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

Zoopla has bought Globrix from the Daily Mail group for an undisclosed sum. The deal means that Globrix users are being redirected straight to Zoopla.

Launched in 2008, Globrix was a free-to-list property search engine which directed traffic to estate agent websites. The concept was understandably popular among agents, who willed it to work – but the offering lost traction in the marketplace.

 Globrix also went on to power the property search for The Times, with backing from the Murdoch property empire, which was later withdrawn.

Globrix was then acquired by the Daily Mail as a stablemate for its Digital websites, FindaProperty and PrimeLocation. However, mysteriously, Globrix was never part of the deal struck between Digital and Zoopla when the two merged last year.

It appears that Globrix did have a relationship with Zoopla during this time. According to the Zoopla announcement about its acquisition of Globrix, “Globrix.com had adjusted its model under a commercial partnership to direct traffic and leads via the Zoopla Property Group portals”.
The same Zoopla announcement also said of this latest acquisition: “[It] will further bolster its already impressive audience as it continues to increase its market share and closes in on Rightmove. It will also be a win for members of Zoopla Property Group who will now benefit from further exposure and more enquiries as a result of the deal.”
The merger means that Zoopla Property Group runs websites Zoopla and PrimeLocation, although FindaProperty has done a disappearing act. It also has a number of partnerships which include The Times, The Telegraph, Independent, Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Homes & Property, AOL, MSN and Homes24.
Alex Chesterman, CEO of Zoopla Property Group, said: “We have enjoyed a successful partnership with Globrix.com for the past few months and this acquisition allows us to further extend our audience and brand.”


  • icon

    I did the SEO for Globrix, Zoopla and Rightmove.. Talk about owning the search vertical for all property searches. I really like the scrape technology for Globrix and i'm sad to see it go. At the same time zoopla has the spending power that globrix didnt to take the brand onto the next level. It's a real petty they didnt keep the globrix brand as a stand alone website as it really was my favorite site for searching property because it had all the agents portfolio's on automatically.

    • 17 January 2014 15:11 PM
  • icon

    MLS means agents work B2B and deals CAN get done pre portal advertising. Thus sub comms exchange independent to independent.

    In London MLS is growing daily. I operate INEA.co.uk and if you want to try MLS I can link you with other agents.

    As portals become more expensive, listings are fragmenting and not always on main portals. Pre the web approx 65% of agents paper base subbed other local agents. It worked. Its reviving again. Although portals can reach local, national and global buyers the fact is portals are only big in their own country. For instance NAR (USA) has around 4m+ listings, but has little UK impact.

    Equally large UK portals can get your listings seen in Iceland, Argentina, NZ. But the fact is most of UK agents buyers and tenants come from just miles away from your listings. Working with 5-6 other local agents has more clout in the real world than portals.

    Think why people move - schools, work, friends, relatives etc. ALL LOCAL. So offer clients more LOCAL exposure via LOCAL agents and they'll pay more.

    5 agents with 30 listings. Each subs 20 out to the others as clients agree to pay 1/2% more. Agents would then have 30+20+20+20+20. The easy upsell on a no sale no fee offers clients greater potential to sell: faster, to a wider audience.

    If portals allow private landlords in via budget or no cost agents, then why shouldnt agents drop some portals and work complimentary saving £100's each month with other local fellow independents.

    The OFT report Sep 2012 mentions ''sub agents'' twice. As such portals can't say subbing isnt allowed.

    I can help agents try MLS especially in London, Reading, Surrey, Essex, Swansea, Cardiff and Norfolk for 2 months for free if they wish to give it a go.

    I can be found at www.inea.co.uk

    • 04 January 2013 03:06 AM
  • icon

    I agree with Trevor, indepdendent agents should have a multi listing service similar to the USA.

    The listing agent gets a % of the fee and the selling agent gets a % of the fee and there are so many benefits.

    Is it too late though or could it work.

    • 03 January 2013 10:30 AM
  • icon

    Lesson to be learnt. Portals merging is their way to hit at Rightmove.

    If agents learnt the power of clubbing together and pooling resources to increase access to more listings - get their fees up to allow sub fees to be paid to sub agents, then not all agents would need to be on all portals.

    Learn from the portals - work together and make your competitor agents your allies. Your make mass savings and more revenue from selling and letting each others properties away from portals in some cases.

    Keep paying the rises for what the portals decide to give you and after how long before portals become too expensive and you have to leave. Why build up an edge that later becomes too expensive.

    Pre the web we had a bad early 90's recession. Agents then were more profitable. Now with so much portal exposure, in many agencies revenues are down.

    The main factor was that agents worked together in the 90's doing sub deals. Today portals don't want independents working together.

    Work together and you break the portal squeeze

    • 03 January 2013 06:51 AM
  • icon

    Thanks; ''It makes sense to me''

    I think the comment is quite plain.

    * Globrix didn't fail. If anything in its first year its technology for scraping (pulling) agents data in was admirable. It's growth from agents joining was quite massive - 100's per month. Its cost was free.

    On the flip side Finda and prime did charge agents and pre Globrix didnt have some of its technology.

    The odds were that it could have out done finda and prime and taken 2nd place to rightmove and onwards who knows. What we do know is that after a year it started to vanish. Maybe hidden away. Evolving and state of the art technology and no cost made it attractive to agents, but not to subscription portals.

    Today zoopla is going for it. Finda and prime are under its wings. Is this because alone each isnt powerful enought to topple RM, or because the other main portal owners have part defeated ousted the getting to no.1 problem to a new management team Z?

    So to help zoopla it now has under it SEO and content and two competitors on side against RM

    Trouble is more costs more and its agents who are paying. To also now have Globrix's figures released from the back shelf simply brings another piece to the chess board.

    My end gripe was that theres now an awful lot of private lettings and budget sales listings appearing on rightmove and the zoopla gang of sites.

    Im affraid its eveidence that portals are BITING THE HAND THATS BUILT THEM - agents.

    • 03 January 2013 06:41 AM
  • icon

    precis.... it is a way of trying to make the Zoopla figures look bigger and more impressive with the intention of ramping up the subscriptions charged to Agents.

    • 02 January 2013 14:41 PM
  • icon

    I couldnt understand much either, and I admit, my grammar is appalling. Even the part written in plain English doesn't make sense.

    "Sad thing is that zoopla and rm are letting 100's of private landlords ads in via low cost and no cost budget agent services"

    1. If the ads are via low cost or no cost agents they are not private landlord sales.

    2. Why should private landlord sales not be allowed on riightmove or zoopla anyway?

    • 02 January 2013 14:19 PM
  • icon

    I've read your response a couple of times Uncle Trev and it still doesn't make sense...

    Can you rewrite it in English?

    • 02 January 2013 13:35 PM
  • icon

    For a year Globrix rushed up the seo rankings and had state or the art scrape technology which fast built agents property content.

    It didnt lose traction by agents choice. More to the point as finda and prime were the cash cows - was it more of the case free to list globrix was put on the back shelf as it didnt take revenue from agents and the fear was that it could become more popular than finda and prime.

    Sitting on the back shelf it still has a level of seo which added to zooplas combined figures with finda and prime can only make the zoopla front bigger.

    Sad thing is that zoopla and rm are letting 100's of private landlords ads in via low cost and no cost budget agent services.

    • 02 January 2013 10:54 AM
Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit