x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

Zoopla has said it is not surprised by the decision to ditch PropertyLive, while there was fury at this week’s meeting of agents in Surrey over NFoPP's closure of the portal after a cost thought to be over £2m.

At the meeting, attended by both NAEA and ARLA members, agents expressed heated anger to NAEA managing director Mark Hayward, who was present.

Agents insisted that a viable commercial future was possible for the portal, and urged Hayward that this should be discussed further.

Surrey NAEA chairman James Wyatt said in an outspoken post on a social networking site after the meeting that members had been very upset.

He said: “PropertyLive needed to be commercialised but for some reason it never was. [PropertyLive] could have been a success if the management had been up to the job.”

Earlier, he said there had been widespread disappointment and dismay among members at the meeting – although they also voiced concern over the management and availability of sufficient marketing budgets for PropertyLive.

Wyatt said that with over 90% of property buyers starting their search online and high street names such as Jessops and HMV going into administration because of the growth of online consumerism, the decision to shut down PropertyLive was ‘madness’.

He added: “Our members here in Surrey bought into and supported the PropertyLive model for four years, with some even cutting ties with the likes of Rightmove and Zoopla.

“Where does that leave them now? As [we are] the ones who funded this ambitious project, the board has a duty to provide a full and detailed explanation about the decision to its members.”  
 
Wyatt – who had been spearheading a campaign for all NFoPP members to use PropertyLive, which was revamped just one week before the closure decision was announced – said: “Within minutes of hearing the news about PropertyLive’s intended closure, I received a number of emails from interested parties keen to take the now defunct site on.

“It will be very interesting to see what steps the board takes next.”
 
He added: “It seems that there’s nothing even the 14,000-strong members of the NAEA and ARLA can do to stop the might of the Rightmove and Zoopla – even if it is much to the displeasure of members.”

A spokesman for Zoopla said yesterday of PropertyLive’s demise: “We are not entirely surprised by this move. In a two-sided market like property portals which require listings inventory on the one side and consumer traffic on the other, it is tough to gain significant traction without both of these at a high level.

“Regional or niche portals suffer from limited inventory and free to list portals suffer from the lack of ability to spend on marketing at scale. It also takes significant investment in technology to operate and maintain a portal to a level that provides a good consumer experience.”

Comments

  • icon

    Trevor INEA, just searched my area, first property i opened is listed by 'Virtual Property world' an online agent, how did they get on with you with your strict BOOT OFF approach?

    http://www.inea.co.uk/ResidentialSales/PropertyDetails/Knox_Road_Havant-Havant-inea-9606AA0FD.aspx

    • 24 January 2013 17:17 PM
  • icon

    Well - I just spent rather a long time reading all the comments and got bored with some of the pointless bickering. However, I would just like to add that I always supported PL (despite not getting any enquiries). I have had the logo on my office window and all advertising since its launch and quite liked the website. I would be happy to pay a monthly fee to see this become the go-to site for professional estate agency.
    I think that @Paul M & @Nick Salmon made the most sense here. Why can't all the independents work together to support one another in what is a very difficult time for us all - especially those in the quieter parts of the country.
    I have not subscribed to RM for 5 years but am on Z & PrimeL. However, over 20% of my business comes direct nowadays and an increasing number start with Google - even tho they may end up on the portals from there. I would support further discussion on the future of PL and hope that independents can be brave enough to take control of this opportunity.

    • 21 January 2013 15:34 PM
  • icon

    Trevors ideas are dood but agree with O Deary me and others his web site is old hat, he must update this and bring it into this Decade! At least then the whole concept at first view will seem more credible...............Not a critisism of your concept Trevor just good advice -- Invest in your web site

    • 20 January 2013 08:24 AM
  • icon

    Trevor Mealham's self promotion has been so intense that I have actually looked at the INEA website for the first time tonight.

    It is truly awful.

    It looks like one of those awful 'make money fast' websites. Or the websites where you have to scroll and scroll and scroll to the bottom with highlighted yellow writing (although he hasn't bothered with the highlighted yellow writing.) but I'm sure you get what I mean.

    The logo's and icon are truly amateur. Overall, the branding is just so late 1990's. Unbelievable that Trevor bangs on about his site as if it was the best site ever invented.

    I can't get across what an appalling website it is. Good luck with your website Trev.

