x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
Steve's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
Steve Harwood
3046
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
Steve's wall
Steve's
Recent Activity
Not sure about your poetry Simon but your assessment is right. The fact that so many of their members are being held by the threat of legal action speaks volumes. Unfortunately for many (probably the majority) of their members, what goodwill existed has evaporated and they are looking for the nearest exit.
From:
Steve Harwood
28 October 2016 17:11 PM
Wow. The hybrids come along and rip the bottom out of an already stretched market, then this chap comes along and rips the bottom out of the hybrids. It isn't economicaly viable to offer full service at £299. Unless the seller is completely on their own post-offer.
From:
Steve Harwood
28 October 2016 07:49 AM
I wonder how many unhappy agents there are for every one agent who was prepared to head into London, stump up and take action against them. 5, 10, 20? And still the NAEA remains silent on their involvement in this project while one group of their members prepares to take legal action against another group of their members. Why are they sitting on the board of this rotten project? Will EAT ask them?
From:
Steve Harwood
10 May 2016 06:52 AM
Peter - I saw this argument run through at a debate a couple of years ago. At the time, Rightmove were charging £600 per office and Zoopla about £300. With the average office carrying 60 properties, it costs £10 per month to advertise a property on Rightmove, and £5 on Zoopla. The trading standards chap in the room that day scoffed when it was suggested that consumers were getting a bad deal as a result of portal dominance, with the average fee being around £3000. Their prices have gone up a bit (Rightmove more) since then, but not hugely.
From:
Steve Harwood
29 April 2016 07:51 AM
This can't be serious can it? If the wording above is really written by these people - and I can't understand why EAT would make it up - they could be in very hot water. Collusion is collusion and regardless of Agents Mutual, here is evidence of supposed competitors getting together to act against a supplier. Add the fact that they have formed a 'board' around which they could reasonably be accused of plotting to damage Zoopla (look at what has happened) - and this starts to look very much like a cartel. The worst penalty for that is prison, and of course the potential fine - 10% of global turnover! Their - genuine - competitors must be rubbing their hands in glee. Knight Frank's global turnover is??? What were these people thinking?
From:
Steve Harwood
29 April 2016 06:41 AM
Reputation and trust are so important within any service industry. Reading articles like the one in City AM is really disappointing. If any significant evidence emerges of collusion we shouldn't underestimate how broadly this story is likely to be covered in the consumer press. I think the NAEA (and their membership) would be best served if they were out of this failing project.
From:
Steve Harwood
25 April 2016 09:10 AM
The 'one other portal' rule and the complaints being raised by these unhappy agents are unrelated. The argument that this group (as I understand it) is making is that they never would have signed the contract had they known OTM would not keep their promise of giving Gold and Silver agents the best rate. The inevitable result of OTM offering new agents this £50 rate is that everyone ends up either stepping away, or paying £50! Either way, this duck is dead.
From:
Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 08:11 AM
Err, Roderick. There is a banner for Zoopla above so I would say the answer to 3. is yes. The answer to 3. is simple, Property Industry Eye (whose major portal advertiser is Agents Mutual) published one of their £50 contracts yesterday: http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/contract.pdf
From:
Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 08:02 AM
This gets more and more interesting. I had dinner with a friend yesterday evening who has been looking into this more closely. With the evidence emerging that Agents Mutual have signed many agents at very low rates (£50 seems to be their favourite), that the following statement in their Information Memorandum provides a cast iron argument for anyone who wants to be released from their contract - and a potential route to recover all monies invested through the courts if they can be bothered: "For agents which make no term commitment to list with the portal in advance, listing fees will be set shortly before launch. They will be higher than the tariff for Silver members and will not be fixed." So it is surely game, set and match for anyone who signed as gold or silver at full rate before or at launch. There is a second line of attack that Agents Mutual have opened themselves up to and that may provide a 'get out' for any agent who is paying their full rates. That is that this organisation is a mutual; everyone is equal and that includes pricing. Any agent who signed one of their contracts at their full rate can argue that they only did so because they believed this. They can also argue that the portal simply cannot keep its commitments on marketing and product development if Agents Mutual are signing agents at low rates as the projections made in the same Information Memorandum were all based on agents paying full rate. So, if you are paying the full rate to Agents Mutual, the real question is 1. are you happy doing so, and 2. do you want to continue. If the answer is 'No' or either of these questions, you have a pretty strong argument to get out whether you signed before, at or after launch.
