An online estate agent is predicting a bumper year, with expansion in site, after claiming that it agreed sales on over 760 homes nationwide in 2012.
Hatched.co.uk, an NAEA member, says it saved sellers over £2m in fees.
It says that the properties it sold ranged geographically nationwide from Brighton and Truro to Newcastle and Lancaster, ranging in price from £62,000 to £1.6m.
The average fee charged was £543.
Hatched director Adam Day, pictured, said: “With the UK teetering on the brink of an unprecedented triple-dip recession, 2013 is the year when British house sellers will switch to using online estate agents.
“The facts are undeniable – we save our clients money and lots of it!
“For a typical £200,000 house, our lowest fee would be less than £480, compared to around £4,000 for a high street agent.
“Indeed, we sold one property in July 2012 that was on for £1.5m and charged the owner £480. The property had been listed previously with a high street agent who was unable to sell it and they wanted to charge the owners over £25,000.”
He said that Hatched, which Day founded in 2005 alongside James Venning and James Saunders, charges landlords a fully managed service from 6%.
Day also announced that Hatched is now in the process of opening offices around the UK to support its online presence.
Having launched offices last year in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham in June, July and October 2012, new offices are planned for Norwich, Newcastle, Reading and Chelmsford within the next few months.
Hatched describes itself as a ‘full service’ estate agent which personally visits every property that it puts on the market. Day said his ambition is for Hatched to become one of the leading estate agency brands in the UK.
.jpg)
Comments
First time I had any dealings with hatched was just recently as they were involved in a chain which we were also part of. Been doing the job 3years and I can safely say they were the worst agent I have ever dealt with. No chain details, no notes on sales progression, no idea at what stage the conveyance was at, no notes to say when they last spoke to the client. phoned 5 times to get through to somebody who could actually tell me they didn't know anything. The only reason I got for this poor service was that hatched cover a wider area than most local agents and they had someone off sick.. so that means one member of staff down and they cant offer a professional level of service or because they cover a wider area means they cant offer a professional service I wonder what their customers would think if they told them this before instruction. Spoke with the other solicitors and agents in the chain who all had the same opinion of hatched. I have no bias toward online agents but i certainly now have a disliking of hatched. awful awful awful
Just revisited this page and didn't realise PeeBee was wasting his time continuing to try make up an argument.
I really don't think I need to answer because anyone with half a brain will see that PeeBee's arguments are full of holes and he still doesn't directly answer the questions that I have posed in previous posts.
The silence from everyone else on this thread back in January after I mentioned independent stats seemed to say it all. However, there is always one who is in denial I suppose.
But, in case PeeBee comes back, I will answer:
PeeBee said: "So - you freely admit to being a one-trick pony, Sir. Thank you for that - saved me an awful lot of further cajoling to get it out of you. You see, that is your Achilles heel - and you have just stuck it straight out in the open without any gun being held to your head. You ONLY HAVE t'internet in your array of weaponry. Without it you are as much use to your Vendors and Landlords as a chocolate camshaft is to a Ferarri."
Erm, yes. We advertise on the internet and if we didn't, we wouldn't sell any houses. But we are on the internet. And we do sell houses. So what's your point? You really are looking a little bit silly here PeeBee. Where have I ever claimed to be anything other than an agent that relies on the internet to sell houses. And what's wrong with that, when we are sell more stock than the average estate agent, at 97% of asking price...?
PeeBee: "Tell me - your 'offices' - what is their purpose?":
Their purpose is to service clients more quickly. We have grown at a rate of 40% per year since 2010, so we need to be able to visit properties more quickly than we did previously. The guys in each of these offices are all experienced estate agents, as outlined on our website (which I think you picked up in a previous post). They don't, and won't, have shop windows (because shop windows don't sell houses). And yes, they do get paid commission, but not specifically on selling houses. We believe that paying estate agents commission solely on selling houses, means that the estate agents' greed could perhaps over, which would mean that the vendor receives advice that suits the negotiator rather than the vendor. We base the advice we give on it being the correct advice, not based on the fee we are going to earn out of it.
No, they are not 'Virtual offices'. Feel free to drop in and see either Martin, Philip, Mark or Ricky in one of the offices if you like.
PeeBee: "Again - NO facts to be seen in this statement, Mr Day. You state figures, percentages, that is all. You offer no PROOF that these figures are in fact, fact. The simple reason for that is YOU CANNOT. There IS NO proof. "Come on - admit it - the "facts" that you state are NOT "facts" at all - but simply figures collated and published by what you describe as an "independent source". Figures that you happen to like because they work for you until challenged."
Correct, these are figures collated and published by an independent source. I don't 'describe' them as an independent source. They are an independent source. These stats are from Hometrack - I can't believe that you are trying to dismiss them. They are the leading property analytics company in the UK. Hometrack sends a monthly request to hundreds, if not thousands, of estate agency managers every single month and they get a response from actual estate agents about actual figures from those actual estate agents. It's absolutely absurd to dismiss them like you do.
These figures and stats are the closest we will ever get to actual facts (that would require all agents to submit their own stats to someone, and we have seen from this thread that I am the only one prepared to disclose stats and figures)
I am quite within my rights to use these stats. And these stats say that high street agents sell properties for around 95% of asking price, whereas at Hatched, we sell properties at 97% of asking price. As I say it is completely absurd of you to dismiss them...
You really don't get it, do you. In fact, it's funny, because earlier in this thread, one of our clients had mentioned about a challenge where she was pitting us against a high street agent. And guess what? The house has just sold. We sold it.
