Connect with us

Business News

Give consumers what they want, ask for more in real estate commissions

Technology has made this housing crash more bearable, not easier, so why haven’t real estate commissions increased tenfold? They haven’t, yet there is still this burning need to negotiate from a floor – do you think your home seller respects this? No way, they love easy prey, sucker.

Published

on

real estate commissions

real estate commissions

An innocent question posed in a Facebook group this morning was about the 6% commission debate and why commissions are 6% if it’s a myth. It is a simple question with a simple answer that I can give because I am no longer a Realtor, and I’m absolutely entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not, as are you.

The 6% isn’t really a myth, albeit the average actual paid real estate commission is much lower at around 5%. It is a fact that the commission is negotiable, but what consumers and Realtors have never understood is that from a sales perspective, that 3% per side has become more of a fictitious floor than a ceiling. When you ask a Realtor why, quite honestly, no one really knows, but the default knee-jerk response is, “but commissions are negotiable.”

Sure they are, it’s an absolute fact, but again, from a sales perspective (a lesson for any sales related business, not just real estate) negotiating from the floor is a failed proposition as a business.

Sure, people like to say it’s so easy to list a property because they have an iPad now, and possibly a responsive MLS they can enter data into, but quite frankly (and I know listing agents will mostly agree, or at the least successful ones anyway) the expectations on listing a property have grown exponentially, as well as the expectations on the property agent themselves. The amount of hours it takes to actually hammer a square transaction through the round hole of closing has indeed increased tenfold – this is just a round number factoring shortsales, troublesome financing, or combating a neighborhood marred by failed mortgages and foreclosures.

Technology has made this housing crash more bearable, not easier, so why haven’t real estate commissions increased tenfold? They haven’t, yet there is still this burning need to negotiate from a floor – do you think your home seller respects this? No way, they love easy prey, sucker.

As milk prices have increased, gas prices have exploded, the cost of paper, ink, technology, supplying real estate porn to aggregators, the costs of featuring property within online environments and so many other factors of day to day life and business have risen due to the cost of doing business, yet real estate commissions have remained the same – around 5%?

These costs have to be passed on somewhere, and to be quite blunt, volume listing of property is costly and in high demand – just ask Trulia, Zillow, and Homes.com and others why these portals are not out acquiring their own property listings? Their answer will be that it’s not profitable. And why aren’t consumers uploading their own properties for sale in greater numbers? Because in the end, real estate search sites cannot support the consumer demand side in service of the listing, and that’s a fact. Instead, that’s laid on the backs of the listing agent and broker in their model – another cost of doing business.

So, in summation, I’m not going to tell you what you should be charging as a real estate commission per side, but I do think listing agents that are really in business have to look at the reality of the cost of doing business. Buyers agents say every day that it’s easier because of technology, but that’s not true of the listing side.

It wouldn’t surprise me if in this very year you don’t see listing brokers increase their commissions for their side of the transaction and lower the buyer side offering, and if they are the smart sales professionals I believe them to be, that fictitious floor and cieling could burst upwards to 8 or 9%, and why stop there? In some ways the cieling is regulated, but I’m not sure that’s really been challenged in court. If you’re truly negotiating commissions, shouldn’t you negotiate from a position of strength? It’s just good business.

So I say that each broker needs to do a real analysis of their business models and listen to their consumer – they want to negotiate, and it’s about time listing brokers gave them what they’ve asked for.

Benn Rosales is the Founder and CEO of The American Genius (AG), national news network for tech and entrepreneurs, proudly celebrating 10 years in publishing, recently ranked as the #5 startup in Austin.

Before founding AG, he founded one of the first digital media strategy firms in the nation and also acquired several other firms. His resume prior includes roles at Apple and Kroger Foods, specializing in marketing, communications, and technology integration.

He is a recipient of the Statesman Texas Social Media Award and is an Inman Innovator Award winner. He has consulted for numerous startups (both early- and late-stage), has built partnerships and bridges between tech recruiters and the best tech talent in the industry, and is well known for organizing the digital community through popular monthly networking events.

