talking about agents on mass, a raid drop is water but it is not a monsoon
'such as an agent looking to reduce the exorbitant portal expenses and improve their margins; that is the same regardless of OTM or any other; and agent on Rightmove, Zoopla and Primelocation may drop one in order to save, without moving to another, so what difference is there'
See above
'Yes, if htey have promised exposure on a particular portal and don't deliver, then that is potentially a breach of the terms of business the client agreed to'
So you agree with the actual point of the article
'but moving to OTM is simply no different and EA Today would do well to stop banging this empty drum'
Given the above this is not a fair. Striped to its bones, your diatribe seems to agree with the article. I do agree that this issue, which has been reported elsewhere, is only applicable to existing instructions and shouldn't cause an honest agent much trouble, if at all, that does not make it invalid though, as I have tried to show by extrapolation.
'The competition angle reported lasts week is another non-starter. The Competition Act 1998 prohibits the prevention of competition, the Restriction of competition and also the Distortion of competition. OTM does none of these and more importantly, the "Effect" of the one other portal rule does not distort the competition, either inadvertently or intentionally'.
Err, yes it does, what about all the little unborn portals the rule affects If AM takes 30% of the market or there about's it will do all the above.
'Every agent using OTM has a choice of which other portals to use. Free reign, go fill your boots, but if you want to list on OTM, you can use but one other'
For five years, that is a heavy restriction and one clearly aimed at reducing competition. Two wrongs don't make a right.
'Where is the Prohibition, restriction, or distortion in that Every portal is free to promote itself equally to every agent and the agent is equally free to chose any portal'.
The prohibition and distortion is that AM agents enter into a five year market distorting restriction aimed at furthering their own interests potentially at the expense of their clients
'Those looking for guidance would do well to pick up a copy of The Competition Act 1998 Law & Practice, Coleman & Grenfell, Oxford University press, a copy of which has been sitting on my shelf for a while now and I am very grateful for a chance to put it to good use'.
Again I disagree, as a guest we don't know where you are and anyway, there is much more up to date accessible information online, some of which I referred to in my last article.
'This "Competition Angle" is something that is inherent in a number of industries that will restrict the dealing in a competitors products, and all quite legitimately. Many retailers will sign distribution agreements that prevent them stocking (or selling) more than one other competitors products, or will also find that the distribution agreement will not be entered into if they do. It is only when the company requiring this restriction reaches such a dominant position that there will be a breach as the consumer's choice is then restricted. In the case of OTM this will not happen as there are three other portals (at least) that any agent wanting to list on OTM can use, the ONLY issue is whether the consumer will be happy with OTM and one other and that is the nature of market forces'
This is just plain silly. Of course there is a competition issue. Agents that join AM are entering into a five year agreement not to advertise on more than one other portal. I agree that size matters but this does not remove the agents obligations to consumers who should know about the restriction.
A shop that decides to exclusively distribute a particular product when there are hundreds of shops distributing others is just not a relevant comparison
Finally, thank goodness, although you say the article is erroneous, it is not, nor can it be as it makes no opinion, it is merely reporting on a relevant topical issue.
The reality is that this issue still gets more reads than any other, so it's clearly not boring, irritating and painful for those who have, in my opinion, made the mistake of signing up, yes but not boring or overdone. I look forward to being trashed in your reply:)
The number of posts that I read which say "I came off Z and it made absolutely no difference to my business" "I got no leads from Z" "no client has ever asked me about Z" etc., etc., REALLY So what are the millions of visitors to Z doing every month Deliberately wasting their time NEVER enquiring about a property NEVER making a viewing appointment NEVER making a valuation request Get real guys.
I have recorded RM and Z enquiries meticulously since Jan this year (because I wanted to approach the AM decision on facts not emotion or preconceived anti RM/Z prejudice) and what did I find .... 62% of buyer enquiries from RM, 38% from Z. So, do I gamble and drop Z for the unproven, unknown OTM or do I stick with a nationally known and (from my surveys with EVERY valuation enquiry) an increasingly popular portal (Z) that is now the first choice portal of many clients
Lets be honest - if OTM was the idea of any other company other than AM the answer to any agent of even moderate nosiness mind would be DROP Z - NO WAY JOSE. I accept that Z will have different levels of useage in different areas but I cannot see that other agents in my area will have that much different % splits to mine AND THEY ARE ALL DROPPING Z. I ask this question - how many of those agents have professionally, accurately and dispassionately measured RM/Z enquiries when making their decision (I bet 0). How many AM supporters nationwide have professionally, accurately and dispassionately measured RM/Z enquiries (less than 10% I bet).
I have posted on this forum and others exactly the point made in this article. How many AM agents have been forewarning clients - and especially new instructions - that as from Jan 1st they will be dropping RM or Z I have rang every AM agent in my area posing as a potential new client and NOT ONE to date is telling me about OTM. Some of the receptionists don't even know it exists - said owners haven't told them!!