The property was on with the leading independent agent in the town and after the owner sacked them, she went on with Haart. And we only went and sold the property when neither high street agent could. I'm not saying we're better. I'm saying that the chances of us finding a buyer are just as high as a high street agent finding a buyer.
You might also like to know that in January and February, we have grown by 60% compared to last year - I wonder how many other estate agents in the country can say that? Probably only the online estate agents...
I think that even if the good lord himself came down from the heavens and told you that high street agency had all but disappeared, you would argue with him, so I don't know why I bother.
Until the next time...
Hmmm... the silence from Mr Day is deafening - yet says everything!
'Super Al Estate Agent' - you've dropped out of the conversation also. Still "look like a bit of a d!ck", do I?
Maybe instead of having a pop at me, you could have directed a comment of your own at Mr Day?
People like him LOVE the spotlight: the attention they are given - even if its for all the wrong reasons. For total proof you only have to look at Mr Realising Reality.
I have no vast ego to massage here - that's why I remain anonymous.
Mr Day:
"We are an ONLINE estate agent. Say it PeeBee: Online Estate Agents. That means we rely on the internet to sell houses..."
So - you freely admit to being a one-trick pony, Sir. Thank you for that - saved me an awful lot of further cajoling to get it out of you.
You see,,, that is your Achilles heel - and you have just stuck it straight out in the open without any gun being held to your headf. You ONLY HAVE t'internet in your array of weaponry. Without it you are as much use to your Vendors and Landlords as a chocolate camshaft is to a Ferarri.
Traditional Estate Agents (which, by the way, I am pleased to have rejoined their numbers a mere three weeks ago after a break of nearly five years in an associated industry - so asking me for my stats is a bit pointless...but I'll let you off as you probably only visit this site when your name is mentioned and therefore don't even read the majority of REAL stories that affect the property industry...) spend TENS OF MILLIONS every year on branches; staff; press advertising - AND internet advertising both with their own sites and the portals.
These things need paying for - as will your new 'offices', of course - but these branches will perform a service to owners, buyers and tenants alike in that they are open long hours, most days of the week.
Tell me - your 'offices' - what is their purpose? Are they:
* "Shop Windows" that will serve to promote your clients' properties?
* Will you have a team of negotiators present in them? One lone neg, even? You know - someone for the Lister to rush back to tell about the latest new instruction - to fire him/her/them up to make those all-important viewings that lead to the sales you say you 'agree'
* Will those negs be paid a commission based upon percentage of fee earned? LOL - sorry - couldn't resist the last one - I don't expect an answer to THAT so don't waste your time thinking up one...
... or will they all be VIRTUAL offices like the ones you currently have - serviced units with a receptionist and a rent-a-room by the minute. Class. I hope your paying customers are happy with what they are getting. More's to the point, I have little doubt that you and your online bretheren were the loudest voices speaking out against the parody of Estate Agency that is "The London Office". Irony is such sweet humour, I believe...
"What about addressing the rest of the post, and the fact that agents only sell properties at less than 95% of asking price and ultimately COSTING high street clients money compared to us..."
FACT? Or simply a set of figures from various sources you cobble together as justification of your 'argument'? You see, Sir, 'statistics' are fast becoming the industry version of the grey squirrel - they are all over the place; no-one actually likes them; the nation would be a far better and happier place without them; but there are some that believe that they serve a purpose and feed them in the hope they don't steal your nuts.
"What about addressing the rest of the post, and the fact that agents only sell properties at less than 95% of asking price and ultimately COSTING high street clients money compared to us..."
Again - NO facts to be seen in this statement, Mr Day. You state figures, percentages, that is all. You offer no PROOF that these figures are in fact, fact. The simple reason for that is YOU CANNOT. There IS NO proof.
Come on - admit it - the "facts" that you state are NOT "facts" at all - but simply figures collated and published by what you describe as an "independent source". Figures that you happen to like because they work for you until challenged.
There are many such "independent sources" for you to choose from - I wonder already which source will it be next time you have a press release published on EAT, promoting your next visit to the site wielding your ickle, splintered stirring stick?
I, for one, can't wait to see the answer...
I've been rooting for Pee bee since he started, but I gotta say mate, that fella from Hatched has absolutely made you look like a bit of a dick to be honest
Sorry. It just had to be said
PeeBee
So you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post and suggested a completely ridiculous and pointless argument - about whether we can sell a house without the internet.
Why on earth would that even be a suggestion? We are an ONLINE estate agent. Say it PeeBee: Online Estate Agents. That means we rely on the internet to sell houses, but we SAVE our customers money because we don't waste money on (pretending to) phone out our property details to 'active buyers on the mailing list'. Do I have to continually repeat the concept...??
You're making yourself look a bit foolish here PeeBee.
What about addressing the rest of the post, and the fact that agents only sell properties at less than 95% of asking price and ultimately COSTING high street clients money compared to us...
And what about telling us about some of your own facts and figures so we can truly compare. You are, after all, anonymous on this thread?
I guess I'll probably get another answer that dodges the evidence produced, or picks something up on our website, or some snidy little snipe from you...
Mr Day:
"Admittance that the internet is the main source of buyers I think here, thank you."
I admitted NOTHING, Sir. I simply pointed out that you wish to go "head to head" with an Agent strictly on YOUR terms, which would be to disallow them access to ONE OF THE most useful tools in an Estate Agent's armoury.
So... here's my counter-suggestion to you, Sir.
You and another Agent take on the same property - BOTH OF YOU are disallowed from using the internet in any way, shape or form to display the property - and let us see who the victor will be.
Wanna play now?