From:
Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 07:55 AM
Touche!
From:
Steve Harwood
12 April 2016 09:01 AM
This situation could be catastrophic for Agents Mutual which is a tragedy given the motivations and objectives of most agents who got involved. Shame they were overtaken by greed and self interest.
From:
Steve Harwood
12 April 2016 08:49 AM
Well done to this website for championing this cause, and well done to Iain White for helping these small businesses. It is a horrible mess that needs to be cleared up. From some of the conversations that I have had personally there is a lot of bad blood against Agents Mutual now so I think we will have some very motivated agents wanting to take them down. Its amazing to think that if they can successfully make this case they they may be able to get their subscriptions and original investment back (although obviously that will only work for the first few as OTM will soon run out of cash and fold). What a result that would be for them. I think that both the NAEA and Property Industry Eye have a lot to answer for. Both have given OnTheMarket a semblance of respectability and I have no doubt that led to a lot of agents getting involved when they would otherwise have stayed away. PIE is a private organisation so it is up to them if they want to pander to their advertisers, but the NAEA's motivations are much more unclear. Surely it is time for some sort of statement from them as this shambles of a project falls apart and yet they remain on the board?? If these allegations are proven to be true (i.e. that Agents Mutual have misled their members en masse), then they deserve everything that they get.
From:
Steve Harwood
11 April 2016 07:03 AM
James - you are right and the principle of contract is sacrosanct thank goodness. The problem for Agents Mutual - and one that is going to bite them massively over the coming weeks and months - is that they have misled many of the agents who signed these 5 year contracts. I looked yesterday at the paperwork for an agent on a 5 year contract. The Info Memorandum which is an official Agents Mutual document that set out the strategy and which was referred to in this agent's contract very clearly states that agents who committed prior to launch would get the best rates. Their sales team are now running (and phoning) around the country signing up agents at £50 per office - a level of discount which is huge and puts 5 year contracted members at a significant competitive disadvantage. This is an act of gross stupidity on OTM's part as any agent who signed 5 years can now claim that they were misrepresented to on pricing and as such OTM are in material breach of their contract. OTM's response to this could be to offer them the same £50, but the agent can they claim that again they never would have signed as there is no way a portal can compete with the established portals with a sub rate of £50 per office. Very careless.
From:
Steve Harwood
08 April 2016 10:02 AM
I wish someone would take OTM on. They don't have a leg to stand on: - agent signs up pre-launch on the promise that by doing so they will be guaranteed the best rates (and this is confimed in writing on page 4 of the Information Memorandum included with their contract documentation) - they pay months of subscription for pretty much nothing (despite assurances that OTM will be No.2 by January 2016) PLUS they invest hundreds, if not thousands, in helping develop the thing - OTM then launches and starts signing up agents at 20% of the original launch rate card completely ignoring the price promise that they made to thousands of agents who funded the thing There is absolutely NO CHANCE that OTM will want this to get to court so I hope someone takes them on, refuses to settle and takes them for costs, their investment, all paid subscriptions to date. It would only take a few of these and the thing will implode and agents can get on with dealing with the real issues of the day. Oh, and the NAEA is keeping pretty quiet here. Given that they sit on the OTM board and would have sanctioned the suing of so many of their members, would it be reasonable to expect some sort of comment?
From:
Steve Harwood
08 April 2016 09:46 AM
Well done Graham - well deserved.
From:
Steve Harwood
23 March 2016 08:27 AM
Lose three at £300 and gain 7 at £50. Doesn't take a genius to work out where that one ends! I hear that OTM are expanding into Syria next.