Unless I am totally wrong - the backlash from clients who find that their property has been dumped from RM/Z onto a portal they have never heard of, said reaction fuelled (which it will be) by non AM agents rightly highlighting RM/Z's massive market awareness and monthly visitors in their millions ... IMO the backlash from clients will give AM agents big issues both with said clients, TPO and OFT not to mention the national press.
AM agents who think clients aren't bothered whether they are on RM/Z or both just because they don't mention this at instruction are in for one almighty awakening IMO.
@Simon
1. You fail to address any of the points in my last post, namely being that the article is erroneous. at best.
2. It always makes me giggle when an argument has to resort to insults and your comment is no different from others who are against the ropes fail to address the points, change the subject and start to hurl insults. A great example of how not to debate
For your information, not that I feel any need to explain to you Simon, my own personal collection of law books cost far more than the average commission on any property in Crawley and the reason I have such a comprehensive library is that some years ago I qualified at Grays Inn, London. I feel well qualified to comment on this area (although Competition Law was not my specialism.).
You may be tenacious Simon, wrong, but tenacious I grant you.
@guests Graham Guy Ray Evans, Shite-move, Jack etc. You are all struggling to understand a simple concept, I feel responsible in a way because I have failed to explain it too you, but never mind I have nothing if not tenacity and determination, plus it gives me something to do! The issue of whether or not the AM restriction is illegal from outset is moot, even if it isn't, it may well only escape while it gets off the ground. I have never really considered the issue raised in this article from the TPO point of view, however I think it does have substance and I think there is a far reaching precedent to look at in Financial services, a business with which I have had much past experience. Financial advisors have been compelled to let their clients know whether they are tied representatives, or if they can offer whole of market advice. I see a direct parallel with this approach and agents who go with OTM because those agents have entered into an agreement that could be seen as material to the interests of their potential clients. After all, wouldn't you want to know if your agent had agreed to restrict their advertising to two portals to further their own interests I know I would. Oh and especially for guest Graham, may I say this, owning a legal book doesn't mean you understand the law, assuming you are an estate agent, not a lawyer I would advise you not to give up your day job :)
@Simon,
When you say First I must defend Graham Norwood, he is nothing if not a professional journalist with a lot of integrity, period, all accusations against him are simply untrue.
I take it you did actually read the piece above these comments by Graham Norwood Especially this bit
Two of the bodies are still considering the issues surrounding agents having to drop one major portal in favour of a smaller one - insisted upon by Agents' Mutual
And then please point out to me and the other posters on this thread where in the OTM rules Agents who sign up must drop a portal IN FAVOR OF A SMALLER ONE
While my original post had a few typos for which I apologise (Problems of writing on a tablet on a train Im afraid), I do not twist the facts to suit an agenda as that is simply unprofessional and smacks of a lack of attention to detail at best (the worst would call into question his integrity, something I have no desire to do I am sure the readers here can make their own minds up).
@Simon
I see your still working on the assumption that only a handful of agents have signed up to OnTheMarket then
I must say that I still feel sorry for some of those agents who are in the areas that will have hardly any listings on Zoopla.
I'm guessing that most if not all of the posters here are signed up with OTM, so I suppose this kind of reaction is only natural. Most Agents that aren't signed up would have little interest in contributing. First I must defend Graham Norwood, he is nothing if not a professional journalist with a lot of integrity, period, all accusations against him are simply untrue. As far as the general thrust of the derision is concerned, its not a point i had previously given a lot of thought to, after all, there are so many other reasons why OTM is going to be a disaster, why pick this one which is after all a bit obscure, However, now i come to think about it, there is a strong precedent for this kind of thing in Financial services. After Financial Services were regulated, advisors were forced to make it clear if they were tied agents or if they could advise across the market. By Signing an exclusivity agreement, members of OTM are no longer free to advertise on any property portal bar OTM and one other. i would have thought that irrespective of the views expressed here, this is information a vendor is entitled to know, certainly i and many other non believers will be telling vendors about this immediately OTM launches, so maybe the authorities don't need to get involved, maybe they can delegate the job to non OTM agents as they have delegated the money laundering regs etc etc. Now I realise none of you OTM devotees will find this funny but believe me, it is!
@Guest (Propertywizard)
'......his reporting in one sided , completely unfounded and provocative scaremongering......'
Not just RM & ZPL v OTM.......most other matters too.
#OMG I can only assume that Graham Norwood is being paid by RM or Zoopla or both, his reporting in one sided , completely unfounded and provocative scaremongering. I guess this is a clear indicator that RM & ZPL are worried about OTM !
Another anti On the Market post from a publication who receives income from one of the main portals - excellent journalism - well done .......
