x

Charlie Lamdin

Founder

3259 Profile Views

About Me

Residential property technology and marketing services provider since 1998. Industry commentator, speaker and writer.

my expertise in the industry

Designed and built the industry's first ever web based CRM software system. Original inventor of the one-stop digital marketing service of professional photos, floor plans, brochures and virtual tours (1998). Have counted almost all major corporate brands as clients at some point, but have ended up focusing on helping the independent agent sector.

Charlie's Recent Activity

From: Charlie Lamdin 21 April 2021 06:51 AM

Generosity made possible from the millions they made misleading people with PB. Never forget that Murray!

From: Charlie Lamdin 08 March 2021 11:28 AM

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

From: Charlie Lamdin 08 March 2021 08:33 AM

This won’t work. Great idea on paper, but with my own two experiences of operating tech for agents in London and Sydney there are multiple hidden pitfalls. UK agents don’t like Aussie tech which is built for a market with different operating dynamics, and vice versa. There are cultural business differences too. It’s been tried many times. I wish them both well and would be happy to see it succeed and be proved wrong.

From: Charlie Lamdin 25 February 2021 13:15 PM

Del and Rodney, the Data Bandits.

From: Charlie Lamdin 23 February 2021 19:36 PM

Reapit was the single largest factor behind the demise of Countrywide, with the possible exception of the actual decision to buy it. Cornell’s will need someone who knows about the 13+ separate versions installed to unpick it. Not a fun job.

From: Charlie Lamdin 19 February 2021 08:15 AM

Agents giving Boomin a chance is like giving an abusive ex partner a chance. They never change. They will hurt you again, even if you don't see it or feel it at first.

From: Charlie Lamdin 17 February 2021 08:35 AM

"we have given zero consideration to an IPO" I call bullshit. This would mean that they have decided to commit large sums of their own money to a new business without considering an exit. These guys will say ANYTHING to get what they want.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 January 2021 14:07 PM

The spin machine won’t work on agents like it did on consumers.

From: Charlie Lamdin 11 December 2020 06:16 AM

It’s worth remembering that despite the high number of reported threats of legal action made by Purplebricks (against myself included), they never actually took anyone to court. All gong and no dinner. I would urge anyone on the receiving end of legal threats made by Boomin’ (and I predict it will only be a matter of time until the first ones happen) to remember the following: 1. Lawyers aren’t judges. They can say and threaten whatever they like in a letter, but unless they issue court proceedings and a judge in a court makes a ruling or court order in their favour against you, you are free to ignore their letters. It costs very little for a lawyer to send a letter, it costs far more in time as well as money to bring a case to court. 2. Remember that for a court to find in favour of a defamation claim, the plaintiff must PROVE that they have suffered financial loss as a direct result of published falsehood. So they need evidence of you PUBLISHING a falsehood, and evidence linking the consequences of that falsehood directly to their loss of income. The court cannot find against anyone who expresses an opinion. That is my understanding. PB has form when it comes to misleading adverts being banned by the ASA and their sales people tricking customers into signing credit agreements, resulting in poor Mikey grovelling on Watchdog, admitting it and saying they’ll do better. Perhaps they have learned something and will behave better this time, perhaps not. We shall see.