From:
Steve Harwood
18 March 2016 07:17 AM
I get the sense that leaving Zoopla is temporary, whereas leaving OTM is permanent!
From:
Steve Harwood
17 March 2016 07:51 AM
So they can be hopeless in Northern Ireland as well as everywhere else - this is just a way to keep the office numbers ticking up isn't it?
From:
Steve Harwood
15 March 2016 07:14 AM
It seems to me that all that really matters is whether the competition authorities - or Zoopla - decide to act here. I have heard about groups of agents - who in their local markets must represent a similar percentage of market share - getting together to vote en masse on which portal they were going to drop, which is essentially the same situation. I cannot imagine that Danish and UK competition law is that different that what is wrong there is OK here. Would do wonders for the reputation of our industry of course!
From:
Steve Harwood
11 March 2016 05:44 AM
Well of course OTM can't comment - they don't send any leads ;-)
From:
Steve Harwood
10 March 2016 07:46 AM
Is OTM a subsidiary of Rightmove? OTM = 6 million visits, RM = 127 million visits - and that is with OTM outspending RM! Anyone who believes that OTM can be a credible competitor to RM needs their head examining...
From:
Steve Harwood
04 February 2016 14:45 PM
Maybe the vendor should consider switching to an agent on Primelocation/Zoopla (titter titter)?
From:
Steve Harwood
29 January 2016 07:41 AM
What utter drivel.
From:
Steve Harwood
26 January 2016 07:44 AM
I've set one up for agents who have found out that new signings to OnTheMarket are paying £50 per month when they (having invested £XX thousands) are paying £300 per month: OTWP (OnTheWarPath)
From:
Steve Harwood
20 January 2016 21:53 PM
I was sure I'd heard of Keller Williams before, and yes! They were on this website defending OnTheMarket just a few weeks ago. https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2015/10/agents-speak-out-in-defence-of-onthemarket So funny!!
From:
Steve Harwood
20 January 2016 15:14 PM
They aren't temporary low rates, they are permanent. A multi office firm that I know has been offered £50 per month for 2 years!
From:
Steve Harwood
18 January 2016 07:55 AM
Good piece Graham. I think you're right, the tone over the next two weeks should be measured and professional with a focus on facts, not rhetoric or personal vitriol.
From:
Steve Harwood
16 January 2016 09:37 AM
You can publish magazines and podcasts all day long Chris, but if consumers are looking on Zoopla and Rightmove, I would recommend advertising your customer's (sorry to use the 'c' word) properties there. Equally, if consumers are looking on OTM I'd advertise there, but they aren't, so I won't.
From:
Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 08:14 AM
Great estate agency is made up of great people. Chris. Give great people (who may or may not be agents today), great technology and a more attractive proposition and they will win. You can kid yourself that taking a few pages in the local rag, and having an office on the high street are important, but you will lose as a result. Adapt and change, or die. If you seriously think that Agents Mutual is the change that will win out, you need your head examined.
From:
Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 07:58 AM
Its funny that on Property Industry Eye today, Paul Smith - who is mentioned above - is quoted having one of his barely comprehensible rants about the virtues of Agents Mutual/OTM. I have an image of him cowering in the corner of his office while the world closes in on him. I have to congratulate this website on their coverage on this subject over the past year. Time will show them to have taken the right position on the 'one other portal' rule put in place by that bunch of dinosaurs. It does nothing for consumers and barely nothing for its members. Disaster.
From:
Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 07:52 AM
Yeah right. In other words 'our international section has taken months to develop'. I bet that there are agents in Wales and Scotland that are delighted that the mutual is allocating its resources in this way. Definitely plays to 90% of their members.... NOT!