    To keep on topic, I think we should try and salvage PropertyLive, but please keep Trevor away from it if we do.

    • 19 January 2013 20:34 PM
  • icon

    Tervor Mealham

    Well swerved on all points that have been put forward to you again. You contradict yourself so much its ridculous.

    Are you really a sharing platform, or is that what your selling it as, but really all you are trying to do is try and create the next Rightmove/Zoopla.

    Here are some of your quotes from the other day.

    QUOTE
    ****************************************************************
    ****************************************************************
    BUDGET AGENTS DON'T SAVE CLIENTS MONEY

    The fact is its a myth. If agents charge a fee and offer a commission share to other local agents - stc prices can factually be far greater, or a sale complete faster etc.

    Budget agents always quote SAVE £X. RUBBISH.

    Agents networking can often far exceed agents who have less fees per property to market wider.

    There is also the argument that budget fixed fee agents simply takes their money and does little after. Many also take any property for the fee and don't refuse overpriced units thus inflating the market.

    ****************************************************************
    ****************************************************************

    What do you consider a Budget agent to be Trevor?
    The agent that I pointed out that advertises at 0.5% aren't going to go and share their small commission pot are they?


    QUOTE

    ******************************************************************
    ******************************************************************
    Today we had an agency that offered budget fees approach to join INEA. As such weve kicked them out.

    We only want proper agents who don't pull down fees so that traditional and good online agents can do more for customers by having more funds in the pot.

    **************************************************************************************************************************************

    Again Trevor whats the accpetable fee here then. I personally would consider 0.5% to be dragging down fees. Do you?

    You also have Upad advertising on your site, £99 per property listing?? Or does your sharing methods not extend to lettings??

    • 19 January 2013 12:30 PM
  • icon

    Come on everyone Trevors ideas are good, sign up with INEA you know it makes sense. This is the way forward

    • 19 January 2013 11:31 AM
  • icon

    bring back typewriters and telex machines

    • 19 January 2013 11:28 AM
  • icon

    Trevor, would Hatched get in the club?
    What are the requirements for getting in?
    What would prevent me getting membership?
    What would get me booted out?

    • 18 January 2013 20:17 PM
  • icon

    INEA stands for Independent Network of Estate Agents

    Before revival we was a collective of agents known as LINEA (Local) but LINEA .co.uk had gone

    There is no claim to INEA being a qualification, but we do have rules and we do boot agents out if they dont play ball with other members.

    As for Online, I do support both traditional and online. Even ''traditional agents'' are online these days. In fact as online often only rely on ''on-line'' often they are better at web things than ''traditional'' with less web presence.

    Link online agents and traditional together and you have great combinations. Mind you, you then have to ink their property data. Ummmmm maybe MLS would do that :-)

    Sorry guys not biting, more agents signed up today to work with others.

    When someone takes a different path there will always be critics. My work is helping many agents.

    On the 21st - 24th and 31st I'll be at agent meetings we hold in Bromley, London and Surrey. At the meets will be many agents who openly talk and tell us how their work place and market could be better. When we can we help them.

    T

    • 18 January 2013 18:21 PM
  • icon

    @Propertyman - thanks for that, really cheered me up. You sound like just the type to embezzle funds and pull a disappearing act. That or you work for RM/ZPG?

    The thing is it wouldn't require millions, just the movement of our adverts to PL instead of the portals. Our own websites are useful tools but for the buyers/tenants we need stock in one place, ideally from agents they can trust, avoiding rogues such as 'Propertyman.

    • 18 January 2013 17:10 PM
  • icon

    INEA is a marketing club with nothing but a self serving purpose - to generate business through Multi listing.

    Use of INEA appears as a claim of some form of qualification.

    Even the choice of intials seems designed to confuse and borders on 'Passing Off'.

    • 18 January 2013 16:33 PM
  • icon

    Tervor Mealham

    You either didn't read one of my comments the other day or you are dodging it.

    Checked your website for who is advertising in my area.

    One agent with sales listings- they are charging just 0.5%(they clearly advertise this). So explain if they had a listing where would other agents make their money.

    On the letting side - an extrmely well known online letting agency.

    This is after you say you dont support online agents, and even kicked one off the other day?