I am sure this is driven by RM and Zoopla. If every agent decides to drop one of those agents, regardless of which they drop, then "On the Market" Will become the only portal with EVERY instruction. Very clever idea from them. It's about time there was a mix up although I think they need to make sure they stay cheaper if they are going to start off that way. Zoopla came in cheaper and now they are far from cheap for a decent level of service from them. Rightmove is probably still going to be the go to site for consumers while Zoopla in my opinion is the most useful to me as an agent. Dropping Zoopla is the more obvious choice.
I assume that they will be taking complaints from those agents that haven't put their clients' property on On The Market
If an agent shows any portal logos on any of their advertising the clients expect their property to be advertised on those portals. After all the instruction could have been received just because of that logo. If it is not advertised the clients have a case. Simple.
There is no 'service' level agreed in an agency agreement any more than changing which local paper you choose to use. Unless it was a material reason the vendor used to decide upon an agent or the agent secured the instruction by expressly promising such an advert on a specific portal, then I see no claim would stand up.
I find this highly improbable and would only apply to a few old instructions anyway
Can anyone remember a bad news story on this website in 2014 about Rightmove or Zoopla
The article is far from boring - it actually raises contract law whereby agents who feel they have solid instructions may not if they simply dump a main portal that clients saw they were on and expected coverage from.
If clients know of changes pre instruction - or are informed of changes and wish to stay with their agent then the consumer is given choice.
It's like having a merc or BMW and going to a main dealer who shows their badgers to find the repair parts fitted are cheaper alternatives without the client being given choice.
I'm getting a bit bored of this now. How about proper estate agency news such as Zoopla and Rightmove still allowing budget agents & Rightmove selling email addresses of vendors/landlords. You know news that most of your readership are really interested in.
@Guest (Graham)
What on earth are these people still on about If the seller does not go along with an agents offerings, choose another agent or change agents.
Your post achieves closure on this matter. EAT please note.
who writes this crap rm/zoo/online parasites
If agents charged upfront and broke a promise on where the property is advertised - that's different
This would only be the case of online agents where a fixed fee has been paid, if they have paid 0 then it's tough titties, go to another agent- simples!
What a load of twaddle. Quite frankly if that's why a vendor seems disguntled, then the agent is doing a good job anyway, or to be honest, you're best off without vendors like that. What if a negotiator leaves Or the company "rebrands" FFS
Bullshit.
We dropped Zoopla months ago because we got $^*" all leads from them. Are you suggesting that we should be compelled to keep having to hand over money for nothing
Or is this another article from somebody with an undeclared conflict of interest
This is all getting rather predictable and, if I may say, slightly boring now.
The issue over an agency moving from one portal to another would apply just as much in any other scenario, such as an agent looking to reduce the exorbitant portal expenses and improve their margins; that is the same regardless of OTM or any other; and agent on Rightmove, Zoopla and Primelocation may drop one in order to save, without moving to another, so what difference is there Yes, if htey have promised exposure on a particular portal and don't deliver, then that is potentially a breach of the terms of business the client agreed to, but moving to OTM is simply no different and EA Today would do well to stop banging this empty drum.
The competition angle reported lasts week is another non-starter. The Competition Act 1998 prohibits the prevention of competition, the Restriction of competition and also the Distortion of competition. OTM does none of these and more importantly, the "Effect" of the one other portal rule does not distort the competition, either inadvertently or intentionally.
Every agent using OTM has a choice of which other portals to use. Free reign, go fill your boots, but if you want to list on OTM, you can use but one other.
Where is the Prohibition, restriction, or distortion in that Every portal is free to promote itself equally to every agent and the agent is equally free to chose any portal. Those looking for guidance would do well to pick up a copy of The Competition Act 1998 Law & Practice, Coleman & Grenfell, Oxford University press, a copy of which has been sitting on my shelf for a while now and I am very grateful for a chance to put it to good use.
This "Competition Angle" is something that is inherent in a number of industries that will restrict the dealing in a competitors products, and all quite legitimately. Many retailers will sign distribution agreements that prevent them stocking (or selling) more than one other competitors products, or will also find that the distribution agreement will not be entered into if they do. It is only when the company requiring this restriction reaches such a dominant position that there will be a breach as the consumer's choice is then restricted. In the case of OTM this will not happen as there are three other portals (at least) that any agent wanting to list on OTM can use, the ONLY issue is whether the consumer will be happy with OTM and one other and that is the nature of market forces.
If you really think that the backers of OTM have not had excellent legal advice, think again and for those who would like a Lawyer to tell them what they want to hear, please get in touch with me, I will even offer a discounted hourly rate - there are always two sides to any litigation (or Courts would be out of business) and until a ruling, all this is simply rumour and conjecture.
What complete tosh! Not one single seller has EVER asked about Zoopla.
I have run a few sample trial with vendors........my course of action is crystal clear now!