From:
Steve Harwood
11 January 2016 08:46 AM
Simon, interestingly the full testimonial for Raine & Co (published by PropertyPortalWatch) suggests that they have pulled away from Zoopla but they are advertising on it today! So 33% of their testimonials are clearly out of date. How embarrassing! Full testimonial: Mike Marsh Raine & Co Hertfordshire and Mayfair Nine offices, a mixture of sales and lettings November 2015 We decided to join OnTheMarket.com as soon as we reviewed the strategy and costs. We didn’t take much persuading! We were fed-up with Rightmove and Zoopla because of their ever-increasing fees. Whenever we have met representatives from the other major portals, we have felt that they are more focused on increasing the portal’s income than on providing a high level of service to us, their estate and letting agent customers. It was our industry which built Rightmove and Zoopla into the powerful giants which they are today with their enormous profits and stock market valuations. We know that as traditional high street agents who are proud of Britain’s estate agent industry and the service it offers, it is time to put an end to this ludicrous situation. As agents who provide the precious property content, it is absolutely in our power to do so with our own alternative portal. We were very pleased to learn that the executives behind OnTheMarket.com had already launched a property portal which was an overwhelming success in the form of PrimeLocation. This gave us reassurance and confidence in the leadership of Agents’ Mutual and they have not disappointed us. When it came to which portal to drop, we debated it because it was a difficult decision. Being so close to London, we were concerned about dropping Zoopla but we chose to retain Rightmove on the basis of the superior volume and quality of the leads it was generating for us. The leads supplied to us by OnTheMarket.com are of an extremely high standard. We hear frequently from our customers how user-friendly OnTheMarket.com is and how cleanly it displays the properties on the market. In my own opinion, it is only a matter of time before the property stock on the portal increases and OnTheMarket.com will be able to compete head-on with Rightmove.
From:
Steve Harwood
07 January 2016 15:13 PM
Fair play. I would have thought that the directors - like Noel Flint - would be lining up to distance themselves from the thing at this stage. Its a complete disaster as far as I can see. A buddy of mine showed me a contract he has been sent from OnTheMarket over the holidays. £50 per branch for two years!! He was so sick of being hounded by his increasingly desperate OTM sales rep that he thought he'd see how far he could go with them. Absolutely no chance of signing up but a complete disgrace that someone joining now can get such amazingly low terms while another friend of mine is paying them £500 per month and has been told he can't get out of his contract. You should have seen the reaction when I showed him the £50 contract! I wouldn't like to be that rep this week.
From:
Steve Harwood
04 January 2016 07:29 AM
Oh the irony! Seriously though, this does not send out a positive message about Agents Mutual - at all!!
From:
Steve Harwood
23 December 2015 14:46 PM
With many, if not most people agreeing with this sentiment, what is actually happening to Agents Mutual? Are they losing advertisers, or are they gaining? It would seem incredible to me that they could continue growing with such negative sentiment felt towards them.
From:
Steve Harwood
17 December 2015 11:12 AM
That's fine but a buddy of mine told me yesterday that his Rightmove rep has shown him an agreement with an agent which included a free of charge period which lasted 13 months! Given it covered all of their 3 offices and there was no commitment after the free period it looks like they had driven a very hard bargain with their OTM rep! Given that included in that conversation was a fully signed up OTM agent paying more than £400 per month and getting almost nothing in return, it was all very amusing!!
From:
Steve Harwood
11 December 2015 06:52 AM
Not possible Trevor - they would never let it happen/throw whatever they can at him to make him stay. Would be far too damaging/embarrassing at the moment...
From:
Steve Harwood
08 December 2015 14:25 PM
What a massive tease - who is leaving a major portal?!
From:
Steve Harwood
08 December 2015 09:48 AM
Is this true? If it is there will be uproar!
From:
Steve Harwood
01 December 2015 07:09 AM
One day Springett will surprise everyone by giving some clear and verified facts rather than hot air and hyperbole.
From:
Steve Harwood
01 December 2015 06:48 AM
As someone who stuck away from the blasted thing I just hope that those involved come to their senses or the whole industry could be damaged. I do not want Rightmove to be left to their own devices. And one other thing. Why the hell are the NAEA involved in this thing and have a seat on the board? I have chosen to stay away from Agents Mutual and yet I am subsidising it through my membership to NAEA (I assume that Hayward's time is being given freely) - completely unacceptable.