Thank you Pee Bee. I thought you'd gone silent on us. Posting after midnight?! You must work too hard...
As you have said: Mr Day's gracious offer to go into battle with any Agent strictly on the basis that he gets to use a bazooka and the Agent gets a bubble wand? Tell you what - if an Agent has a strong applicant base (which they should...) and actually PICKS UP THE PHONE TO THEM (which they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be doing...), then I would put my money on the proactive SELLING Agent - not the reactive fee-collector - sealing the deal.
Admittance that the internet is the main source of buyers I think here, thank you.
And you're right, high street agents SHOULD have a strong applicant base and they SHOULD pick up the phone, but they DON'T. That is my point.
Again, it comes back to VALUE FOR MONEY. If customers thought that the agent they were going to use were phoning their property out as well as advertising it on the internet, the newspaper, etc, etc, then they would pay more for it. But the vast majority of agents DO NOT do this. I can think of 1 agent in our home town that does this regularly. There are 10 agents here, so using my town, that is just 10% of agents 'phoning out'.
In any case, it is absolute BS that by phoning a few buyers you would get £5k more. It just doesn't happen.
The fact remains that (many) agents are under pressure to HAVE to sell houses, so they will pressurise their client into accepting an offer that they don't want to accept because they are going to earn £4k out of it. Let me back this up...
We sold properties at an average of exactly 97% of the asking price in 2012.
See this chart here - http://www.hometrack.co.uk/our-insight/interactive-analysis/percentage-asking-price-achieved-over-time-by-region. This is gathered by an INDEPENDENT data source that collects data from YOU estate agents, which suggests that the price achieved is under 95% at the end of 2012 (i'm being very generous here, as national average is much lower according to this chart. We cover the whole country so we should be talking about the national average, not the London average, but I am happy to be generous to you)
You estate agents yourselves answer this survey on a monthly basis, so you can't dismiss it
So, on an average £200,000 house, we will achieve at least 2% more as a sale price, that's £4,000. We will then SAVE the customer a further £3,500 ish.
Whereas on the high street, you will COST the owner £2,000 because you are so desperate for your fee that you have to bully the owner into accepting an offer that isn't quite right for them. AND you will take a handsome £3,600 ish (1.6%+VAT, based on figures from the OFT Home Selling & Buying guide in 2010). Therefore it is you, the high street agent, that is costing the customer.
A £200,000 house:
Through Hatched
Average sale agreed price = £194,000
Average Fee = £543
Owner walks away with £193,457
Through an average high street agent
Average sale agreed price = £190,000 (at 95% - again, I am being very generous here)
Average Fee = £3648
Owner walks away with £186,352
The COST to using a high street agent = £7,105
The SAVING through Hatched is still the difference in the fees. But it is the high street agent who is COSTING the customer money, not online agents like us.
I back up pretty much every single figure I ever go on about. But I NEVER EVER see figures from you high street agents that continuously try and cane me and our model.
Man up and reveal your (honest) figures...
Percentage of properties sold
Fall through rate
Viewings per sale
Percentage of asking price achieved
Time to sell
Only then would we be able to compare and see who offers the best VALUE FOR MONEY service. But based on facts I that I have found on the internet that come from YOU ESTATE AGENTS, we win hands down on most (I think high street agent will win on 'Time to Sell', but what's an extra couple of weeks when you're talking a difference of £7k...
Lastly, I must point out something Quagmire said "If you want to be up to date with properties as they hit the market or in some case's before they hit the market then register with an agent. If not, carry on clicking". So by selling the property to someone 'before they hit the market', is that acting in the best interests of the client, by exposing it to the whole the market and therefore achieving the best price possible?
No, it's absolutely not...
Happy Chappy - of course you are correct - I meant to type £415k, but transposed the 1 and 4 and missed the error Sorry... but in my defence it was nearly midnight...
The fact remains, fourteen staff with three thousand years of experience between them, apparently, several 'offices' to service and a website to maintain just in case anyone cares to go on it to check out the horrifying inaccuracies are not cheap and most companies would see such a turnover as mediocre for an office selling even a quarter of the properties.
As to the 'head to head' you talk about, HC, are you relating to this 'SonofSam' blog malarkey - or Mr Day's gracious offer to go into battle with any Agent strictly on the basis that he gets to use a bazooka and the Agent gets a bubble wand? Tell you what - if an Agent has a strong applicant base (which they should...) and actually PICKS UP THE PHONE TO THEM (which they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be doing...), then I would put my money on the proactive SELLING Agent - not the reactive fee-collector - sealing the deal. And I would also expect that Agent to negotiate a higher sale price than some outfit which 'wins' regardless how much the person paying them loses...
Which brings me on to Mr Day's post.
"THAT IS A SAVING"
Yes, Mr Day, it is. Just like killing all lions would be a way to saving the zebras.
Your vendors 'save' on the fee that a regular Agent would charge them if they sold the property. But if that regular Agent had negotiated a £5k higher sale price for that vendor, then the saving would become a COST, would it not?
"If the owners weren't happy with the figures we sold them for, they wouldn't accept the offer. If a high street agent had got them the same offer that we had, they would have accepted the offer through them as well."
Really? Would not the vendors expect the Agent to pay for themselves by achieving a higher figure?
Much of what I see as the online Agent's "USP" is that, because they charge buttons, the vendor can afford to let the property sell a bit cheaper, thereby undercutting the prices asked by High Street Agents... which makes a total mockery of the USP in itself. It is not a benefit - it has no gain.
Would you care to state what percentage of the 760-odd sales you 'agreed' last year were multi-listed with regular High-Street Agents?