    • 18 January 2013 16:06 PM
  • icon

    @ Propertyman

    I assume English isn't your first language

    • 18 January 2013 16:04 PM
  • icon

    @ Propertyman "and have little to do but waste their time venting here"

    10,000 words later, you finally finish venting your dismay at people venting.

    Quite today? Hypocrites Weekly not been delivered yet?

    • 18 January 2013 16:03 PM
  • icon

    INDUSTRY OBSERVER
    Subbing is when a main agent gains a vendor or land lord greater property exposure via ''sub'' secondary agents. Collectively they offer a property to a wider audience. The main agent stays in control of viewings/negotiations/offers etc and pays remuneration for intros that complete. Vendors pay a higher fee (say sole 1.5% / MLS/subbed and extra 0.5% so 2%) The upsell is the sub comm

    M
    We have around 600+ agents in INEA. Another 2 joined today. London, Surrey, Reading are all growing well. We also do many other things ie get involved in legislation consultations and voice the view that independent agents put to us

    JK
    MLS fees in the US are typically 6%. Agents also do lots of pre legals. US agents normally have just 5-8 listings and may do just 10 deals a year. The 6% is split between two brokerages. Buy 3% - Sellers 3%. The 3%'s get split 1/2 again - so agent works on say 1.5% much alike UK agent.

    Sad Trev
    Were flourishing - more agents signed up today. One Ive just helped gin nearly 120 listings from fellow agents.
    Me not sad :-) neither is the agents who have joined as together we help them:
    1/ gain access to more local listings
    2/ Reduce their online costs by collaboration
    3/ Get higher fees for giving greater coverage

    MLS gives agents properties back. Portals take.
    Sweet and simple. Any nation that cracks MLS data feeds eventually becomes a MLS nation.

    • 18 January 2013 16:01 PM
  • icon

    I have been a successful agent for over twenty years and have to say I laugh out loud every time I read the comments on forums like this about the portals and the venom towards them by a vocal few, who clearly have no experience of the real world and have little to do but waste their time venting here. If they were running a successful agency like me, they would embrace the protals which have in fact saved the industry a load of money over the past few years. Sure, I would like them to be cheaper and not to rasie prrices 20% every year but I am getting so muich more vlaue form them than I ever did from newspapers. n a free world, Rightmove is free to make whatever profit it wants and agents are free to detemrine if it is good vlaue and worthwhile. With 18,000 agents on Rightmove, clealry the vast majortiy think that it is good value. For the dozen of you on here that want to get into the world of pain of doing what they do, good luck and count me out - I have no interest in running a portal or anyhting other than running an estate agency. Thise of you on here who are clearly not very good estate agents should go find somethnig else to do and maybe that is running a portal but be careful what you wish for - that is a space many have pumped millions into and gone nowhere. And to think that by putting some stickers in windows , etc. you would go anywhere, think again. It is not 2000 - time has moved on. Propertylive spent £2m to build and run a horrible website without any marketing costs or real investmtent. It would cost a lot more to do it better and it would still go nowhere. I htasnk heaven for Rightmove and Zoopla since they are the lifeblood of my business and I now spend half what I used to on marketing since I don't waste money in the local papers like so many of you. So, good luck with reviving the dead Propertylive - as if £2m wasted iwas not enough - shame on anyone who throws good money after bad on this dog.

    • 18 January 2013 16:00 PM
  • icon

    There are 2 issues here.

    The first is about PropertyLive - this has been done to death and I have nothing to add.

    The second is perhaps more important and is about NFoPP and the manner in which is fails to consult or engage members to who Property Live was sold as a benefit.

    Further, I want an explanation as to why £2m of much needed cash has been wasted on a much lauded re-launch only for the sites prompt closure.

    IT IS A DISGRACE. Those at Arbon House (an anagram of 'Oh No, Abuse') need to stand up and explain to the people they supposedly represent.

    The sheer arrogance of the Board defies belief. I see no reason why I should attend meetings nor support the brand when they dont ask for members views any more than they listen to suggestions.

    The public have no interest in a stuffy bunch of pompous, self interested dictators.

    At an awards bash last year, I tried to say hello to the NFoPP bosses - I was ignored and dismissed as they guzzled wine members had probably purchased. Nice after 23 years of membership.

    The love their awards bashes, fact finding trips to sunny climbs and gala dinners whilst the rest of try to keep people employed.

    The last straw is blowing TWO MILLION QUID.