From:
Steve Harwood
28 November 2015 09:07 AM
It may have disrupted Zoopla, but it has turbo-charged Rightmove. On behalf of Rightmove shareholders across the globe, I would like to thank and congratulate the 5,500 agents in the UK who have made their 2015 so successful! You shall now and forevermore be known as the 'I shot myself in the foot' brigade!
From:
Steve Harwood
26 November 2015 08:57 AM
This looks like a 'get out of jail free' card to any agent who got pulled into their local group decision on OTM and who wants out. Any agent who wants to break away from OTM but feels trapped should be complaining to the CMA if they feel that their local area agents acted together and broke these cartel rules. And of course any agent that doesn't complain risks being the subject of an investigation and being on the receiving end of a potentially crippling fine. All of that said, its pretty unlikely that any agent would want to stitch up their local competitor, isn't it?!
From:
Steve Harwood
19 November 2015 09:48 AM
This is very simple. They are bullies. Springett did this with Primelocation. I am SO GLAD I am out of this - all of those poor independent agents who got dragged in at the last minute can look forward to being dictated to over the next 5 years!
From:
Steve Harwood
05 November 2015 10:33 AM
I think that the NAEA sit on the board of Agents Mutual don't they, so their grubby fingerprints are over this as well. Given that they represent the whole industry, and not just the self serving agents who think the AM approach is acceptable, I think that EAT should ask them for some response to this piece of analysis. They have remained very quiet on the issue and yet still 'officially endorse' Agents Mutual (and give up one of their highly paid staff member's time to attend no doubt endless meetings). I think they have a very firm obligation to explain their position and the potential damage a project that they have endorsed and subsidised has done.
From:
Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 11:15 AM
They do allow online agents to list Russell - they were promoting a compliment that Keller Williams gave them a couple of days ago. Hilariously Keller Williams run exactly the same structure as Purple Bricks. I.e. not high street premises (which is a requirement of membership with OTM), central hub etc. It looks like if you are a personal friend of Springer you get special favours!!
From:
Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 11:10 AM
The shame is that we all want an industry owned portal, and because of the divisive approach that the Agents Mutual board and team have followed, it is looking increasingly likely that this project will fail. That will most likely mean that the vast majority of those who got involved this time will never want to entertain the idea of backing an industry portal again. Their fingers have been burnt. A real shame.
From:
Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 00:35 AM
I cannot believe what I am reading - Keller Williams is a non-High Street, virtual/online agent, no different to Purple Bricks. Is this a joke EAT??
From:
Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 00:30 AM
I'd imagine he's off sunning himself somewhere given that it is half term Jon. Not your usual start up this one...
From:
Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 12:51 PM
Graham, Sorry, I got a bit cross up there - I find it hard not to though. The best thing for you in righting the balance with Rightmove is ensuring that they have a strong competitor. The worse thing that you can get is a weak competitor. Zoopla was making great progress and now that AM has launched it has checked them, but OTM WILL NEVER compete with Rightmove as i) the website, from a consumer perspective is rubbish. They LIKE the tools that AM and others say clutter their websites and ii) they have nothing to offer consumers that they can get elsewhere. OTM achieves nothing over the long term for anyone other than Springett and his overpaid cronies (is he really on £500k per year for delivering a damp squib? Does that business need to be based in Central London?!) and the posh, central London agents who regret selling Primelocation for 50 million quid.
From:
Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 10:38 AM
Graham, The bias against AM is very simple. You - and Mr Crayson here - are in business to serve your customers. If they have received 18 versus 197 leads over a period (looks like this guy operates at the top end of the market so not a volume game), and consciously removed themselves from Rightmove which I assume delivers the same or more than Zoopla, then that is a disservice to his customers. I completely understand the selfish reasons for signing up to this long term, but your customers are not interested in the long term, they are interested in the next (hopefully) three months while you sell their house. It is dishonourable behaviour. Another reason for being vehemently anti-AM is that the current situation in our market is that there are two portals I subscribe to; primarily because my customers expect it. If AM is successful it is either because it has replaced Z or because there are now three portals I have to advertise on. In either of those scenarios I HATE the outcome. The thought of me having to advertise on a website that is ostensibly controlled by a bunch of posh boys in Mayfair fills my heart with hatred (don't try and kid me that my 1/6000 share will give me any control - doesn't stop them pouring money into Country Life and whatever other selfish, irrelevant to 99.99% of the population projects that they cherish), and the thought of having to pay for three portals is equally unattractive. This will go down as an own goal for our industry and those who aren't happy should come away - quickly - before they end up in a worse situation than the one they are in today. What a complete and utter shambles.