And you still haven't clarified how many of the "sales agreed" actually went through to legal completion, by the way...
Mr Day - it is a pity that you need a competitor to highlight glaring inaccuracies on your website for you. Call it a favour - but I assure you it is the only one you will get from me and if we go 'head to head' as Happy Chappy so succinctly puts it - then you WILL lose.
Trust me - I'm an Estate Agent!
Quagmire
Vendors are taking a punt with any agent as Sam has found.
There isn't eaxctly a league table or perfromance is there.
Without this how can one agent justify charging more than another for the same service. In the examples below it would appear hatched performed equally or better than the traditional agent. If I was Sam i would have reduced the price and left it with Hatched as the sole agent.
Most house sales are generated by the internet
As for your advice....Do you know the average time it takes to sell a property at the moment, they are not exactl flying off the shelves....I think i will be ok thanks.
Of course clients see it as 'taking a punt'. It's still unchartered territory for most sellers and it's not a 'commonplace' way of selling your house (yet), so for them, they are 'taking a punt'. I'm not 'admitting' anything by saying that!
I personally don't think they're taking a punt, because I know how successful we are at selling houses.
Funny really, the original story mentions a property that was on with a high street agent who couldn't sell the property at 1.5m, whereas we did. This wasn't a 'two bob' estate agency that was trying to sell the property. This was an internationally renound 'high-end' estate agent. So what were they doing? They certainly weren't able to facilitate a sale by using the 'traditional' estate agency methods (or the internet) and they didn't achieve any more than we did in terms of price. In fact, they didn't get a single offer on the property, whereas we did within about 4 weeks.
If i'm being honest, we got lucky. The buyer clicked on our advert and not the other agents advert. Lucky for the seller also - he saved £25k
Another example. We had a property on the market for £150k and we couldn't sell it. The owner put the property on the market with a high street agent and they sold it - well done high street agents - 'one all'.
It was only when we double checked that we found out that the owner had reduced the asking price to £140k, without telling us. I wonder why they sold it and we couldn't? Perhaps not 'one all' after all...
There will be many examples for us and for high street agents to trump each other. But no one can deny that the vast majority of buyers nowadays come from Rightmove & Zoopla. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't have a conversion rate that we do, would we?
As you say, you do both. Great. But the key point here is that potential clients are wondering if those extra things you do (mailing lists, shops, newspaper ads, luxury company cars) are worth another £3k, £4k, £5k and more?
This is the key component that I have mentioned time and again on these threads. It is VALUE FOR MONEY that customers of any product or service are looking for. You can charge more if you offer more, but there is always a limit.
If you high street agents all charged a flat fee of a £1000, say, you would put us out of business. Because customers would decide that for that extra £600, it's worth paying that extra for the extra tools at your disposal.
But that's your problem. You don't offer the value for money compared to agents like us, so they will choose to go with us when they realise that they get 95% of what's required to sell a house, but for only 15% of the average high street agency fee.
Nice of you to admit that your clients are 'taking a punt' when instructing Hatched. That's exactly the point I was trying to make.
I'm sure you would like to go up against an agent with no internet marketing and that's the problem for you. We do both. BTW I spose if you want 20 properties in my area I have to get them for you? I shall forward you the vendors numbers.
Happy chappy, Good luck with the house hunting. If you want to be up to date with properties as they hit the market or in some case's before they hit the market then register with an agent. If not, carry on clicking.
Adam - I doubt he could get 20 people to agree to instructions without advertising on the portals.
Quagmire, that is not a fact we try to swerve. That's fair play. If you sell the property that way, then you deserve your fee.
But our clients are happy to 'take a punt' on the fact that the buyer will find their property on one of the portals and pay the price that they want. If the buyer pays the price the vendor wants, then they accept an offer and SAVE money compared to the same result on the high street. If they don't, then they go to a high street agent and see if your methods work - that's why you charge higher fees right?
If you're that confident, why don't you take us up on the challenge in an earlier post?
Let's put the rules in place:
You market 20 properties without any advertising on the internet whatsoever. And we will market the same 20 properties using the internet - see who sells the most and who gets the best price for the client.
I'm not a betting man, but on this occassion, I would be willing to bet £120 (that's half of our lowest completion fee) that of the ones that sell through either of us, we would sell at least 80% of them
On another note, Pee Bee, we have updated our website for you, so it now states that we have over 100 years estate agency experience and the £6m saving is consistent throughout the site. Thanks again.
Quagmire
Yes if i enquire on one property and dont make an offer the EA will offer to show me round me lots of others on his books....and you know what it really irritates me....I can see what other properties he has at the click of a mouse and if i thought they intersted me i would ask.
This has zero bearing on the value of an offer as the head to head case proves.
Here is the fact that people like Mr Day would rather swerve. Few people end up buying the property they first inquire about and with just one property on with Hatched in my town that leaves nothing to bounce a viewer into.
Not very effective marketing if you ask me. The difference between us and them is simple. People come to us to look for property. People might go to hatched if they, by chance have seen one on the internet. With such a small amount of applicants at their disposal I find it difficult to believe they are able to achieve the same level of asking prices as a traditional agent. Save money on fee’s? Cost clients tens of thousands of pounds is probably more the case.
Thank you Happy Chappy.
I can't believe that someone can question whether we have saved people money.