From: Charlie Lamdin 02 December 2020 11:40 AM

1. “Boomin is fair in its charging model and will provide a revenue stream to agents longer term”; ***although it will take the majority of that additional revenue for itself. 2. “It’s credible, [in your opinion Iain] well backed [please define that, eg more money than OTM?] and well organised [surely too early to tell] and can bring much needed competition to the portal space which in turn will reduce costs, increase customer service and force innovation” *** Can it? Why? How will it reduce costs? Did OTM reduce costs? What does "increased customer service" mean? Who are its customers, movers, or agents? 3. “It’s innovative and opens up the passive market which I believe will bring additional movers through old fashioned serendipity transactions which largely died with the newspapers”; *** magic sauce that will make people who weren't going to move, move? That would be impressive. 4. “It takes away the barrier between agent and client and promotes deeper more personal contact, putting the skill and relationships back into the estate agency. The best agent wins not the cheapest one”; *** I agree this would be good, if it happens. 5. “I dislike Purplebricks and have been very noisy about the model and its effect on agency. However I can’t deny what it achieved in terms of brand awareness and it is now the largest lister of property in the UK. I believe the Bruce Brothers will achieve the same with Boomin and if they do they give agents agency back”; *** Anyone spending £20m+ per year on misleading TV ads can achieve brand awareness. Largest lister perhaps, but largest seller? We don't know, and they still take millions off consumers for properties they never sell. 6. “I have checked double checked and checked again and grilled Michael and Kenny at length but I can’t find a single reason not to get involved and I believe their intentions are genuine. They are not taking possession of your database, controlling your customers or seeking to do anything other than support great agents”; *** there intentions are genuine, to siphon off as much value for themselves as they can, without solving any new problems. Anyone who thinks the Bruce's aren't in this first and foremost for themselves has been snake-charmed. 7. “The no tie in free period creates a no lose scenario, if Boomin fail to deliver on any level you simply don’t opt to move forward onto the paid period”; - *** agreed, but RM said the same when they launched. 8. “Doing nothing in the current portal space simply isn’t an option for estate agents.” *** Nonsense, of course it is. Thousands of agents are doing precisely that, staying as they are, and continuing to do fine. Until/unless someone solves a major pain point for the consumer, all these ventures are simply more and more lead-gen middle-men, taking value without creating value.

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 November 2020 10:57 AM

"My fee varies between 1% and 2% depending on your individual circumstances." eg things you perhaps cannot say but include: Motivation level Pricing realism Chain situation Paperwork status Cooperation level. I know so many agents who take this approach (whether or not they say so) because each instruction comes with hugely varying amounts of work, risk and uncertainty. Being forced to quote fees in advance and stick to them, before knowing the vendor's true circumstances can only lead to increased risk of wasted time and money, to say nothing of unfair brand damage. An experienced seller with a saleable property (free of legal or physical defects), no chain and a pragmatic approach would perhaps be more profitable business at 1%. But you could still lose money on a 2% free if it's a nightmare, wrangling, divorcing couple whose plans change monthly, who can't agree on anything, whose paperwork is a mess, and who won't sell before they have found somewhere to buy that they can do a simultaneous exchange on. Which is another reason why fixed fee agency just doesn't make commercial sense. Some sales are infinitely more work than others.

From: Charlie Lamdin 19 November 2020 14:09 PM

Boomin has already filmed its first series of TV ads, it was a big budget shoot. It was the misleading TV ad campaign that made PB famous and cost consumers tens of millions in fees paid for homes that didn’t sell. Michael Bruce had to appear on Watchdog and apologise for misleading consumers into signing credit agreements. I cannot work out if they are either very sharp crooks who don’t care that they cost consumers millions, or lucky idiots who think they can get lucky twice. We will see. Either way they don’t care about making their money at the expense of people less well off, which I find despicable.

From: Charlie Lamdin 21 October 2020 00:12 AM

The Bruces are probably the only people who will siphon even more value out of agents and the public than RM.

From: Charlie Lamdin 16 October 2020 07:11 AM

Every time dangerous but slick duo’s like this launch something, a few people make a lot of money, but thousands of people lose. Whether it’s Wonga, Purplebricks or pretending to care about the mental health of agents (“Let’s align ourselves with respected people who do actually care about agents, Chuck a tiny bit of money at the management but get everyone else to mentor/work for free, but not actually do anything ourselves, then we’ll look good and everyone will forget how we decimated agents’ income and reputation for 5 years.”) when will we learn?

From: Charlie Lamdin 06 September 2020 08:54 AM

The adverts themselves are excellent. If only they were a true reflection of the PB experience.

From: Charlie Lamdin 14 July 2020 08:43 AM

Don’t worry Anthony, Russell Quirk says it’s all going to be fine! ;-)

From: Charlie Lamdin 22 June 2020 07:21 AM

The mission sounds great. The people involved are all fantastic. But given that Purplebricks was arguably responsible for some of the worst damage to the industry’s self-respect and collective mental well-being (let alone financial well-being), taking money from the Bruce brothers is an astonishing choice. Are they seeking to atone for the damage they inflicted on the industry? I hope this well-meaning venture succeeds, but when you start out with dirty money, there’s a risk that it’s tainted from the start.

From: Charlie Lamdin 09 June 2020 07:10 AM

I fear it will become far worse.

