It starts with an e-mail
Ok, so yesterday I received an e-mail from a blog reader who wanted to help me. They made two points. The first was that I need to stop using “words that normal people don’t know” and the second was they didn’t feel it was possible for me to be “smart and still naive about expectations of agents being more than what they have been” They felt that I needed to be more “honest” with myself that agents will always do the bare minimum.
Today I was reading a newspaper article on-line about the market being down. A reader commented on-line that consumers need to get smarter and we should be “honest” with ourselves that paying REALTORS 6-10% is crazy. They went further to say that data shown in MLS was not fully reflective of the market because it didn’t show FSBO information, etc… In addition, they were bemoaning the fact that agents aren’t trying to price the home correctly or ask the seller to reduce their price.
For the reader
I don’t feel that I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness when it comes to expecting more quality from a REALTOR, to include a more diligent level of education. If you don’t like the words I am using, than don’t read. Sorry if I challenge your limited vocabulary. If you’re d-u-m-b, then take the word and type it into Google.com and enter “define: <word you don’t know>” and hit that enter key. Google is one of those search engines that a couple of people are using. If you don’t want to use Google, then there is probably a dictionary somewhere about, you troglodyte.
(this part was said in jest, and I really have a smile on my face while I write it) See? ==> 🙂
For the “Consumer”
I hear your frustration, but it’s not the sales agent’s fault. They have to get paid for their work, just as you do. There are about 25 people with their hands in their pockets at any given time. They pay way more than professionals from other industries in gas, marketing, TAXES, brokerage fees, association dues, lenders ordering reduction in commissions for short sales (that are twice the work of any other transaction) because YOU didn’t or can’t pay your mortgage. The list goes on an on. The national average is far less than the 6% you think that agents get paid. FSBO information is grossly incorrect, represents less than 6% in our area and typically FSBO’s get about 12% less for their house, than those who are listed by a professional. So, excuse them if they use accurate data to report the condition of the real estate market.
I am not sure what sellers this consumer is talking to, but the agents I know are begging their sellers to list and reduce their prices to a reasonable rate. The problem is that Sellers all think they are better than the competition. They paid too much, or refinanced too much and they can’t lower the price to match the lower prices of other sellers on the market.
To Everyone Else
Why, oh why do people expect real estate information and education to be at the level of the least common denominator?
Why do consumers think that they can beat up on agents?
The answers are simple. Agents have been catered to for far too long. Pre-licensing educational levels are too low, continuing education is a joke all most everywhere in the country and many Brokers will accept anyone with a license, regardless of capabilities. This is a very litigious industry and agents are handing their clients lawsuits, because they don’t know what they are doing. They begrudge having to take any training, even if it’s designed to save their own butts and to provide better service to their clients. I also will add that the education providers MUST increase their quality, so that agents will actually be educated in the courses being offered.
Clients are getting the information that agents have been controlling for a long time. You’re not the keep of the data, which is why many consumers came to you in the first place. For too many years agents access to controlled data was their only identity and customer service went by the way side. Agents need to improve their consumer advocacy and quality of service to show that this very complicated transaction is best handled by trained and capable hands – otherwise the agent should just turn in their license. For much of the country the days of going into floor duty time and stumbling on a commission are over.
The agents have failed to meet the challenge of angry consumers, like the one mentioned above, because they don’t know their own market place well enough; even though the information is readily available to them. Agents are taking overpriced and unsalable listings and not saying “no, you can’t reasonably sale for this price and in this market.” Instead, the listing is taken without disclosing the reality to the Seller and being “honest” because we are trying to save the seller’s feelings and/or because the agent simply doesn’t know the market.
All of these issues contribute to the lack of perceived “honesty” from the agent. It’s hurting the industry. Better education and a professional frankness with the consumer will go along way to repairing the perceptions held by some consumers. Industry Professionals should not be afraid or ashamed to tell a buyer or seller that their expectations are unreasonable and not care if that consumer finds another agent. That other agent won’t be able to help them either.
How’s that for being “honest” and using small (and probably misspelled to make the reader feel more comfortable) words?
Use the ‘Blemish Effect’ to skyrocket your sales
(MARKETING) The Blemish Effect dictates that small, adjacent flaws in a product can make it that much more interesting—is perfection out?
Presenting a product or service in its most immaculate, polished state has been the strategy for virtually all organizations, and overselling items with known flaws is a practice as old as time. According to marketing researchers, however, this approach may not be the only way to achieve optimal results due to something known as the “Blemish Effect.”
The Blemish Effect isn’t quite the inverse of the perfectionist product pitch; rather, it builds on the theory that small problems with a product or service can actually throw into relief its good qualities. For example, a small scratch on the back of an otherwise pristine iPhone might draw one’s eye to the glossy finish, while an objectively perfect housing might not be appreciated in the same way.
The same goes for mildly bad press or a customer’s pros and cons list. If someone has absolutely no complaints or desires for whatever you’re marketing, the end result can look flat and lacking in nuance. Having the slightest bit of longing associated with an aspect (or lack thereof) of your business means that you have room to grow, which can be tantalizing for the eager consumer.
A Stanford study indicates that small doses of mildly negative information may actually strengthen a consumer’s positive impression of a product or service. Interesting.
Another beneficial aspect of the Blemish Effect is that it helps consumers focus their negativity. “Too good to be true” often means exactly that, and we’re eager to criticize where possible. If your product or service has a noticeable flaw which doesn’t harm the item’s use, your audience might settle for lamenting the minor flaw and favoring the rest of the product rather than looking for problems which don’t exist.