We agreed sales on over 760 properties in 2012. If those properties had been sold through a high street agent, that would have amounted to 1.6%+VAT of the sale price, via an average high street agent (as mentioned earlier, please see the OFT report for Home Buying & Selling in 2010 for references to this figure). As the story states, we only charged £543 in total for each of those sales
THAT IS A SAVING
If the owners weren't happy with the figures we sold them for, they wouldn't accept the offer. If a high street agent had got them the same offer that we had, they would have accepted the offer through them as well. It's a ridiculous argument.
Thank you for pointing out the diescrepancies on the site Pee Bee. We will get them rectified as soon as possible - by the end of the weekend.
This particular website is now 4 years old and when we had it designed, there were only 6 of us and 1 office. There are now 14 of us and 5 offices - sometimes it's hard to keep up with the growth!
I can detail every member of staff if you wish:
I have 16 years experience (9 as a high street)
James has 15 years (8 as a high street)
James (a different one) has 13 years (6 as a high street)
Alanna has 15 years (10 years on the high street)
Lisa has 10 years (6 on the high street - she is currently on maternity)
Duncan has 7 years (4 as a high street)
Olivia has 3 years (2 as a high street)
Joseph has 4 years (0 as a high street, but training to be a surveyor so he's not a dumb arse)
Sian has 2 years (we took her on as part of the apprenticeships scheme for letting agents)
Martin has 6 years (6as a manager on the high street)
Phil has 3 years (3 as a manager on the high street and has undertaken a managment training course with one of the largest estate agency groups in the UK)
Ricky has 4 years (all 4 as a manager on the high street)
Mark has 25 years (25 as a manager on the high street)
I make that 83 years on the high street
And 40 years combined with us, which is still 'estate agency'
Like I say, we will be sure to update the website to reflect the true experience of us all, which, if my maths is correct, is over 120 years. You might like to know that we are revamping the website completely, which will be launched around Spring 2013 time.
What else would you like to know - their salaries, their qualifications, what their future plans are?
And where on earth did you get a figure of £145k? Very strange...
Peebee - Come on you have to admit he has saved them money on fees....because it is fact. Of course you are quite right no one can prove who could command a higher price so the argument is irrelevant.
760 sales in 2012 @ £543 = £ 412680 revenue
Where do you get the 145K from????
Your views on the head to head would be interesting.
Mr Day. Please state how you can possibly claim to have SAVED your customers more than two million pounds - when you cannot substantiate in the slightest that your achieved prices for the seven-hundred-and-sixty-odd homes you claim to have "agreed sales" on during 2012 were the same or higher than your High-Street counterpart may have been able to achieve.
And further to that claim - please confirm how many of those "sales agreed" actually exchanged Contracts?
AND... leading on from that and still on the subject of claims... your website boasts "Unlike some other on-line companies, everyone at Hatched had previously worked in the estate agency business. And with over 35 years of estate agency experience between them, they have the skills and expertise to handle any situation that may arise when buying, selling, or letting a property" Sounds like a chunk of years under their belts, Sir... UNTIL you have a head-count of the staff in the same section - FOURTEEN, in total... equating to TWO AND A HALF YEARS of "experience" per person! Whoopee flippin' doo... my Admin has twice that and she's not even let loose on the public!
And as far as the above claim goes - "...everyone at Hatched had previously worked in the estate agency business...", what about 'Joseph' - who your blurb describes as "...a "newbie" to estate agency"? Or 'Chelsea'? 'Sian'? 'Lauren'? You don't expand on their "previous experience" on your site... presumably because they have none whatsoever? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, of course...
Your claims on your website are all over the place, Sir - allow me to show you how sloppy your presentation is with these examples:
"We have sold over 1000 houses all over England & Wales since we opened in 2006 and have saved customers over £3,000,000** in estate agency fees."
"We have over 50 years estate agency experience..."
"Our average customer saves around £3,500"
You really can't retell the same porky - sorry, I meant STORY - twice...can you?
Incidentally... you wouldn't like to tell us all how you have managed to run your business, and pay your fourteen staff on 'sale' fees that you admit to being in the region of £145k, would you?
If nowt else, based on that alone you've pulled off a stunt reminiscent of the old 'loaves and fishes' trick and I take off my hat to you, Sir...
As usual, thank you for all the comments - interesting as always.
To address some of the comments. We have saved customers over £2m in 2012 based on an average estate agency fee of 1.6%+VAT. This is referenced throughout the OFT Home Buying & Selling Report in February 2010 - you high street estate agents answered these questions and this is the figure that has come from the report.
What high street agents keep failing to add is VAT. Although VAT is not money in your pocket, it is definitely money out of the clients pocket, so has to be included in any saving. So, please stop continuing to quote a figure of 2% - that is NOT what we are basing our sums on.
I find Trevor Mealham's comments extraordinary. What he is basically saying is that if agents work together, they will get a better price for the vendor. Really??!! In this day and age? I agree that this may have been the case 15 years ago before the internet, but surely, anyone with half a brain understands that to sell anything, you need the best coverage and achieve the best price. 15 years ago, that could have meant agents sharing details and buyers
Nowadays, that means getting your house on Rightmove (or Zoopla).
Are you saying that if you had a property on in your network, but with NO advertising on any of the property portals that you would sell that house for more than we would, if we exposed it to the whole market on Rightmove & Zoopla? I doubt you would even get a viewing on it, let alone an offer.
This has sort of been proven with Sam's contribution (Thank you Sam). Of course, we have not sold the property either, but one thing it has proven, is that a high street agent can't magic a buyer from nowehere. Now Sam has dropped the price, I dare say it will sell. And I dare say that it will be down to a matter of luck as to which advert the buyer clicks on, on Rightmove or Zoopla.