Benn does not venture into the spotlight often, rather believes his biggest accomplishments are the talent he recruits, develops, and gives all credit to those he’s empowered.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
28 Comments

28 Comments

  1. Jeff Brown

    April 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Not sure what’s ‘regulating’ commission ceilings, unless you’re referring to market forces.

    Though I’ve known a few top producers who consistently get 7-8% on a large portion of their listings, since the late ’90s, they added value in return.

    I can’t see commissions rising, at least not industry wide. Just don’t see it.

    • Benn Rosales

      April 9, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      Nope, not market forces, they’re (regulation) real life reality on the ceilings on builders, and lenders that red flag transactions in residential real estate. I’ll investigate a little more and bring you a case study as I’ve had to deal directly with this issue. 🙂

      • Jeff Brown

        April 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm

        REO/ShortSale specialists have long told me about lenders ‘red flagging’ commissions they feel are too high. That’s ‘market’ forces, imho. They’re the 800 pound gorilla in those transactions, so the brokers knuckle under 99% of the time.

        There’s no gov’t agency of which I’m aware telling brokerages how much they can charge. Have I missed a new development? Thanks

        • Benn Rosales

          April 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

          This is another article all together, Jeff. 🙂

  2. Greg Cook

    April 9, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Benn, in markets dominated by REOs and short sales. the 3% is the ceiling not the floor. The banks dictate the commissions paid and they have absolutely no desire to pay for services rendered.
    The “wholesale approach” of awarding listings makes the concept of “value added” as archaic as a rotary phone.

    • Benn Rosales

      April 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      In that case, you would have to determine it by the hourly rate, and if you’re making less than minimum wage per unit on a case by case basis, and being required by a non-human, ie, a corporation to earn a wage less than the minimum based on any requirements set by that entity that would require you to work more than 40 hours in a work week, then you could potentially be seen as an employee and demand over time and benefits by that employer.

      Now if all you’re required to do is enter it into a database, and put up a sign, then yeah, 3% is a good day when and if the deal gets done – ever.

      Again, It’s your business model, and your decision, but in macro there is no shortage of properties that need to be sold making it even more competitive and more valuable.

  3. Brian Hickey

    April 9, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Benn,

    Hope you’re right, though IMO the real estate transaction model is headed more towards direct-connection between buyers and sellers (of course, agents may play a part on one-side or the other).

    Under this model, which is perpetuated by the Internet, commissions will head south, possibly big-time.

    We’ll see.

    Thanks,

    Brian

  4. Cristine Gritz

    May 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    When we finally get to closing…we have made about a dollar an hour!!! LOL We spend a lot of time and money on our clients. It takes at least 30 days to close. We don’t make that much in the grand scheme of things. How many slam dunks do we get nowadays??? Not many. Buyers take their sweet time and Sellers want to price their listings too damn high. 3% just isn’t enough as far as I am concerned!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business News

Former Budweiser exec says marijuana is the new craft beer

(BUSINESS NEWS) In light of a growing consumer demand and more states decriminalizing and legalizing, “Big Booze” casts sights on burgeoning marijuana market.

Published

on

cannabis marijuana weed smoking

Imagine all the Instagram photos. Imagine all those new hashtags (no pun intended).

A carefully placed pre-rolled joint next to a latte with a heart drawn in the foam, an iridescent glass pipe freshly filled held out at arm’s length with a mountain and a sunset at the horizon, and different strains or arrays of edibles displayed next to their branded packaging.

Weed: “It’s the new craft beer,” according to former marketing exec for Anheuser-Busch, makers of Budweiser beer, Chris Burggraeve.

Since leaving his position as Chief Marketing Officer, Burggraeve has begun investing in the marijuana industry, recently joining the advisory board of greenRush Group, the San Francisco-based startup that aims to be the “Amazon of weed” as the largest technology platform in the cannabis industry.

In addition to greenRush, Burggraeve also co-founded Toast, a company that makes luxury pre-rolled joints.