    NAEA - is there a point to it - really?

    NFoPP - No Followers or Practical Purpose

    • 18 January 2013 15:52 PM
  • icon

    Zoople is the next Rightmove.

    Prepare to be fleeced, rolled and thoroughly ripped off (again).

    WE all see it coming.

    • 18 January 2013 15:23 PM
  • icon

    With the sky high prices of the Large Property Search Portals, we have moved our business to Local Search Engines in our area,who offer a more realistic pricing policy in this current climate. Our Listings are now on a new site Propertree.co.uk.(£20 a month!) I say good luck to the smaller local up and coming Search engines.

    • 18 January 2013 14:45 PM
  • icon

    Good to see Trev M posting as Trev M, then goes away studies for years, take difficult exams then qualifies as a professional and then has the right to put initials after his name, a badge of pride INEA! Or then again is it just a little paid for set of poor agents and the initials mean nowt? Tad embarrassing Trev.

    • 18 January 2013 14:22 PM
  • icon

    I can see Delia on the pitch at the next Norwich home game: "Where were you? WHERE WERE YOU?"

    Where were you when agents were asked to dip their hands in their pockets for a few hundred quid to really give it some momentum when RM were the only show in town?

    PL has had the Grim Reaper hovering over it for ages now, you must have realised that? Without a big wad behind it and us agents really buying in to it, the result was inevitable.

    If it was so well loved and had such potential according to what I originally mistook as a Dragons Den blog, why didn't anyone in the new 'Save Properly Live It’s Now Totally Amazing’ or SPLINTA for short (. . . .hmmm, where have I heard that name before?) do anything about it before? I never saw or heard anyone promoting it. I fact exactly the opposite.

    The horse was too lame to bolt when the door was left open folks, the vet put it out of its misery.

    • 18 January 2013 14:14 PM
  • icon

    EAT/LAT - We also request this:

    To EAT/LAT - can we please have a feature inviting agents to register their interest? This story has had 2k views, surely a good few agents who'd be happy to sign up.

    • 18 January 2013 13:35 PM
  • icon

    @Nick - I've emailed you too

    • 18 January 2013 13:33 PM
  • icon

    I agree with those commentators who report that they have never seen anything but negative comment from NAEA members on this site and elsewhere about PL over the years. With a very few exceptions, most expressed the opinion that it was ineffective, and could never be viable as a property selling tool due to its restrictive listings (ie NAEA only).

    As a listing tool, the proper vehicle to which we should be able to direct vendors to read reassurance about and underpin the benefits of using a NAEA/ARLA agent should be the NAEA/ARLA website, and it is THAT which should be revamped to perform that function, far more effectively than it currently does.

    Its quite touching how people are now romancing PL like it was some kind of golden goose that was the jewel in the crown of NFoPP's offering. I have honestly never had a single lead, or seen a PL logo anywhere outside a NFoPP publication ie in member agent's own advertising. If PL has died, the Powers That Be at Arbon House are taking the rap for turning off the life support machine, but almost every member - me included - is also guilty by neglect/indifference for allowing it to get to this point. A website lives or dies by its site traffic, which in PL's case relied heavily on us to promote it and include in our advertising.

    On a more positive note (sorry to throw a spoke into the wheels of the doom mongers), but did the original news release not say 'The Federation is exploring opportunities to distinguish properties available to buy or rent from its members on other portals'? To me that sounds like negotiations may be in place to work with the portal industry towards bringing an alternative, possibly more robust online presence, maybe with favorable rates/benefits to us members.

    So it doesn't sound like this is the end of the story....I look forward to reading the next chapter, NFoPP.....

    • 18 January 2013 13:06 PM
  • icon

    @ Nick - i've emailed you.

    To EAT/LAT - can we please have a feature inviting agents to register their interest? This story has had 2k views, surely a good few agents who'd be happy to sign up.

    • 18 January 2013 12:38 PM
  • icon

    I would be very pleased to hear from any firms that would be willing to consider a proposal to make Property Live a properly commercial enterprise owned by agent shareholders (to include NFOPP) - whether they are NAEA/ARLA members or not - and who are willing to subscribe for shares and to pay a monthly subscription. This would enable me to take the expressions of interest to NFOPP and explore the possibility of saving PL for the common good.

