Onward to a New Decade – Predictions for 2010

The “independent consultant” ideal – a practice based on the value of an agent’s ability to offer disproportionate benefit in comparison to the fee that is paid, is something that I don’t think will go away very soon. Not in 2010.

I have been in the business for 6 years and I never get into board level or national level “Realtor” politics, but I am a dues paying Realtor. I know that the NAR has been marginalized, but I did not know that they are working behind the scenes to make it easier for the lowest common denominator players.

So, in the spirit of fee based consultancy, my wish list includes elimination of the buyer’s agent co-op fee. Buyer’s brokers who work for the easy money will instead be working for a living – brokerage agreement for brokerage agreement. 3% here. $10,000 or so there. Guaranteed by their buyer client.

This is one way to keep the limited talent, limited service discount broker players from one of their primary revenue sources.

As for listing agency, earning a commission in 2010, against a wide field of players, is all about the grind. More appointments, more NO’s to get to the YES.

I need 22 of those to go to closing this year. Yes, my buyer brokerage commissions will be co-op fees for the most part, but my focus is on helping sellers in 2010.

I have a two year old and she is watching Elmo right now, thereby enabling me to get this comment off without interruption!

Ken,

Someday when my writing grows up I want to be you!

The thing that bothers me most about NAR is the arrogance in which they do things. As a singular example, the RPR which could be great, was put out there seemingly with little consideration for how the agents and MLS firms across the country would act. I don’t think they had any idea they’d get the ice cold response they’d get from some in San Diego. Shame because the nuts and bolts of it seems strong. IOW, it’s wasn’t the ‘what’ as much as the ‘how.’

On HC….believe it or not, there are MANY of us who want a level of reform who simply think the current plan (whatever in the hell it is) is a joke. It WILL raise the deficit, not provide 100% coverage and will undoubtedly lead to some level of rationing. The ‘health care reform’ brand has regrettably now been bastardized so thoroughly that I wonder if we could ever get a good bill if the current one fails.

John: I can honestly say, that as much as I read, I do not read Realtor Magazine. For a group who so aggressively encourages going “Green” I think it’s foolish to print something just because 900,000 of your 1 million members still want paper. What’s worse, is that I would guess that 875,000 of those 900,000 wouldn’t read it regardless of how you delivered it.

NAR has poured a lot of time into technology and online media in many, many venues, so it only goes to reason that they give such non-technology solutions to those members who actually pickup a magazine, instead of subscribing to NAR’s online tools.

Even if you and I agree that we should stop catering to the masses who do not obtain information online (or use the many, many tools) – they are still the vast majority. They pay the same dues that you and I do and therefore NAR is stuck trying to be relevant to a vocal minority of Realtors who want more information like AG and the rest present versus the large majority who still think the internet is an irrelevant fad. (by the way, this vast majority only sell homes on weekends, so that they can work elsewhere during the year)

NAR reports that last year only 50% of “realtors” actually sold anything and the average annual income was something like $18,000. These are the people who have a vote just like you and me. It’s dumb, but it’s the way it is.

I gotta say, that I agree with a lot of what is said here.

I only one thing to say, and I think I’ve said it every time that the topic comes up. NAR is us the members. If the majority of members thought (or cared) about these issues above then there would be change.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of agents do not wish to have any change at all. If they do, the change they look for is to have little to no oversight and less people to compete with.

That’s just a reality.

As always, I’m enjoying the comments at AgentGenius. John, your point about the Erica Ramus piece is well-taken. Apparently, those old-school techniques are working well for her, but that doesn’t mean we should devote two pages in the magazine to them.

Matthew: While many tell us they like have the tangible product to carry with them and read at their leisure, there are many others like you who should have an option. That’s why we’re trying to deliver information in new ways — such as via webinar and video — and why we’re thinking hard about the magazine’s future. The last thing we want to do is waste your time or your resources.

As to the original post about NAR, ouch! No doubt, I’m out of line by attempting to respond but I’ll do so anyway.

My thought on the healthcare debate is that there are much larger and more powerful lobbies at the forefront of that fight. That doesn’t mean NAR staff are sitting on their hands; I know there are staff devoted to seeking provisions that will serve small businesses/self-employed persons. As Missy Caulk asked in an earlier post, is ANYONE happy with where we ended up? Probably not. But that’s not for lack of trying.

With regard to the idea that NAR is working behind the scenes to do away with individually negotiated fees, well, maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but that statement just seems to defy reality. NAR attorneys would warn, and often do, that the association doesn’t take a position with regard to business models and to do so would be a violation of antitrust law.