From: Charlie Lamdin 02 June 2020 09:21 AM

The News Quiz on Radio 4 on Friday made a very funny observation about Boris sacking Cummings: they said it would be like Baldrick trying to fire Blackadder.

From: Charlie Lamdin 31 May 2020 16:16 PM

I rate Moneypenny highly, but the only people who can qualify a lead are agents themselves. There is no such thing as pre-qualified. Agents decide on a case-by-case basis whether a lead is worthwhile or not, based on the unique circumstances of the property they are enquiring about, the interest level, and the background context of the applicant. A perfectly proceedable applicant may be qualified for one agent, but not for another. It's an individual process each time.

From: Charlie Lamdin 21 May 2020 09:46 AM

Key point missed here: 1. no actual payments until June. (So at least 60 more days or so to get though with no help) 2. HMRC will automatically contact those who are eligible, request a form to be filled in, and will pay money directly in to bank account when complete. 3. The £50,000 figure refers to taxable income declared (not turnover).

From: Charlie Lamdin 26 March 2020 20:16 PM

Lawyers win again.

From: Charlie Lamdin 13 March 2020 08:14 AM

It’s only a matter of time.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 March 2020 20:39 PM

The good people are starting up on their own. That’s not a trend that’s going to change.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 January 2020 09:20 AM

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if the “360 degree” aspect of this system is the claimed USP, and that feature is “treating a person as a person” whether they are a buyer, seller, landlord etc, and having a single property record whether it’s for sale, to let, or both; then I’m afraid you’re 12 years late! Easymatch did this from its inception in 2008, but welcome to the party guys! Best of luck with it.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 January 2020 17:39 PM

1. After 20 years of no meaningful innovation and worsening chain times, do you have plans to bring real step-change improvement to the painful process of moving? 2. How do you expect to remain effective when the technology stack you’re using is at least 10 years out of date compared with leading tech in other industries? 3. If your current shareholders ultimately control your business, and own their shares for purely financial gain, how can you expect approval for any other agenda but increasing shareholder returns?

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 November 2019 09:28 AM

Hi Simon, In an ideal world I agree that would be the desired approach. But given how short on time most agents are, especially small agents, processing a lead that is a total waste of time (which can be impossible to determine before responding to it) can end up taking precious time away from saving a failing deal or winning that new instruction before its pinched by a competitor. My point is that from a company that charges so much money, lead quality should be more important than quantity. More isn’t always better.

From: Charlie Lamdin 13 November 2019 09:08 AM

Given the tiny volume (in proportion to the number of leads) of actual moves that happen each year, not all of which originate from Rightmove, you can begin to see why some agents ignore some of the leads they get, if the vast majority of them don’t turn into moves.

From: Charlie Lamdin 13 November 2019 00:05 AM

The level of data and cyber security across the industry, especially CRM’s is far below that of other industries. There are virtually zero secure systems. The industry’ Data is worryingly vulnerable.

From: Charlie Lamdin 03 October 2019 08:26 AM

Before portals it was harder for applicants to enquire and therefore you knew they were more serious. Today, if you compare the number of leads with the number it moves, there is huge quantity but declining quality in terms of proceedability of leads. Most likely this is due to portals having to compete on sheer lead numbers and nothing else, so doing everything they can to generate more leads. Now that we’re importing applicant leads from all three portals into our agents BestAgent accounts we’re going to be able to provide individual agents with precise metrics on the portal ROI, without the agent needing to lift a finger. By the way James, Rightmove’s own figure for unanswered leads was also 40%. I actually think that decreases at higher prices and increases (gets worse) at lower prices.

From: Charlie Lamdin 11 September 2019 09:15 AM

Russel, wrong. When we next meet, on video, I will prove you’re wrong, with maths. Only people who don’t understand estate agency think estate agents are lazy. Lazy agents wouldn’t be in business. Is it this misconception that led you to believe eMoov would work? To be discussed!

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 September 2019 22:03 PM

Here is another man who, despite working with agents for years, doesn’t understand what they do. He is now threatened by them to the point of having to say his service is free (so he’s won the race to the bottom), and attacks them with banal comments about shiny suits. It speaks to his character and leadership style, as well as what he learnt about agents from his last role.

From: Charlie Lamdin 28 August 2019 09:39 AM

I wouldn’t want Vic’a job for all the tea in China. He does at least seem to acknowledge that people don’t want to pay for a service they’re not getting. But 10% market share? I’ll eat my hat.