Again, if Sam decided (and I wouldn't dare to sway her either way - it is her house and she can do as she pleases), to allow us to advertise the house on Rightmove & Zoopla and the high street agent to ONLY advertise it in their window and to their mailing list, then this would be a 'true test'
If the high street agent sold it, then they are worth every penny of their fee because they do have a high street office to run, they do have a newspaper advert to pay for and they do of course have luxury company cars to take their viewers to the appointments to pay for. Hats off, fair play. We can't compete with that.
But again, I dare say that the person who buys Sam's house will be looking online.
We'll see though. And by the way, we would be happy to take any agent on, on those terms; we advertise the property on the property portals and the high street agent advertises it WITHOUT the portals - and see who sells the property first. My guess is that we would sell 95% of the properties that did get sold...Anyone dare to disagree with this?
But anyway...
The reason for opening offices is quite simply because we believe this is the way estate agency will go. We think that the future will be a hybrid between high street and online, with high street agencies moving to 'solicitor type' offices, but offering a menu of fees.
A fee to value
A fee to list
A fee to do viewings
A fee to go in the paper
A fee on completion
Now wouldn't that be fairer on everyone? Agents get paid for the work that they do. And customers pay for the work that is done.
In fact, I think we could be onto something here - perhaps we should try and convince Tesco, Virgin, Dyson, Shell, all the plumbers and builders, all the electricians and inventory clerks, and all the solicitors and accountants to adopt a model where the customer pays for the work, product or service that is provided. Oh, hang on minute...
By the way, Adrian Wood & Lindsey S are both former clients of ours. And I'm confident they will ALWAYS be clients of ours.
How many agents can be confident that the person they sold for last week will come back to them, when the customer realises that all you did for them, was exactly what we would have done for them, for £3,500?
Hatched are opening offices not high street branches.
Office space is much cheaper than prime high street commercial property. Any non traditional low fee model is commonly reffered to as an online agency by traditional agents. Presumambly in an attempt to make it look inferior which from the example below we can see is clearly not the case
Why is an online agent "openning offices" if online works then?
So what exactly has the traditional EA done for our damsel Sam? Overvalue, stuck it on Rightmove and hoped for a buyer to come along = under performed and wasted time. Then tried to smarm, bully and coherse the instruction back.
If they had managed to hit lucky with a buyer via the power of the portals. I am sure they would be claiming they had earnt every penny of the commision.
Perhaps she should write a review on Allagents?
Another update from Sam.
http://www.whatsamsawtoday.com/2013/01/09/i-will-sell-your-house-said-the-estate-agent-fnar/
Well what do you know it was overvalued. I bet the agents she canned will be saying Sam was a difficult customer....this is normally what i hear when I ask why an agent lost a client.
Sam - Did not put this link which is an update on the battle.
http://www.whatsamsawtoday.com/2013/01/07/how-do-you-sell-a-house/
It seems the property has been on sale for three months, and not sold.
So what have we learnt here?
That a traditional agent and online agent are not able to put there finger on why a property hasnt had an offer in 3 months, but the feedback has been better from the on- line agent. (they handle viewings too Trevor).
Another property nearby has sold in three weeks (claims the agent) I suggest Sam tries to find out what price it sold for, not what price it was marketed at (try the portals) Then compare this to what she has hers on at my bety thers is at least £12K difference.
To me all this shows is that property is unnaffordable to first time buyers, if she drops the price a BTL investor will gleefully swoop it up! but what will her return be?.
I have sold two houses through Adam Day. One when he worked for a high street agent and one through Hatched. The experience was very similar, both valued correctly, both sold, both had hitchs that were dealt with swiftly and professionally, both good customer service. The difference in price was over £2,000. Surely it is a no-brainer as a consumer. I am unlikely to back to the high street.
PS that bum chin doesn't look quite as bad in the flesh.
Sam - Well done, i will watch with interest, which valuation did go with?
It's an interesting debate and one I am testing LIVE now. Yes, I have my property for sale with BOTH a High St Estate agent and Hatched because I wanted to test this out.
You can read all about the test and how things are going at my blog whatsawsawtoday dot com
otherwise this link will take you through to start of story..
http://www.whatsamsawtoday.com/2012/09/12/battle-of-the-estate-agents-online-vs-high-street/
Ill have to put aside the fact I called him a bum faced, no tie wearing mono browed whatever it was last time, in fairness it was very immature of me so Adam I apologise, im sure you do wear ties sometimes.
Anyway, good for him, why shouldn’t he have big plans and a vision to take his business to the very top of the EA world? He’s obviously making a few quid, someone below reckoned it was around £400k a year but I think last time Adam was challenged on his figures they weren’t all that clear and it all got a bit mudddled so probably best we don’t go there again
He’s perfectly entitled to do a bit of cock wafting and we will all be able to see how he does once he’s done it so go for it mate and good luck. The consumer has a choice and no one is entitled to a living.
Jonnie
I consider my business to be better than anyone elses.
I believe I have at least one USP.
I can produce some figures which make it look like I'm doing quite well and have happy customers.
Presumably I now qualify for a free advertorial on EAT.
So the article about funding for lending gets no comments and the one about the self promotion of a man with balls for a chin and an excuse for that illiterate douche bag Happy Chappy to start typing gets all the attention. Strange.
Don't be a div Trev, just because you use your 'real' name doesn't make your point any more valid. Sure you've paid your dues but respect is still earned fella and trust me, arrogance is not a good look.
You don't like 'budget' agents, we get it but your spin is comical dude. No doubt you'll go down swinging but when we tune out all your bitching and moaning, all your swagger and shock & awe marketing strategy we still have, say it with me Trev - 'Online agents that save clients money'.