    If enough say 'yes' NFOPP might just listen.

    nicksalmon@splinta.co.uk

    • 18 January 2013 12:32 PM
  • icon

    It's a shame that the plug has been pulled as its like admitting defeat to rightmove and zoopla .

    The alternative now is for everyone to get behind emerging sites like property places and allagents.

    These are 2 portals that come to the market from different angles and so are the only viable alternative out there to compete.

    • 18 January 2013 12:10 PM
  • icon

    Experience including time spent in the USA tells me that at current UK fee levels and cost base- MLS is unlikely to be entertained by UK agents, as some of these comments suggest.

    @anonymous - agree with your comment whole heartedly - the debate here is about the complete waste of a £2 million investment and the future of PL which seems to have been completely written off.

    • 18 January 2013 12:06 PM
  • icon

    Hang on, it had been mentioned in a previous story that buyers had approached PropertyLive, please god don't be ZPG/RM!

    In all seriousness is it worth forming a group of agents willing to support PL, willing to drum up public awareness and recruit other agents?

    • 18 January 2013 12:05 PM
  • icon

    Primelocation was an initiative started by CLEA (see my post below). It came about as a result of the rise of the internet but the concept had immediate credibility because of the immense success of the London Magazine venture. Primelocation in its original form was 'by the agents, for the agents'.

    • 18 January 2013 11:52 AM
  • icon

    Can we get this discussion back on track? It is not about Trevor Mealham, it is about PropertyLive. it is not about multi-listing, but about what it would take for PropertyLive, or any successor, to take on the property portal big guns. Wasn't Primelocation set up by agents, for agents, and didn't they have strict rules about how their members couldn't list anywhere else? Seemed to work perfectly (until Primelocation sold out!)

    • 18 January 2013 11:42 AM
  • icon

    Trevor - out of interest, how many agents do you have on board at INEA at present?

    • 18 January 2013 11:38 AM
  • icon

    VENTED - PAUL

    I find you both quite comical. Almost ray Charles leading Stevie Wonder.

    You have no idea what it takes to run a portal, MLS or other models, you have no idea why the MLS on Dragons Den wouldnt work or even why a US MLS wouldnt work yet our UK one does.

    My model is totally different and its independent agent pro.

    Before making assumptions in the last few days I have emailed James respecting what he's tried to do and offered help. What have you guys done?

    I got involved with the Sept OFT doc in support of agents - did you?

    Its ignorance to whats happening to the industry - your non understanding of IT, and lack of respect that Im trying to help and that my 27 years in agency gives me a right too. My going to the States and actually understanding MLS and integrating what agents did 20 years ago helps too.

    Agents have a great opportunity to change the bleating and open their eyes to viable alternatives that would network agents and in doing so take back control.

    Comical if it wasnt that some people really need change where private landlords ads on sites like RM and zoopla are hitting your turn over.

    And INEA does work with EAT and we have paid to advertise in the past on here - have you?

    As to say MLS doesnt work - well sorry it does. And rather than whinging what have you ever done for the industry or can suggest and put money behind it to make things better for agents who do care and see value in working together?

    • 18 January 2013 11:23 AM
  • icon

    Sorry to be thick but what is "subbing" exactly?

    • 18 January 2013 11:05 AM
  • icon

    I couldn’t agree with Mr Evans more. Rightmove won the day with just the corporates alone backing it from the get go. Lazy independents jumped aboard as if it was the only way to sell property.
    Rightmove didn't have a '300 strong army' back then and the investment by the corporates was in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions that are pumped into it now.
    At one time the rightmove logo was more recognisable in the high street than Coca-Cola and like Ray says you can’t put a price on that sort brand awareness. Property live didn’t fail because of money. It failed because of the agents.

    • 18 January 2013 10:52 AM
  • icon

    @ Dear All

    Before continuing with the somewhat heated debate on the respective merits and challenges of running a competing property web site, perhaps we should all take a look at the fundamentals of operating a major property portal, in this case Rightmove.

    RM's full year 2011 key numbers are as below and show a highly profitable business. No surprises there.!!

    Turnover: £97m
    Operating profit: £69.4m
    Operating costs: £27.6m, incl. marketing, infrastructure and staff.
    Membership 18,299 (2012 H1, incl developers & overseas)
    Membership net 15,150 (excl. overseas and developers)
    Balance sheet shows property, plant & equipment asset value of £1.12m, just £61 cost per member.

