Visual storytelling is going to become even bigger in the RE industry. I have been working with my father who started selling RE 33 years ago. 13 of those 33 years he was the #1 agent. How did he accomplish that…referrals from past clients….his reputation and consistent marketing. He has built a brand for himself especially in the higher end (he sold the very first million dollar home in our market many years ago), so much that if he doesn’t run and add in a certain section of the local paper (yes the paper is still around) he gets phone calls as to why he didn’t advertise for that week. Things are evolving not just in RE but in a lot of industries. Uber has pretty much started another Renaissance so who’s to say that something like that won’t happen in the RE industry as well? Just in the last 3 years we have seen internet lead generation become a big player in every RE market. The internet is changing it so much that if another site or tool can make it easier for that seller/buyer then I think it will survive. I have a few things I am working on(which I think will be a big game changer as well in our industry or would like to think so)and one of them doesn’t even need a realtor….

Agree re visual. People are visual. They want to see and hear agents before they decide who to meet in person. Sales data can help them shortlist agents and then they will want to read reviews and watch videos to winnow that shortlist down to the folks they’re prepared to meet. My 2c 😉

I’m surprised there aren’t more comments on this. If people aren’t commenting I know they are at least thinking about it, or should be.

At any rate, I do agree with Drew that the infrequency with which people are presented with the problem of finding a quality agent in their lives takes a little bit of shine outta them boots.

Also, if such a tool did solve the issue of finding a quality agent and that agent turned out to perform up to or beyond expectations, there is no need for the buyer/seller to use the tool again. They already have a quality, battle-tested agent in their pocket. Unlike with yelp and restaurants, I have no need to go test out a new agent in town when I know of a solid guy I used in the past.

I also think part of the difficulty in pulling off something like this is any backlash when an agent doesn’t work out. If I use a tool that is supposed to connect me with a quality agent and the agent I work with performs terribly, the tool can’t escape part of the blame. It would seem that if that happened, my options would be (1) trust the suggestion of a friend who personally witnessed the experience/service/personality of an agent or (2) give it a second shot and trust some words on the internet published by the very agent trying to get me to hire them backed by reviews from strangers. Seems like a coin-toss to the average user.

Despite everything just mentioned, I still like the idea. With the bar to get into real estate so low, something that would easily allow a consumer to quickly find a quality agent in the sea of so-so’s while also letting agents clearly display their value has some potential. This is one of those ideas that rolls around in my head every so often. I love that you guys keep bringing it up here and there. Good stuff and thanks for the post.

Tyler, That’s a thoughtful response with some great points. A few comments:

1) You are correct that if a find-an-agent tool works well then it might not get used again by a buyer/seller – but there will always be new need-an-agent buyers/sellers to replace those who have found an agent they like. And don’t forget, even if you find an agent you like using a find-an-agent tool, you might move to another area that is not served by your trusted agent so you’re back in the market for an agent again.

2) The tool I’m envisioning would only facilitate interviews with agents – not select the agent for the buyer/seller. So it would still be incumbent on the agent to close the buyer/seller in person to win their businesses, and the buyer/seller would be making a decision based on a face-to-face meeting. At that point, it’s hard to blame the tool that simply helped you shortlist 2-3 agents to interview in person. Think of a dating site/app. You wouldn’t blame the dating site of someone that looked great on the site turned out to be less of a match once you meet.

3) Trust and reviews need to go hand in hand. I’ve done a lot of work around reviews and I am convinced that anonymous reviews help nobody. A useful find-an-agent tool should require reviews to be named/located imo. Ie Malcolm Lewis, Newport beach said… vs. Malcolm L., or worse, sellerdude99.

“I am convinced that anonymous reviews help nobody.”

Same here. I am not personally interested in anonymous anything, from anyone. I don’t see the benefit. I really ONLY care what people I know/trust think about something. And even then, I really only care about what my closest friends think.