They're here big man and you shouldn't need my real name to see that. Look Pops, agency is shifting and creating new ways for business, likewise vendors have choice and lots of them are choosing the online agents....
I will be honest as well Tervor, you aren't exactly presenting your company in its best light, but you dont miss an opportunity to shamlessly self promote your business.
I don't know if you have specific areas where your business model works and where it doesn't but thought Id have a quick pop on and search my area.
The only agent with sales listings is an online agent.
And the on the lettings side, the only listings are from a well known online letting agent.
@HD
on the contrary i am saying that somebody who is more worried about a small sum of money is more likely to get the large sum of money wrong and therefore offer an unintentional bargain
business models again reinforce this: one relies on turning over properties with as little intervention as possible (time is money, people) whereas the other relies upon maximising the asset value to the greatest possible extent (takes, er, time and costs, er, money)
a vendor choosing the first model is more likely to offer a bargain than a vendor who chooses the second model, so as a buyer i'd be all over the online agents knowing that they'd be unlikely to actually be working in the interests of the vendor (at least in the conventional agency sense)
Trevor - I have no personal axe to grid with you but your example is a complete work of fiction.
"Greater number of people through generate more offers" What door the EA office door or vendor door, higher offers or lower offers? The vendor wants offers from proceedable buyers not tyre kickers
"Get 2 or three people biding" What have i missed a housing market boom where gazumping is common.
Do you realise you basically just admit that INEA is a price fixing club?
Valid comments are valid comments regardless of who makes them. If said my name was John Smith I had been an EA for 20 years would it make any difference to you.
Hmmmmm
If Im reading your post correctly, you seem to assume that because a vendor uses an online agent and spends a few hundred quid on marketing, that the cost they would have saved using a more expensive agent would be passed onto the buyer.
It's totally the other end of the spectrum in my experience, the vendors/Landlords that want dirt cheap fees, are normally the people that want a top level service to boot, put their house on at an over inflated price and quite frankly end up being a pain in an arse.
Quite frankly, im glad that the online agent exists for this type of vendor/landlord.
Booted off the INEA ..what will they do now..get real, your INEA is a load of tosh.
If I'm buying a property I want to buy it from a vendor who is focused on spending less than £1000 selling it.
Look at it this way: there are two piles of money, one is tiny, the other is massive. The vendor with his eyes on the tiny pile is far, far more likely to offer me a bargain on the massive pile of money than the vendor using an agent who will only be concerned with the massive pile of money. So who should I buy from? Obviously, the vendor who is happy with the tiny pile of money they have saved, and not particularly bothered about the collossal pile of money.
So to the anonymous poster who thinks it's all about spending less than £1000 - I would like to buy from people like you.
There is nothing to complain about here, these online agents are saving time and hassle spent on vendors who fundamentally misunderstand what the sale of their major asset is all about, which is *the collossal pile of money* and not the pin money they're obssessing over. Simples.
BOOTED OFF FROM INEA
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.
SELL ON SERVICE NOT BUDGET FEES
Happy Chappy - please use your real name rather than hiding behind sudo names. Valid comments are best made when the comment maker isn't hiding and shows who they are. What is you agency background and experience?
Happy Chappy
Greater exposure via sub agents costs more money
Greater numbers of people through the door encourages more offers. get 2-3 people bidding = higher offers. Higher offer is good for the clients as they achieve more.
Hse FS £230k - online agent only has portals and gets £210
Main agent with 5-6 sub agents gets £210, but also 2 other offerers which ends at top bid £225k
Budget agent £295 - sole 1% £2,250+VAT
via subbing 1.5% £3375+VAT
The subbing and more bods through the door is the lever to higher bids. My calc says that budget agent has just cost the seller £15k ish. Result Budget agents can cost sellers more than they can save them.
They can't be as good. I have never seen them win any awards
HD - Yes the head to head comparison is good.
I wonder if online agents have similar stories :0)
Anyway, perhaps could get your clients to give you a testamonial on here great advertising wouldn't you agree.
Note: At no point have i claimed any agent is better than another. I have only said that it is fact that Online agents can save you money on fees. Claims on performance are almost impossible to prove.
Slappy loves these stories to spout!
Paul , What makes your knowledge more sound, and how can you prove it is more accurate than a) an On line agents b) any of your competitors c) me
Only your achieved price to valuation ratio will show how accurate you are and since no agent publically publishes this and no one verifies the stats, anyone can claim to give the most accurate valuations even me.
Trevor, your trunover went up 41% how does this have any relavance to saving clients money......maybe you sold more properties at lower price, maybe you put your fees up 41%, maybe you sold one multi million pound property This and your muliple offer sheets do not prove you will secure a higher price for a property than an on line agent your arguments are opinion based nothing more.
p.s what difference does it make who i am 99% of posters on here are anon.
Jay and your point is what?
Ray Evans, you make a great point i fully agree
I've just read this article after seeing a colleague reading a retweet with it on. Seriously.... is it really justifiable to spend £1000s on someone to sell a house? What are you actually doing with my money!? I want to sell my house, but if I'm going to be paying anything more than £1000 to do it, there's little or no point because I won't be able to afford to move anywhere else. I'm still waiting for a realistic solution to this problem, and as far as I can remember, estate agents aren't miracle workers, no matter how amazing they might think they are.
As for achieving top price by paying a top quality firm more - utter rubbish, it's only worth what the person buying and/or the bank thinks it's worth.
Happy Chappy
I have dug out some facts here.