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 August 2019 07:55 AM

“We don’t disclose sensitive information such as whether or not we actually deliver what our clients pay us for.”

From: Charlie Lamdin 22 August 2019 12:34 PM

The problem with the Housesimple model for vendors is that they can make their referral commissions from introductions to mortgages, insurance and conveyancing, even if the property doesn’t sell. There is no extra financial incentive for HS to help hold a struggling deal together if qualifying introductions have been made to the seller. It’s money for the sake of money with no focus on the move itself.

From: Charlie Lamdin 21 August 2019 07:39 AM

The horse bolted years ago. Now they close the door. Too little, too late, the consumer has been harmed. A failure of its basic duty. They should have done this in 2015/16.

From: Charlie Lamdin 01 August 2019 07:42 AM

Whether this is good or bad for consumers and the industry will be entirely dependent on how well executed and implemented it is. Based on government track record it doesn’t look good, but we can hope. I fear, however, that it will take a long time before the consumer sees any improvement (if any) in their moving experience because, as far as I’m aware (I haven’t read all 56 pages) the proposed licensing doesn’t actually include any changes to the moving process. So, even if all agents get licensed, what improvements for consumers are expected? I’m hoping for the best, but given the widespread lack of understanding of what agents do by press, government, investors and much of the tech community, my expectations are low.

From: Charlie Lamdin 19 July 2019 09:19 AM

What an unhelpful mess this is going to be, not because regulation is a bad thing, but because it is likely to be botched and confusing and achieve little actual benefit.

From: Charlie Lamdin 18 July 2019 07:40 AM

You've got to love the irony of online agents having a race to the bottom on fees. housesimple wins! Delighted to read they're taking large chunks of business from Purplebricks. Why pay PB a grand to sell your home, when HouseSimple do it for free? I feel sad for all the innocent hard working people who are going to lose out in the end, but to watch the sector beat itself to the death is rewarding, after all the damage they have inflicted. The best endorsement of full service #estateagents yet.

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 June 2019 16:30 PM

I never thought I’d see the day Russell! 😎

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 June 2019 08:23 AM

What has Purplebricks done right?

From: Charlie Lamdin 08 May 2019 00:04 AM

How else would you interpret a shrinking market share of “disrupters” that struggled to 5% with hundreds of millions invested and is now contracting?

From: Charlie Lamdin 09 April 2019 00:16 AM

The public is finally, gradually waking up to the fact that this sector offers an inferior customer proposition.

From: Charlie Lamdin 08 April 2019 10:33 AM

Brilliant! Haha!

From: Charlie Lamdin 01 April 2019 08:47 AM

It’s interesting to note that on BestAgent Marketplace, the popularity of portals among our users is OTM first, Zoopla second and RM in third.

From: Charlie Lamdin 28 March 2019 08:31 AM

It’s taken me 20 years of working with agents to finally get to understand what agency is actually about, and it’s almost impossible to put into words. Yes, PropTech firms don’t understand agency. But that’s not their fault. Unless you have been an agent it is all but impossible to understand what their life is like. The other point I would add is that even agents don’t understand agency as an industry, they understand their own business and their own market. I have multiple clients whose businesses are very successful, but operate in completely different local environments with different customer profiles and this dictates a unique set of approaches in each case. Every agency is different. They are at the behest of highly emotional and irrational clients with ever increasing expectations and ever decreasing fees. I understand why PropTech doesn’t understand agency, and vice versa. But progress is coming, and I agree with Kristjan that the onus is on the supplier (PropTech) to understand the client’s (agent’s) problems, not the other way around.

From: Charlie Lamdin 13 March 2019 01:15 AM

Best of luck Chris. The industry will be the poorer for your absence.

From: Charlie Lamdin 11 March 2019 08:56 AM

James, isn’t your suggestion just what easyProperty did with The Guild? It hasn’t worked. However you dress up the “onbrid” proposition, and whoever is selling it, it’s still the same. Pay up front, we might sell your house. It’s not what 95% of sellers want, and without massive marketing money, the other 5% probably wouldn’t go for it either.

From: Charlie Lamdin 27 February 2019 01:16 AM

If you have seen the instruction numbers for PB in the last 6 months, in the report from The Advisory, they have halved. So even if they did see profit in the UK briefly, I suspect it will be short lived.