From:
Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 09:10 AM
This is remarkable. I hadn't heard of these guys today so I went and had a look... First of all, they are a virtual, non-high street agent, listing on OTM and saying that OTM is doing a brilliant job. I'll leave the reader to draw their own conclusions here but no doubt this press release will lead to them being removed from the website that is doing such an amazing job for them (snigger snigger)... Second, and having checked Rightmove, they have 57 available properties for sale, and 41 to rent. On their website I can see they have 65 virtual agents (all of whom have no doubt paid a franchise fee). How does that work and how is this successful - that's barely one per person? What are they doing with their time (I know I know)... Either this guy has been smoking something very strong, or I think he needs to leave the PR to the experts. Who will be reporting him to OTM, or can Purple Bricks advertise now?! Hilarious.
From:
Steve Harwood
28 October 2015 16:03 PM
I wonder what you'll get by way of response from OTM Graham??! Maybe: - 'In a short period OTM has become a serious player in the portal market' (read: 'we haven't really got any positive news for you'), or - 'Our traffic continues to grow with record traffic of 5.3m visits in September' (read: 'it will take us 20 years to catch up Zoopla at current rate and 50 years to catch up Rightmove'), or - 'new members are joining us every week' (read: 'lots are leaving as well but luckily our team of 20 salespeople are signing a couple of newbies every week so we can keep rolling out this line') I sense the Sword of Damocles is starting the descent towards Mr Springett's lobster thermidor!
From:
Steve Harwood
22 October 2015 09:24 AM
Well, if other agents are feeling the same way, let's hear from them. An interesting move from OTM now would be to say to any agents who aren't happy that they will release them from their contracts. Either agents stand behind this project or they don't, and if you read Springett's press releases you'd think this lady is a one-off whacko. So come on Ian Springett, prove that you have the support of your members and offer an amnesty to those agents who want to step away. If your 'Mutual' is as strong as you say it is, you'll lose a few agents (who must be causing you a headache anyway)? Maybe EAT should run a petition along these lines?
From:
Steve Harwood
22 October 2015 07:13 AM
Oh dear Jeremy, listening to people like you is like watching the pendulum of a grandfather clock swinging slowly away. At the moment you will moan about there being too many portals. If OTM get's its way we'll be back to a market with only one serious player. At that point you'll be moaning that Rightmove is behaving monopolistically. Why can't so many of my industry see beyond this month. Its beyond stupidity really. We need a well balanced and well served market, with two - or three - decent competitors. That way, if one of them starts misbehaving we can kick them into touch and survive for a while while they change their behaviour. The problem at the moment is that RM are being strengthened and we are heading back to when there was RM FindaProperty, PropertyFinder and Primelocation. A load of minnows battling it out while RM gets fatter. Personally I do not feel that OTM can provide serious competition. All they do is hold Zoopla while RM get stronger. Beyond stupid really...
From:
Steve Harwood
20 October 2015 10:15 AM
I'm no expert on the numbers above Terence, but which of them isn't factual? The reality here is that the only numbers being released by agent mutual are top line traffic numbers which take no account for the thousands of agents who look at it every day. [This is an interesting point of course. They have 5,500 offices as members. If 2 people in each office look at their customers listings just 5 times per day, that means that (5,500 offices X 2 people X 5 looks X 24 days/month) 1.3 million of their 5 million visits comes from their agent members! That is despite them spending many, many millions of their member's cash on marketing.] They are not releasing any other facts, which everyone knows they would do if they were doing even a remotely good job. Its dreadful really - and I wonder how long until their every-day agent members start getting VERY angry about it.