In past two years, we went head to head with an online agent on 3 different properties (none of them Hatched to be fair).
1 didn't sell as seller was a bit of a messer.
1 Sold, online agent didn't have an offer.
1 Sold, looking at notes, vendor told us best offer they had was £13k below what we sold it for. So even after our fee of just over £3000, vendor was much better off.
Of courses, there are still if's and buts that can be pointed at my figures, but my figures dont lie.
And really for me the 2m saved claim to me, can only be justified by a head to head claim like mine.
Its the same as all web businesses. They feed off shops/ agents who provide a service. This costs money.
When the internet finally kills off the high st then it will be a strange place.
The govt, should be taxing internet businesses the same % as we pay in rent.
Also when is trading standards going to smack agency express for blatently lying in their blurb about how quickly they sell houses?
Give these rip off online agents some costs.
All click on their advert on google.
HAPPY CHAPPY - Why Hide behind a name.
I had my own estate agencies and took 4 out of 5 listings on via the upsell to sub out. FACT my turnover went up 41% by subbing where others sold my listings and we theirs.
My training into estate agency was via two surveyor/estate agency and lettings agencies from 1986-1990 who operated the same way.
I had my agencies over 15 years and worked with 18 other local independents. How many files with multiple offer sheets do you wish to see.
Fact is more agents marketing puts a clients property in front of more bidders = a buyer in a better position than another, greater ability to get higher fees etc.
My comments are based on facts and selling on service, winning instructions on higher fees and the want for the best agency I and sub agents could provide clients.
It's not a franchise. The offices are company owned by the looks of things.
They been going for 7/8 years, so they can't be doing too bad
I'm a high street agent and I despise models like this, but with them having got through the last 7 years, I'm starting to think that there is some mileage in this sort of model
Read the blog on the site and all the stats are up there with my stats for 2012, and many other high street agents that i know - assuming they are truthful stats that is!
760 sales at £543 a time.................is that £412,680 a year?
Doesnt feel like much more than a slightly above average single high street office would invoice in a year
Unless im wrong on the numbers?
Obviously a franchise but unlikely to survive when the franchisees realise they can't make any money from it. Crazy business concept!
The residential property industry is tearing itself apart with the argument between traditional office based "full service" agents and lets say 'budget' and on-line agents.
Each probably has a place but would it not be better if each positively promoted its own values to the public and stopped 'slagging' off each other?
Some more PR rubbish, they should team up with propertyplace
Unknown said.....
"When they Hatched say "might be worth" that is all any agent can say and you know it or do you offer to pay your clients the difference between your valuation and achieved price? "
Yes but the only difference is when I give a valuation is based on an opinion on sound local knowledge, when Hatched give an opinion it's based on "evidence of properties that have appeared on the market in your area, that are similar in size to your property, over the last few year."
In other words they're just pi**ing in the wind!
Paul "Hatched describes itself as a ‘full service’ estate agent which personally visits every property that it puts on the market" and the process they follow is the same as every traditional agent in my area
(visit, size up, do the comparables give a market appraisal)
If the vendor wants to maket it 10% lower than the comparables to get a quick sale or fly a kite 10% higher thats up to them and would the local agent turn the instruction down? No way would they!
When they Hatched say "might be worth" that is all any agent can say and you know it or do you offer to pay your clients the difference between your valuation and achieved price?
From the valuation section of their website.......
"By filling in your details below, we will provide you with evidence of properties that have appeared on the market in your area, that are similar in size to your property, over the last few year. This will give you a very good idea of what your home might be worth. Ultimately, as with any other agent, it is always up to you to decide what you want to market your property at, but our guide will help you to pick the right asking price for your home. "
Ive not got a problem with online agents per se, but to use an agent that says that "This will give you a very good idea of what your home MIGHT be worth" sums up the flaws in this process. I have no doubt that they may have saved some people fees but that's based on what they charge, but what about the money they have lost sellers due to their complete lack of knowledge of the local market place.
"Of course, this is my opinion and not exact fact" yes that is all HD and Trevor can present opinions, not facts and not evidence.
So the average fee is not 2%. Ok lets say 1.5% (generally accepted as average in my neck of the woods)
So take 25% off the total saving = £1.5M or £2K a client.
Whichever way you slice it they have saved the client money on fees.
What has your opinion saved them?
Trevor, "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."
Provide one shred of evidence to prove this, Until all agents are required to provide statistics on this your claims cannot be substantiated.
However, It is a fact Hatched and the online model have saved clients money on fees compared to the traditional no sale no fee model.
As for your accustaion that online agents over value, there is plenty of evidence and confessions on here from traditional agents who overvalue to win instructions.
"There is also the argument that budget fixed fee agents simply takes their money and does little after" anothe unsubstantiated claim. Hatched followed through 760 times last year.
Your anti-competition, scare - mongering tactics are very transparent and fool no one!
Saved Customers 2m in Fees? This is a number plucked out of the air.
On the savings page on the website, it says the most agents charge £4000, to sell a £200,000 house, a fee of 2%, again I dont think so.
In fact if you claim to have saved customers 2m on 760 sales, that equates to an average saving of £2631.
I would think a decent agent could actually negotiate a better price for your property, hence wiping out any saving an online agent claims they make.
Of course, this is my opinion and not exact fact, but it certainly isn't a fact that Hatched have saved customers over 2m.
Adrian Wood.....Come on that's far too obvious!
Having used Hatched, and knowing many people who have, I would like to refute the previous post. They worked tirelessly to sell our house and gave a much more sensible valuation than other local agents.
Basically - excellent service and unbeatable value for money.
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.