    Predicted average revenue per agent increase for 2012 set at £80 per month.

    To operate Rightmove costs £27.6m per annum. In addition to an initial investment of circa £65-£100 per agent, the ongoing costs would be around £152 per month per member excluding developers and overseas members, or £126 per month if you include them.

    Declared profit per member stands at £3,793 p.a. = £316 pcm for each and every member, (ave).

    Therefore, should Propertylive be put on an equal cost and operating footing to that of RM and commercialised to such an extent that every user agent owns a stake in the business [including non NfoPP members] the cost to each member would be between £126-£152 per month in simple terms. It is worth noting that of the £27.6m cost base there are almost certainly significant cost reduction opportunities.

    Therefore in principle it is an affordable project to own and run a portal the size of RM. It would take a concrete ownership structure, perhaps a CIC or a Trust, Agents' commitment, sound management and the hiring of capable IT and marketing professionals.

    @whatever Trevor – you are quite correct – it would take £millions of investment to launch a competing site, but as the above numbers show the cost to agents would not break the bank.

    Ownership/membership would have to be open to all; i)to gain the critical mass of listings required to attract the viewing public, ii) dilution of costs iii) to aide/drive site promotion.

    The list of benefits is not exhaustive.

    Food for thought..!!

    PM

    • 18 January 2013 10:51 AM
  • icon

    I'll try to keep this short.

    Back in pre-internet days, when colour magazines were the advertising medium of choice in London, one of the publications tried to hike its page rate by an absurd amount. The result was the formation of CLEA Ltd and the creation of The London Magazine - owned by the member agents. It charged its owner agents a cost-price page rate, third parties and non-shareholders paid commercial rates - and was an overnight success.

    Most importantly it set the limit on how much third party companies could charge for advertising and within a short time the mag that had tried to charge so much had gone to the wall.

    In the recent past I have given NFOPP the basic information on how to make Property Live a similar bastion against the likes of RM and Zoopla overcharging us and I offered to expand on that information so that the portal would become a viable and profitable commercial enterprise that would be available to ALL agents. Sadly, NFOPP have chosen instead to close the portal.

    I believe that the NFOPP decision is not in the best interest of members, nor the wider industry. If Property Live is discarded it is inconceivable that such an opportunity to put a brake on the inexorable price rises of the major portals will come again. To throw it PL away just because the original model was flawed would be a tragedy.

    This is not about bashing RM or Zoopla. It is not about pulling off them in favout of PL - though that might come with time. It is about creating a credible alternative that, as the London Magazine did, sets the limit on how much a portal can charge.

    I urge the NFOPP to reconsider their decision and to engage with those of us who believe that the Property Live structure could relatively easily and relatively inexpensively be altered so that it becomes viable. It could quickly prove to be an invaluable asset to agents.

    • 18 January 2013 10:51 AM
  • icon

    To those who keep talking about the "£millions" of investments in RM. A main contributor was the totally FREE advertising given to it by the agents themselves.
    It was plastered everywhere - offices, agents adverts, property details - everywhere. Impossible to buy that kind of free publicity. PropertyLive failed to insist on it and failed.

    • 18 January 2013 10:34 AM
  • icon

    @JS has got it in a nutshell. But the majority of agents don't seem to be brave enough to try...

    • 18 January 2013 10:24 AM
  • icon

    The fact remains though that we (the agents) made Rigtmove and Zoopla what they are today, without us they're pretty much useless. Pulling all of our stock away from the money grabbing portals and putting them onto PropertyLive, along with our own sites, with links to PL can make it a successful site in a very short time.

    With fair pricing per branch to support the site and their marketing, no money grabbing desperation to please shareholders, i'd back it in a heart beat.

    Let's stop moaning and just do it.

    • 18 January 2013 10:11 AM
  • icon

    EAT

    Please can you give Trevor Mealham a dedicated page for advertising so he stops sending us all to sleep with him MLS crap. YAAAAWWWNNNNNNNNN

    He really reminds me of the idiot on Dragons Den who was bringing MLS over from the USA, none of them invested BTW.