From:
Steve Harwood
20 October 2015 07:16 AM
A very well written piece Russell. Its a shame that so many will read it and dismiss your views. When you read the facts, and consider the steep hill that OTM have to climb, it is no wonder that agents are speaking out and moving away from this silly experiment. When time has passed and we look back at this phase of the property market's history, it will be clear that a large and influential part of the industry saw change coming and showed very poor judgement in dealing with it.
From:
Steve Harwood
16 October 2015 18:17 PM
I think the problem Joe, is 'you don't know what you don't know'. Every time this subject has come up Agents Mutual has said 'the company is satisfied that it is operating within the law', suggesting that advice has been sought and the project cleared. There are two aspects to this comment that are disingenuous: 1. Competition law is not a static thing. As a business becomes more established and holds a greater market share, its ability to operate at the margins of what would be considered anti-competitive changes. Any business that has over 40% of share in a market (and this could be a very specific geographical market), is considered by the CMA as dominant and therefore could find itself being investigated if there are suspected misdemeanours. 2. Agents Mutual have said that the COMPANY is operating within the law. They have carefully offered no comment on the behaviour and liability of their members. I am amazed that no-one has picked up on this. I know of some areas where agents have been getting together (in some cases almost all agents) and collectively deciding what portal to choose and which to drop. This is illegal and Agents Mutual will be able to offer them no protection if the authorities do decide to operate. All in all many - in some cases very reputable - agents have placed their business, staff and customer's well being in jeopardy with some very 'loose' behaviour. If the CMA do decide to look into this, it could be explosive for those agents who have been behaving as if they were in the Wild West...
From:
Steve Harwood
12 October 2015 08:05 AM
Absolute nonsense. They have 5,300 members (and shrinking) and an international section benefits about 10 of them. Complete joke and downright offensive for the other 5,280 (and shrinking)...
From:
Steve Harwood
05 October 2015 10:47 AM
This is an astonishing development and I expect it will draw deep breaths of incredulity from the mass of Agents Mutual members who do not and never will have an international arm. It is a disgrace that development time is being put into this. Knight Frank and Savills must be delighted!
From:
Steve Harwood
05 October 2015 08:36 AM
Its conceivable that 23% were only on 1 portal prior to OTM's launch John, and therefore they have seen an increase - an extra 2 leads per month!!
From:
Steve Harwood
02 October 2015 12:10 PM
Sounds about right to me...
From:
Steve Harwood
01 October 2015 12:28 PM
Will Zoopla ensure that any agents returning pay a higher price than those who stuck with Zoopla?
From:
Steve Harwood
09 September 2015 09:49 AM
But EAT, who should I believe? Hitwise, owned by Experian, a global data business, or Ian Springett? Hmmn, I wonder?...
From:
Steve Harwood
07 September 2015 08:07 AM
Is this real? If not, EAT are in big trouble. If it is, Paul Smith is going to be having a very bad weekend! This throws up 3 questions for me: 1. If agents have signed 5 year contracts, at what point will they be able to show that agent mutual have 'failed to perform'. This is a well established principle in contract law. If their primary purpose is to provide response to advertisers and they are not, agents will have a very strong case to say they haven't lived up to their end of the bargain. I was chatting this through with an agent earlier in the week and they feel they have them bang to rights. 2. Given that most agents have left zoopla, will I be guaranteed that anyone returning will be penalised? I have stuck with them and I expect others who haven't will pay a premium to get back on 3. When will agents admit they have massively screwed up, swallow their pride and either i) go back to zoopla (or rm if they left rm, although this is just a handful!), or ii) just cut their losses! Fair play to this guy - he has balls and courage of his convictions. Many bods have left am but kept quiet. At least this guy has put his hand up.