This concept also applies to expectation management. Absent an obvious blemish, it can be all to easy for consumers to envision your product or service on an unattainable level.
When they’re invariably disappointed that their unrealistic expectations weren’t fulfilled, your reputation might take a hit, or consumers might lose interest after the initial wave.
The takeaway is that consumers trust transparency, so in describing your offering, tossing in a negative boosts the perception that you’re being honest and transparent, so a graphic artist could note that while their skills are superior and their pricing reasonable, they take their time with intricate projects. The time expectation is a potentially negative aspect of their service, but expressing anything negative improves sales as it builds trust.
It should be noted that the Blemish Effect applies to minor impairments in cosmetic or adjacent qualities, not in the product or service itself. Delivering an item which is inherently flawed won’t make anyone happy.
In an age where less truly is more, the Blemish Effect stands to dictate a new wave of honesty in marketing.
Google Chrome will no longer allow premium extensions
(MARKETING) In banning extension payments through their own platform, Google addresses a compelling, if self-created, issue on Chrome.
Google has cracked down on various practices over the past couple of years, but their most recent target—the Google Chrome extensions store—has a few folks scratching their heads.
Over the span of the next few months, Google will phase out paid extensions completely, thus ending a bizarre and relatively negligible corner of internet economy.
This decision comes on the heels of a “temporary” ban on the publication of new premium extensions back in March. According to Engadget, all aspects of paid extension use—including free trials and in-app purchases—will be gone come February 2021.
To be clear, Google’s decision won’t prohibit extension developers from charging customers to use their products; instead, extension developers will be required to find alternative methods of requesting payment. We’ve seen this model work on a donation basis with extensions like AdBlock. But shifting to something similar on a comprehensive scale will be something else entirely.
Interestingly, Google’s angle appears to be in increasing user safety. The Verge reports that their initial suspension of paid extensions was put into place as a response to products that included “fraudulent transactions”, and Google’s subsequent responses since then have comprised more user-facing actions such as removing extensions published by different parties that accomplish replica tasks.
Review manipulation, use of hefty notifications as a part of an extension’s operation, and generally spammy techniques were also eyeballed by Google as problem points in their ongoing suspension leading up to the ban.
In banning extension payments through their own platform, Google addresses a compelling, if self-created, issue. The extension store was a relatively free market in a sense—something that, given the number of parameters being enforced as of now, is less true for the time being.
Similarly, one can only wonder about which avenues vendors will choose when seeking payment for their services in the future. It’s entirely possible that, after Google Chrome shuts down payments in February, the paid section of the extension market will crumble into oblivion, the side effects of which we can’t necessarily picture.
For now, it’s probably best to hold off on buying any premium extensions; after all, there’s at least a fighting chance that they’ll all be free come February—if we make it that far.
Bite-sized retail: Macy’s plans to move out of malls
(BUSINESS MARKETING) While Macy’s shares have recently climbed, the department store chain is making a change in regards to big retail shopping malls.
I was recently listening to a podcast on Barstool Sports, and was surprised to hear that their presenting sponsor was Macy’s. This struck me as odd considering the demographic for the show is women in their twenties to thirties, and Macy’s typically doesn’t cater to that crowd. Furthermore, department retail stores are becoming a bit antiquated as is.
The sponsorship made more sense once I learned that Macy’s is restructuring their operation, and now allowing their brand to go the way of the ghost. They feel that while malls will remain in operation, only the best (AKA the malls with the most foot traffic) will stand the test of changes in the shopping experience.
As we’ve seen a gigantic rise this year in online shopping, stores like Macy’s and JC Penney are working hard to keep themselves afloat. There is so much changing in brick and mortar retail that major shifts need to be made.
So, what is Macy’s proposing to do?
The upscale department store chain is going to be testing smaller stores in locations outside of major shopping malls. Bloomingdale’s stores will be doing the same. “We continue to believe that the best malls in the country will thrive,” CEO Jeff Gennette told CNBC analysts. “However, we also know that Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s have high potential [off]-mall and in smaller formats.”
While the pandemic assuredly plays a role in this, the need for change came even before the hit in March. Macy’s had announced in February their plans to close 125 stores in the next three years. This is in conjunction with Macy’s expansion of Macy’s Backstage, which offers more affordable options.
Gennette also stated that while those original plans are still in place, Macy’s has been closely monitoring the competition in the event that they need to adjust the store closure timeline. At the end of the second quarter, Macy’s had 771 stores, including Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury.
Last week, Macy’s shares climbed 3 percent, after the retailer reported a more narrow loss than originally expected, along with stronger sales due to an uptick in their online business. So they’re already doing well in that regard. But will smaller stores be the change they need to survive?
Business Marketing16 hours ago
Use the ‘Blemish Effect’ to skyrocket your sales
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
The actual reasons people choose to work at startups
Tech News16 hours ago
Degree holders are shifting tech hubs and affordability
Business News2 weeks ago
Hobby Lobby increases minimum wage, but how much is just to save face?
Business Finance1 week ago
Small business owners furious over more PPP fraud this week
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
How a simple period in your text message might be misinterpreted: Tips to improve your virtual communication
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
How Peloton has developed a cult-following
Social Media6 days ago
We watched The Social Dilemma – here are some social media tips that stuck with us