    • 18 January 2013 10:02 AM
  • icon

    There is a stunning lack of reality being displayed here. There was never any chance that Propertylive would be able to compete with the 300-person army that Rightmove has or its millions of pounds of marketing. Companies like Rightmove and Zoopla that take significant risk and invest milons deserve to succeed and their investors deserve a return. Far too much bitterness here directed at Rightmove and Zoopla - why??? They provide a decent service at a good value and if they don't then nobody would advertise on them. Why be anti-portal? What about all the regional newspapers who have made huge profits off us for years or the elecrticity suppliers or our high street banks. Trevor - lets all band togehter and open a bank so we dont have to let HSBC make billions, start up a national chain of regional newspapers, etc. Get over yourselves my comrades and get over Propertylive which never went anywhere. Funny how nobaby cared about it until now. And even those who do care - why? It had no traffic and send 0.0000001% of the leads of Rightmove and Zoopla.

    • 18 January 2013 09:59 AM
  • icon

    It is a shame that the posts have got side-tracked into a debate with Trevor Mealham. The story is not about him but about PropertyLive and the reactions of NAEA members in Surrey. James Wyatt is a well-respected voice and his opinions count (or should count) for something. Question is do others agree with him? There was nothing wrong with the concept of PropertyLive, only its execution. Is it really too late to put that right?

    • 18 January 2013 09:58 AM
  • icon

    @ Trevor Mealham

    Trevor, I find you offensive and seem to be blinded by anger not someone I would want to do business with.

    I do read your posts but along with the others. Please don't self promote continually, provide long posts and offend everyone who says something if the disagree with you.

    I also got your email ranting about online agents but then asking for investors, a crude message and bad tool asking for investment. As another dragon would say "I'm out" how you can bleed about others having investors then ask for it is poor.

    Please stop!

    Anon

    • 18 January 2013 09:46 AM
  • icon

    Whatever T??

    The concept I suggest is 10% portal and 90% property sharing.

    It's a different beast. When you say - Ahhhh the good old days! - thats simply what were doing. Replicating good old fashioned subbing.

    INEA is built upon the old sub form that agents used in the 'good old days' - sorry to bore you, whoever you are?

    Why do people hide behind sudo names.

    • 18 January 2013 09:35 AM
  • icon

    @ Trevor M

    I strongly suspect that if China invaded Japan, you'd find a connection to Major Portals and blame them... Get over it, you're boring.

    Like so many others, you seem to believe that it's as simple as "all pulling together against the evil empire", but the point you all miss, and the reason that PL was never ever going to work, is that it takes millions and millions of pounds of investment and, more importantly, promotion to get anywhere near a position of taking on RM and Zoopla.

    This incessant sniping at the entities that deliver the majority of agents' business is distracting from the real issues of the day (the difficult market and how to grow market share in it), and extremely harmful to people dumb enough to buy into your rhetoric.

    Guess what... If neither RM or Zoopla existed, someone else would, or as an alternative, perhaps we'd all be spending stupid amounts of money on ineffective newspaper advertising still?

    Ahhhh the good old days!

    • 18 January 2013 08:56 AM
  • icon

    Ray - you are correct however, the root cause was a poor product in which members failed to believe.

    SEO was appalling. It was not innovative. It was 'Fisher Price - My First Portal'.

    Had they engaged members as stakeholders and used ideas it could have been immense. I for one had many suggestions involving data mining and social media interface but no forum in which to express them.

    • 18 January 2013 08:49 AM
  • icon

    So, it's official.

    The NAEA is run by complete, utter tosspots.

    I could have told you that seven years ago.

    • 18 January 2013 08:47 AM
  • icon

    Ray Evans

    Ray totally agree. The problem though is if nothing is done with the url, the value it does have will wither to nothing.

    Youve only got to look at finda and prime, both now will fade as the DPG push goes into zoopyzoo.

    Put a MLS back end behind PL and delay listing to zoopy and RM and deals would be done between agents.

    I'd happily help NFOPP members all I could and provide a silent MLS (property sharing backend) To create a mls takes years R&D and hefty funds. Weve done all that side. Put the INEA subbing functionality behind the PL front end and in 3 years agents would have a strong wild card to hit portals with.

    Large portals often have hungry demanding VC's behind them. They often have 3-5 year exit plans.

    MLS would also give you licencing - WHY? Because in every MLS culture, those who don't play ball get their feeds in and sub feeds out clicked off.

    If independent agents collaborate you'd have a 65% portal presence.