From:
Steve Harwood
24 July 2015 20:59 PM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Government orders London Mayor to build more homes
Prime London sold prices hit decade low but agents ‘remain busy’ - research
Price expectation gap risks widening – claim
Material information raises professional indemnity risks - warning
Upmarket agency launches second radio ad campaign
Estate agency complaints and payouts on the rise
Rightmove: Asking prices hit 10-month high but market remains sensitive
Seller sentiment improves – OnTheMarket
Propertymark welcomes new First Minister for Wales
Spring Budget missed the mark, estate agents claim
Steve's Recent Activity
From: Steve Harwood
28 October 2016 17:11 PM
From: Steve Harwood
28 October 2016 07:49 AM
From: Steve Harwood
10 May 2016 06:52 AM
From: Steve Harwood
29 April 2016 07:51 AM
From: Steve Harwood
29 April 2016 06:41 AM
From: Steve Harwood
25 April 2016 09:10 AM
From: Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 08:11 AM
From: Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 08:02 AM
From: Steve Harwood
13 April 2016 07:55 AM
From: Steve Harwood
12 April 2016 09:01 AM
From: Steve Harwood
12 April 2016 08:49 AM
From: Steve Harwood
11 April 2016 07:03 AM
From: Steve Harwood
08 April 2016 10:02 AM
From: Steve Harwood
08 April 2016 09:46 AM
From: Steve Harwood
23 March 2016 08:27 AM
From: Steve Harwood
18 March 2016 07:17 AM
From: Steve Harwood
17 March 2016 07:51 AM
From: Steve Harwood
15 March 2016 07:14 AM
From: Steve Harwood
11 March 2016 05:44 AM
From: Steve Harwood
10 March 2016 07:46 AM
From: Steve Harwood
04 February 2016 14:45 PM
From: Steve Harwood
29 January 2016 07:41 AM
From: Steve Harwood
26 January 2016 07:44 AM
From: Steve Harwood
20 January 2016 21:53 PM
From: Steve Harwood
20 January 2016 15:14 PM
From: Steve Harwood
18 January 2016 07:55 AM
From: Steve Harwood
16 January 2016 09:37 AM
From: Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 08:14 AM
From: Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 07:58 AM
From: Steve Harwood
12 January 2016 07:52 AM
From: Steve Harwood
11 January 2016 08:46 AM
From: Steve Harwood
07 January 2016 15:13 PM
From: Steve Harwood
04 January 2016 07:29 AM
From: Steve Harwood
23 December 2015 14:46 PM
From: Steve Harwood
17 December 2015 11:12 AM
From: Steve Harwood
11 December 2015 06:52 AM
From: Steve Harwood
08 December 2015 14:25 PM
From: Steve Harwood
08 December 2015 09:48 AM
From: Steve Harwood
01 December 2015 07:09 AM
From: Steve Harwood
01 December 2015 06:48 AM
From: Steve Harwood
28 November 2015 09:07 AM
From: Steve Harwood
26 November 2015 08:57 AM
From: Steve Harwood
19 November 2015 09:48 AM
From: Steve Harwood
05 November 2015 10:33 AM
From: Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 11:15 AM
From: Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 11:10 AM
From: Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 00:35 AM
From: Steve Harwood
31 October 2015 00:30 AM
From: Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 12:51 PM
From: Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 10:38 AM
From: Steve Harwood
29 October 2015 09:10 AM
From: Steve Harwood
28 October 2015 16:03 PM
From: Steve Harwood
22 October 2015 09:24 AM
From: Steve Harwood
22 October 2015 07:13 AM
From: Steve Harwood
20 October 2015 10:15 AM
From: Steve Harwood
20 October 2015 07:16 AM
From: Steve Harwood
16 October 2015 18:17 PM
From: Steve Harwood
12 October 2015 08:05 AM
From: Steve Harwood
05 October 2015 10:47 AM
From: Steve Harwood
05 October 2015 08:36 AM
From: Steve Harwood
02 October 2015 12:10 PM
From: Steve Harwood
01 October 2015 12:28 PM
From: Steve Harwood
09 September 2015 09:49 AM
From: Steve Harwood
07 September 2015 08:07 AM
From: Steve Harwood
24 July 2015 20:59 PM