There have been mixed market reactions to Zoopla's diverse figures, showing on the one hand an 11 per cent fall in member agents and on the other hand a 14 per cent annual rise in traffic.
Good news for Zoopla came from UBS which says in an analysts' note that: If OnTheMarket fails (likely in our opinion) then a somewhat conservative upside case sees the [Zoopla] stock double from here.
Bad news for Zoopla came from Canaccord Genuity. It downgraded its status of ZPG from 'buy' to 'hold', although its Robin Savage and Arun Melmane say the impact of OTM on Zoopla is in line with our expectations.
Jefferies, a City broker which has previously predicted only a 10 per cent fall in Zoopla agents defecting to OTM, says it now anticipates around 18 per cent of Zoopla's pre-January membership will now defect.
However Edison Investment Research, another City analyst consultancy, is quoted as saying that the Agents' Mutual threat will be short term as it currently lacks sufficient scale with only 25 per cent of listings and no strong mobile offer.
Zoopla says it currently has 13,402 British estate agency branches as members, down from 16,373 in September, and that 500 branches have given notice. A Reuters report says Zoopla has lost 3,471 members since the OnTheMarket was created.
In the ZPG trading statement Alex Chesterman, the company founder and chief executive, insists that Agents Mutual - the parent organisation behind OnTheMarket - remains a short term event.
However Ian Springett, chief executive of AM, has responded by saying this represents a genuine sea-change in the property portals market .... It was and continues to be the choice of our member agents to decide from which portal to remove their listings. Of our 4,700 contracted offices, around 90 per cent have chosen to reject Zoopla.
Zoopla's share price closed yesterday unchanged.
Comments
Zoopla shares at 187 from their 275 peak. Its a shame really that a great brand was not able to learn from Rightmoves mistake and carry agents along with it instead of hiking prices just before OTM launched in a desperate bid to get revenue whilst it still could.
Ahhh... it's been a while since this old cherry was dragged up.
Just to put in context, the "idiot" to whom the poster above is referring to, 'rant'n'rave' DID post exactly that - but it was in response to a previous comment from an experienced Estate Agent, who posted
"Young people save Outrageous I say.
Bring back 100% deposits..... NOW
Save those poor savers"
Perhaps the above poster thought it was long enough for people to forget WHY rantnrave posted - especially since the great majority of readers from that period no longer seem to frequent this site - and have a chuckle at his expense.
But there's always one, isn't there - and THIS ONE won't stand by and let a person be called an "idiot", by someone who clearly surpasses him in that respect...
Added by rantnrave on 2011-12-07 12:30:56
100% deposits, not 100% loans. What would happen to UK house prices if it became illegal to buy a property with borrowed money
John, it took an agent, High Street or otherwise to win that listing and display it on Zoopla. It was the agents clever photography and write up on the listing. Nothing to do with Zoopla! Quite frankly, if you saw a property you wanted to let, regardless of whether it was on zoopla, with a high st agent or online agent, you would enquire and express interest to let it. Tenants are attracted to the property not the agent or portal listing it.
"This represents a genuine sea-change in the property portals market " I think this comment misses the the real sea change going on. I was recently looking for a flat to rent and bypassed all traditional high street agents, using only on-line portals.
It genuinely surprised me of how effectively on-line portals are now used in conjunction with clever marketing and photography. This is just one example (and believe me there were hundreds of others!):
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/35922188
This wash't for me, but it made me click! So Zoopla had done its job, it (and Rightmove etc) remain the "Loots" of our generation and I can't see this changing soon
Has anyone else had letters sent to their clients from zoopla Suggesting they use another agent that is on zoopla!
@ George - the branch numbers = revenue subscriptions - so important to investors. Property numbers also V important. But that still leaves Z with 2/3 more agent subscriptions that OTM.
OTM will just burn revenues and backing on TV ads and seo that can't compete with what the bigger portals already have, ie RM, Z and prime.
OTM with its stupid 1 portal rule is a ship that will sink given 12 months, or it will have to find new investors to take a share. Time to buy a life raft cause that portals likely to be OFF the market
I hope the editorial staff consider answering this: But can you tell me why pretty much this article appears on Property Industry Eye and they also mention the 11 % fall but also mention one on 20 odd percent from another big city analyst and yet that isn't mentioned here at all Now either the one on EYE was made up or this article is deliberately biased. Its fair to say any publication will lean one way, they do, but actually choosing the facts you report (because they DIDNT!) I think just discredits you hugely.
What nobody in the City seems to realise, but that doesn't surprise me, is this has nothing to do with the number of Branches but everything to do with the number of Properties those branches have instructions to sell/rent. This is why OTM will succeed as they have a number of large Agents with a large number of instructions.
Zoopla should only expect further losses and zero gains. Zero gains will be as a consequence of them yet again writing to house sellers whose agent chooses to list their clients homes on the portal with the largest % of listings, largest number of visitors etc etc. Clearly never heard about winning hearts and minds and whenever has a consumer welcomed a negative campaign. Further losses will come as agents realise that their clients want the best coverage - not second or third.