    A corporate may have 2-3 offices in a town. But if 7-8 agents in a town network its a strong vendor argument that locally your bigger than the local corporate presence.

    Why do you think the corporates created the biggest portal - so they could intranet their own offices and break the little guys up.

    MLS reunites the little guys and would break the big boys.

    • 18 January 2013 08:40 AM
  • icon

    INDUSTRY INSIDER -

    Scenario thats happening:

    Agent A's landlord serves notice. Tenants (of agent A) have no where to go. Agent B's tenants serve notice to leave a rental.

    Agent B multi-lists the property (PRE hitting the main portals).

    Agent A sends his tenants along to view. They like and put in application to rent. They move in as they leave A's rental.

    So in my scenario agent A has the applicants - Agent B the empty dwelling. Fast let and both agents make a comm. Only a major portal was harmed in the process.

    Don't forget most people searching on portals come from another agent.

    Today the software non interoperability problem isnt anymore. Agents subbed 20 years ago. When agents became software reliant. The softwares ra via the RM feed. The RM feed unlike in the US/Canada and parts of Spain allow data sharing from one software to another.

    The RM feed design STOPPED agents on different softwares from working together. £400k and building a UK MLS Ive learnt a lot about UK data feeds. I got into agency when paper based subbing was common. At INEA weve simply created a high tech platform that allows agent A on one software to send and share property data to agents B-C-D-E etc.

    We have agents doing deals simply this way before the main portals even get data.

    Give agents a 2 week main to sub agent share time and then release to main portals. Would totally screw them and their shareholders.

    • 18 January 2013 08:29 AM
  • icon

    My view......not conclusive.....

    The MAIN reason that PropertyLive failed was because member estate agents THEMSELVES did not advertise it. As a member over many years my own advertisements, website, details, letterheads, business cards etc. etc. carried the logo. I cannot recall ANY other member agent doing so - but they PUSH Rightmove to the extreme! If PropertyLive is reformed it should charge a small annual fee (£100-£200) payable on membership renewal and for it to be compulsory to show logo etc. on all stationery and window displays etc. etc.
    Consult the membership first and ask for more suggestions then decide if it is viable..

    • 18 January 2013 08:28 AM
  • icon

    After years of endless moaning about Rightmove and Zoopla calling the shots and charging a fortune to list, agents had the chance to do something about it and guess what.....they blew it !! All PropertyLive needed was a bit of thought and commercial management. 49% should have been owned by agents and 51% by an investor. That way you would have had listings and marketing budget. Couple that with a list first for 7 days on PropertyLive policy amongst agents and you potentially have the best portal in the UK within 3-5 years, a company with a multi million pound valuation and RM and Zoop on the back foot. Oh well you had your chance !! Laughable and predictable in equal measure.

    • 18 January 2013 08:18 AM
  • icon

    Come on Trevor, how could pre listing ever work. Clients could easily claim the agent was not doing everything they could to market the property. For Lettings even worse where a quick turn round is not just expected but demanded.

    • 18 January 2013 08:11 AM
  • icon

    Many of us saltworts have left NAEA over the years due to bad management and ideas. The NAEA need to encourage members back who have left like me who still hold high position and run succesful agencies instead of putting bits of paper in the way. Bring Back Trevor Kent

    • 18 January 2013 07:14 AM
  • icon

    Very good Points Mr Melham what you say makes perfect sence, after looking at INEA what you are trying to do is a fantastic idea good old fashioned subbing........Good Luck

    • 18 January 2013 07:01 AM
  • icon

    It's a shame as Chair(persons) like James Wyatt in Surrey put a lot of effort in. The £2m could have been spent on a better model to unite sales between members, But equally better strategy anti large portal strategy could have been played at no or low cost. ie

    If NFOPP agents had listed on PL 2 weeks ahead of RM or Zoopla and told Joe Buyer and Joe Tenant that PL released listings 2 weeks ahead, then Public UK search would have favoured PL

    If agents list elsewhere and leave RM and Z 10-14 days before listing there. The big guns would be in trouble.

    Google would also favour SEO of sites that first list. Agents could favour portals that offer better subscriptions for faster property content.

    Theres a dozen ways to upset the status quo. Get all members to secure 12-14 week contracts and retain the start of marketing in non share holder hungry for profit sites.

    • 18 January 2013 06:14 AM
Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit