The Decline…or End…of Geography
I’m not sure how many of you read Seth Godin. Those that do, know he recently wrote about the end of geography, and concluded with this statement:
If you’re still betting on geography, on winning merely because you’re local, I hope you have a special case in mind.
Real estate is local. It’s impossible to say otherwise. That said, there is some truth in what Seth says; just being local isn’t enough to win long term. Even though buyers don’t know what they don’t know, agents are going to have to go above and beyond to win clients (both new and repeat). I don’t think there is any question transparency of agent/broker performance is only going to increase, which should weed out more and more of those who are just local bodies on the streets.
What’s your core differentiator?
Sam DeBord
Posted at 08:59h, 05 FebruarySeth’s comments seem to be aimed at physical shop locations. Real estate is one of the few products in the world that is physically attached to a location. Being located near each individually unique product allows for insights that a remote business or company cannot match.
Of course it’s true that a business still needs additional differentiation, as the statement suggests. There are plenty of other competitors who are local. Geography, though, will still be a major factor in the ability to provide superior marketing and insight online for local companies vs. those located elsewhere.
Drew Meyers
Posted at 09:04h, 05 FebruaryI fully agree with importance of geography. There is simply no replacement for face to face, and truly deep local knowledge. But that said, there are a lot of bodies on the streets who don’t have the deep & valuable knowledge buyers/sellers want/need…many because they don’t view it as a profession and instead rather as a side job that makes them a bit of money with minimal work.
Sam DeBord
Posted at 09:42h, 05 FebruaryAgreed. There are a lot of placeholders out there.