You are probably not like the average user/consumer though. That is why review sites exist. People want confirmation that what they are looking to do (eat at a restaurant) or buy (a service or product) was done/bought and approved by others before they take action. Thoroughly researching decisions is contrary to the “on-demand economy” we live in. People want it now. If they are one click away from buying that next pair of shoes or booking a restaurant reservation, they’ll sacrifice solid, time-consuming research through peers for a quick “like” by 100 others or a 4.5 star rating or a few reviews by past users. You could argue if 100 anonymous people did or bought something and approved of it, then that outweighs or is at least on equal ground as the approval of a handful of your friends.

Indeed I’m not like the average person.

I think there are degrees of trust and I use them to a greater or lesser extent to drive my consideration/selection process accordingly. I use Yelp to shortlist restaurants in an area I am visiting that are probably better than most even though I don’t know or trust the reviewers. Ditto Amazon for product and TripAdvisor for hotels and attractions.

Your “friend” comment is interesting. I built a prototype recommendation engine that used the notion of a “taste graph” (ie “people like me” – ie who share my taste in x where x could be books, movies, wines, restaurants, etc.) instead of the “social graph” (ie “people who like me”). The social graph is probably more useful for local service providers, but for products, places, etc., the taste graph approach can often be better.

1) True if they move to another area not served by their agent they could use it again. The question is how big of a percentage of people would use it again? I honestly don’t know. That would involve a lot of user stories to figure out.

2) I think we are envisioning the same thing although people still blame the dating site. You are thinking logically which not every user/customer would do. I have nothing to back this up but I’d bet $50 if you asked 100 girls about dating sites, they’d all have different opinions. Some would like dating site 1 but hate dating site 2 because of all the….quality of guys there shall we say. Others would swear by 2 but detest 1 because this one time they got hounded by a random guy for their number. The girls can choose to talk to whoever they want on the sites but based on their sample size, they made a decision to like or not like site 1/2. Logically, there are probably millions of guys on both sites, some good, some bad….and any where they go the same guys will be there. I don’t know if that is really any worry though as not every user reacts that way and if the tool actually worked and had good success stories, any negative feelings toward a bad agent “hook-up” could be negated. A minor worry in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

3) I agree that reviews shouldn’t be anonymous but I if you ran an A/B test on a site selling a product and put anonymous reviews vs no reviews, the site with reviews would sell more. It’s a comfort thing. People want reassurance they aren’t getting duped or making a bad decision. Seeing a 4.5 star rating from 250 other people or 750 likes or a detailed review by J. Smith gives them that comfort and helps them overcome their own sales objection. Anonymous is just enough to get the sale sometimes. I don’t advocate anonymous or veiled reviews though as they don’t hold the same weight as one with full disclosure. I’m with you on that. No reason not to have the name/location information.

I know what goes on behind the scenes at all sites that have reviews and critical mass of traffic. They are all gamed. Hence, I trust pretty much none of them.

Re 1) Given that the average person buys or sells a home once every 6-7 years, I’m not sure repeat usage is the primary concern. The bigger opportunity is convincing the 11 million people who buy/sell a home each year (assuming 5.5 million home sales) to try the service.

Re 3) Agreed. Named/located reviews beat anonymous reviews which beat in turn no reviews.

Here’s a thought. Why have Zillow, Redfin and Realtor.com all launched find-an-agent services? Probably because they see significant opportunity there. Redfin and Realtor.com stumbled with their opening move, but they’ll be back with a more thoughtful second effort. Zillow has added reviews into the mix, which is helping their initial solution stick. They’ll all evolve as they learn how to walk a fine line between what consumers want and what agents will embrace.

As I concluded my post, time will tell. It’ll be fun to watch.

I’m also surprised like you that it hasn’t generated more discussion. A link to the article here on Geek Estate Blog was posted on one of the most active RE groups on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/RaiseTheBar/) where it received fewer comments than posts like “Do you keep clients that are irritable & rude?”. Go figure 😉

Some may not have seen it yet since it was posted on a Friday.