From: Charlie Lamdin 26 February 2019 23:48 PM

“Give us a thousand quid and we might sell your home.” A PB shareholder close to the Bruce Brothers has told me “there’s just no way it can work.” They’ve done nothing but harm. Will be so glad to see the back of them. I’ve called them out on their unacceptable conduct from the start. If you take money off people without a commitment to sell, you are not an agent, you are an advertising service. Proper estate agents? It would be funny if it hadn’t caused so many people to lose out.

From: Charlie Lamdin 21 February 2019 11:10 AM

Agree with you Ben on the importance and value of granular reviews in this uniquely complex business of moving people. However, it’s essential that agents can employ this service in such a way that it doesn’t create extra work for them. That’s why we’re so excited to have Feefo as one of the founding suppliers of BestAgent Marketplace. This will allow even the smallest agents to get feefo reviews requested and processed from individual customers fully automatically, at each step of the process. Thanks to Feefo’s unique relationship with Google reviews, the best agents will naturally rise up in Google search thanks to their reviews. This will help to tackle to main problem consumers have when it comes to moving home, how to choose the best agent for their requirements.

From: Charlie Lamdin 06 February 2019 15:13 PM

I will always think that OTM wasted a huge opportunity with the One Other Portal rule, and that the product itself offers nothing new to the consumer. But, in this challenging climate, I know that OTM is proving to be a valuable way for agents to cut costs while retaining a working marketing presence. House hunters will search more than one portal to find their new home and while OTM is investing in its ad campaign, it would seem to be generating a meaningful number of leads to its agent customers. On BestAgent Marketplace, Zoopla is the most used portal, followed by OTM, and Rightmove are in third place. Interesting times.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 February 2019 09:21 AM

Nothing on the current horizon will “take over from agents”. Every move is slightly different. AI is only capable of recognising patterns, not emotions, and moving is an emotionally-driven process. Larger corporate agents may find value in basic processing of certain tasks using AI, but I predict the unintended consequence of using AI will be to give movers the same unsatisfactory experience they feel they get from offshore call centres, ie dealing with someone, or something in this case, that doesn’t actually listen and understand but just processes them like a sausage. It’s what makes corporate agency ever weaker: less and less personal interaction to cut costs. The overall uptake and quality of tech in the residential industry is so low, the CRMs are so old, the chances of actual AI (let’s remember that Artificial Intelligence refers to self-learning tech, not just automated bots running a script using search results) being used in a widespread way are very low in the foreseeable future. And let’s not get too excited about Google getting involved. So far their forays into property haven’t gone well. Remember Google Base? Agents help movers by getting to know their personal circumstances and advising appropriately. It’s as personal a service as getting a massage. Who would want a massage from an AI bot?!

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 February 2019 08:45 AM

I struggle to understand why Chris Wood gets such a hard time, and am sad that this article made headlines and gets so many comments. He's an honest, hard working, local reliable professional agent, who has put his head up above the parapet to call out questionable conduct in the industry. He's a campaigner for fairness and service. He's made a lifestyle choice that gives him more flexibility. I cannot see why this should attract so much vitriol. He has hurt no one (except perhaps PB by calling them out on genuine illegal conduct). The high street v online discussion is stale, irrelevant and boring, as well as missing the point. It doesn't matter where an agent works from, it matters only what results they get for their clients.

From: Charlie Lamdin 04 February 2019 13:18 PM

Rightmove and all the portals will get disrupted long before agency itself does.

From: Charlie Lamdin 26 January 2019 14:12 PM

James, I agree. The problem is that no one has yet delivered a streamlined experience for the agents, it’s too disjointed and no single product can cater for all the needs of any agent. At the BestAgent conference agent’s told suppliers “You’re not listening” which you covered in a post here in early October. What has happened since then is remarkable. We are witnessing what will be seen as the largest collaboration in the history of agency to deliver a Marketplace that will alter residential agency forever, and move it into the next era. It’s early days, but there is major change afoot. The 100+ companies that have approached BestAgent seem determined to deliver the agents something meaningful and new that shows that suppliers are, at last, listening.

