It's starting to look like this debate may end up in the "be careful what you wish for" camp. IMO, the next shoe to fall could backfire on the whole business. If the industry can't decide on what's "right" for their own business, then the end-user consumer may soon start asking; "why should I just hire one broker?" I doubt many fiduciaries are bringing that up at the kitchen table.
What happens when the buyer and seller start to understand the difference between Exclusive-right-to Sell and Exclusive Agency? IMO, if total transparency in the industry is at the core of the dust-up, then it won't be long before the consumer says; "you mean I can have several agents helping me buy and sell or actually can try to sell myself at the same time?" I don't think that's been thought through...I guess we'll have to wait and see if/when that starts happening....
Brian, yes — this is exactly the part I don’t think the industry has fully reckoned with.
Once consumers begin to understand the difference between “I hired one broker to represent and market my property” and “I am being steered into a system where access, leverage, and visibility may be controlled by business incentives I don’t fully see,” the conversation changes.
I don’t think most consumers are anti-broker.
I think they are anti-being-managed-without-being-told.
That is why transparency matters so much here. Not as a slogan. As the operating system.
If a seller understands the options, the tradeoffs, and the agency implications, then fine — choose the strategy that fits.
But when the industry muddies the language, the consumer eventually asks the obvious question:
“Whose interests are actually being protected here?”
Well said Vanessa. Happily part of the rebel alliance.
It's starting to look like this debate may end up in the "be careful what you wish for" camp. IMO, the next shoe to fall could backfire on the whole business. If the industry can't decide on what's "right" for their own business, then the end-user consumer may soon start asking; "why should I just hire one broker?" I doubt many fiduciaries are bringing that up at the kitchen table.
What happens when the buyer and seller start to understand the difference between Exclusive-right-to Sell and Exclusive Agency? IMO, if total transparency in the industry is at the core of the dust-up, then it won't be long before the consumer says; "you mean I can have several agents helping me buy and sell or actually can try to sell myself at the same time?" I don't think that's been thought through...I guess we'll have to wait and see if/when that starts happening....
Brian, yes — this is exactly the part I don’t think the industry has fully reckoned with.
Once consumers begin to understand the difference between “I hired one broker to represent and market my property” and “I am being steered into a system where access, leverage, and visibility may be controlled by business incentives I don’t fully see,” the conversation changes.
I don’t think most consumers are anti-broker.
I think they are anti-being-managed-without-being-told.
That is why transparency matters so much here. Not as a slogan. As the operating system.
If a seller understands the options, the tradeoffs, and the agency implications, then fine — choose the strategy that fits.
But when the industry muddies the language, the consumer eventually asks the obvious question:
“Whose interests are actually being protected here?”
And that is when the floorboards start creaking.
Vanessa!
Very readable,
very public-centric,
very... RIGHT!
Thank you. That makes my day.
I was hoping the public-centered part would come through, because that really is the whole rebellion.
As Obi-Wan said: Who’s the more foolish: the fool or the fool who follows him?
In real estate, I’d like consumers to stop being asked to follow systems they were never allowed to understand.