From: Charlie Lamdin 16 January 2019 00:11 AM

The entire online sector is proof of how many people, even in the industry, don’t fully understand what movers need when selling their homes. Hence 92%+ of all home movers continue to choose conventional, full service agents. The combined investment and marketing spend of all the online attempts is staggering, and after 5 years their total market share is feeble, considering the effort. Other tech disrupters in other industries arrive with a bang and turn everything upside down almost instantly. 20% year on year growth (PB figures yesterday) is considered flatlining in startup growth terms. With consumers still choosing the high street more than 90% of the time, I’m amazed we’re even still debating this!

From: Charlie Lamdin 14 December 2018 02:58 AM

“We’re doing this to help these customers because we believe in doing the right thing.” I can’t decide whether they are delusional and believe their own excrement, or in fact they are fully aware of how disingenuous a statement this is and just don’t care. Or it could be that they are prepared to do anything out of desperation to halt their sliding share price. Whilst I’m not a believer in the pay-first model, I have nothing against it. But I deeply, passionately despise the misleading way Purplebricks has relieved so many thousands of people of c. £1,000 without selling their home, exploiting the false hope of these vulnerable home movers. For Michael Bruce to come out with this statement shows utter contempt to the customers whose money he’s already taken without selling. I honestly don’t know how he sleeps.

From: Charlie Lamdin 11 December 2018 15:15 PM

This is good news for conventional, full service, in person agents who have stood their ground and defended their industry. You can’t commoditise personal service. Helping people move house is a complicated, emotional gauntlet that affects people’s lives. It needs the human touch, in person, to help ordinary people through an often traumatic process at a difficult time (death, debt, divorce). It’s never nice to see anything fail (except the thieving Purple Plunderers, I can’t wait for that) but this should make people reconsider what agency is all about.

From: Charlie Lamdin 31 October 2018 19:35 PM

Ironically, by forcing fees down, onliners will find it increasingly difficult to win business as their “being cheaper” selling point fades away.

From: Charlie Lamdin 26 October 2018 08:42 AM

The Scottish are the most successful inventors in human history. They may not be without their own challenges and problems, but if there is going to be a change (and people are calling for it more on the legal side than the agency side) then we can definitely learn from their system and perhaps improve on it. But the hard part isn’t coming up with ideas, it’s the execution.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 October 2018 07:23 AM

Completely agree Richard.

From: Charlie Lamdin 03 October 2018 00:10 AM

Best of luck Pete!

From: Charlie Lamdin 24 September 2018 00:03 AM

I know nothing about Peter Long, but until or unless Countrywide appoints someone with first hand experience at the customer-facing edge of the industry, who has trodden the boards of viewings, valuations and managing teams on the ground, then they will fail. How can anyone who doesn’t know what the grass-roots job entails possibly have a chance of turning this ailing behemoth around? There are so many hugely impressive senior executives who have risen from roles as a negotiator who would be better suited to this, and who would command the respect and credibility of the staff on the ground. I fear this is another nail in the coffin, but I wish them all the best.

From: Charlie Lamdin 19 September 2018 13:44 PM

Thanks James, interesting thoughts on a fascinating idea that does seem to have potential

From: Charlie Lamdin 19 September 2018 08:03 AM

*facepalm* - estate agency isn’t “retail”, it’s “agency”. I sometimes wonder how the bosses at Savills and LSL can back this sort of idea. It won’t work.

From: Charlie Lamdin 15 September 2018 00:30 AM

On that I am in agreement with you “James Walsh”.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 September 2018 16:44 PM

Does anyone know who James Walsh actually is, apart from a prolific and amusing troll? “Zoopla and portals have sucked value from estate agents because they add far more value than estate agents.” If so, why don’t people stop using agents? You’re talking tosh James Walsh, or whoever you actually are.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 September 2018 16:41 PM

But I think they’re great guys and it’s been fantastic for shareholders.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 September 2018 10:37 AM

Perhaps Simon, but you could also argue that the competition they introduced did nothing to halt Rightmove’s marching price increases, therefore had zero impact as a competitor, and as a Technology provider, they haven’t brought any meaningful innovation or improvement to the process of moving house. They may be better value than RM from a marketing point of view, but I see them as having simply siphoned yet more value out of the moving process at the expense of agents. If they had used their might to bring change that benefitted agents, then I wouldn’t have this view. But how have they changed anything?

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 September 2018 10:36 AM

He did very well for himself and shareholders, but it’s not clear how much it’s benefited the industry as a whole.

From: Charlie Lamdin 07 September 2018 03:21 AM

With respect Russell, using a public opinion study that agents’ fees are “daylight robbery” before the hybrid business model has proved viable is premature at best, disingenuous at worst, and simply accelerates the race to the bottom. Using price as a differentiator in a service business has never proved a successful strategy in the long term. I do believe that Emoov genuinely aims to improve service offering and choice for the consumer and you have demonstrated real passion for that cause. I believe that press like this undermines your sincerity and passion.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 September 2018 07:34 AM

In what way is Yopa like any of those companies you mention?

From: Charlie Lamdin 29 August 2018 08:04 AM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you can’t digitise personal service. This model will keep on needing more cash forever. It can never become profitable and investors need to read this article about why VCs will never “disrupt property” in this way. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-vcs-learn-cant-disrupt-resi-property-charles-wright

From: Charlie Lamdin 28 August 2018 07:33 AM

Beautifully put Iain.

From: Charlie Lamdin 06 August 2018 16:21 PM

It smacks of desperation when another onliner, yet to make a profit, and in need of ever more investment to stay afloat, starts quoting public dissatisfaction with estate agency to try and get publicity. It also shows a lack of understanding of the market to suggest that these agents are all raking it in, when it is widely known that agents are facing the worst financial pressures in decades. Cheap PR Sam.

From: Charlie Lamdin 23 July 2018 07:45 AM

There are a large number of good conventional high st agents who do no possess the desire to be self-appointed market leaders, who do not have the time to invest in gimmicks nor award ceremonies. It is these agents who actually make up the majority of the industry. My view is that, without taking anything away from the dynamic forward thinking agents, it is silly, futile and irritating to tell all agents to rise above the average. If they all did that, they’d all still be average. There will always be those who invest more in marketing and tech and do well from it, but no matter how much marketing and tech you have, there is one asset more valuable than all the rest combined when it comes to any agent’s future prospects, and it is this: Your reputation. There are agents with strong long standing local reputations who do very well from that alone, and have no need for marketing and tech gimmicks. I’m not saying that these gimmicks don’t have some value, of course they do, but it is merely add-on value. Nothing will give a better return on investment than building a reputation as a trustworthy, reliable, friendly, accessible local individual known for getting the job done. Too many of us industry suppliers have been pitching our wares as the revolutionary be all and end all silver bullet for too long, and there is fatigue among agents. Resi agency has never been tougher than now. Agents need real, tangible value from the supplier industry. Help to streamline without losing the human touch. Help to cut costs and become more visible if good. We must stop the scaremongering that this sort of article peddles, recognise that agents are being ruthlessly exploited by the portals, and come together to find a way to help the best agents, ie all the ones who get the job done well and quickly, get more value out of tech than they currently do.

From: Charlie Lamdin 15 May 2018 00:32 AM

A huge part of the unnoticed, unpaid work agents do is educating these uninitiated buyers as to how the process actually works.

From: Charlie Lamdin 24 April 2018 08:51 AM

Good news. It confirms up front fixed fee offerings are STILL ineffective and not a good choice for most people selling homes. Selling a home isn’t like selling a car. Paying for an ad on the biggest websites and expecting the rest to sort itself out is simply naive. This story is another piece of good news for conventional full service agents, reinforcing the fact that you can’t commoditise personal service. Offering choice to the consumer is not a justification of any business model. No sale no fee from a local professional with their name above the door (and therefore a personal reputation on the line) will almost always be the best bet.

From: Charlie Lamdin 17 April 2018 13:40 PM

The savings claimed are only true assuming that the same selling price was achieved. I wonder if the slowdown in house price rises could have anything to do with potentially poorer sale prices achieved by onliners? In which case there are no savings being made. It would be a more credible claim if they also published “PurpleBricks has also received £100m in fees from people whose homes it failed to sell.”

From: Charlie Lamdin 16 April 2018 06:43 AM

This is an enormous step in the right direction, far bigger than it first appears. Everyone involved in the process can only benefit from this progress.

From: Charlie Lamdin 05 April 2018 12:42 PM

Good luck James. Fascinated to see how this story pans out!

From: Charlie Lamdin 04 April 2018 20:54 PM

Breaking News