Research firm Cowen and Company released their findings last year that in legalized states such as Washington, Colorado, and Oregon, people have begun laying off the sauce as beer sales took a noticeable dip below the national average. According to a Gallup poll released last month, 64 percent of the U.S. population now wants to lift the federal ban on marijuana.

It was only a matter of time before those in the alcohol industry began to take notice. Just last month, Constellation Brands, the beer distributor who owns Corona and Svedka vodka, bought a 9.9 percent stake in Canopy Growth Corporation, an acquisition in anticipation of nationwide legalization of marijuana in the U.S.

Big companies like Amazon, however, have shied away from taking such leaps in the industry due to the current federal ban.

“This is one of the fastest-growing categories globally,” Burggraeve told Bloomberg. “When consumers want something, you ignore it at your peril,” also noting that in order for booze companies to stay relevant in some fashion, they will have to conform to cannabis, whether they want to or not.

“The same way that craft beer started and, for the longest time, was ignored and then exploded, there’s no reason why the same thing wouldn’t happen in this space,” Burggraeve added, also noting that his colleagues should follow suit lest be left in the dust. “There will be part supplementing and part complementing. The jury is out on how and where that will happen.”

Continue Reading

Business News

FCC nixed a 40+ year old rule blocking broadcast media mergers

(BUSINESS NEWS) The FCC is on a tear this month, this time dismantling a decades-old rule that supporters and critics are butting heads over.

Published

on

ajit pai net neutrality

In a 3-to-2 vote last week, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rolled back media merger rules that have been around since the 1970s. These 42-year-old regulations prevented a handful of companies from owning the majority of media outlets in a market.

One now defunct rule stipulated TV stations in the same market couldn’t merge if the combo would mean there were fewer than eight independently owned stations as a result. Another rule prohibited a single company in a market from simultaneously owning a TV station and a daily newspaper.

Additionally, the original stipulations restricted how many TV and radio stations a company could own in a single media market. The FCC also approved Next Gen TV, a new broadcast standard expected to improve targeted ads as well as higher quality video and audio for on-air television.

Further easing media creation, last month, the FCC voted to nix a rule that required broadcasters to have a physical studio in their licensed market.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says these long-standing rules have made it difficult for smaller outlets like websites, blogs, and podcasts to thrive in a media landscape vastly different from the one that originated the regulations.

“Few of the FCC’s rules are staler than our broadcast ownership regulations,” Pai said. By eliminating them, he said, “this agency finally drags its broadcast ownership rules to the digital age.”

The National Association of Broadcasters agreed with Pai, welcoming the changes. In a statement they noted the old rules “weakened the newspaper industry, cost journalism jobs and forced local broadcast stations onto unequal footing with our national pay-TV and radio competitors.”

However, opponents argue this change will lead to media monoliths, with even fewer companies controlling most media outlets. “Instead of engaging in thoughtful reform,” said Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, “this agency sets its most basic values on fire.”

Predictably, shortly after the vote, Comcast hit up 21st Century Fox all like, “Hey let us buy those parts of your company Disney wanted earlier this year but now we can have it because the FCC said so, I hope.” Previously Fox was talking about selling most of the company to Disney but keeping sports and news. Although the talks aren’t ongoing, apparently there may still be a Disney/Fox deal on the table. Verizon also noted interest in acquiring portions of Fox as well to provide mobile streaming content.

Senate Democrats called on the FCC inspector general to launch a probe regarding impartiality of the vote.

They cited concerns about how the deregulation may benefit conservative broadcasting company Sinclair, who expressed interest in buying Tribune Media for $3.9 billion dollars. This purchase could now be possible without Sinclair selling off their other stations to receive FCC approval.

“This merger would never have been possible without a series of actions to overturn decades-long, settled legal precedent by Chairman Pai,” wrote 14 lawmakers in a letter. Sinclair declined to comment, while Pai merely assured these changes “will open the door to pro-competitive combinations that will strengthen local voices.”

Guess we’ll just have to see how things go when Disney and like three other companies own everything.

Continue Reading

Business News

Apple under fire for alleged patent infringement

(BUSINESS NEWS) Apple is again under fire for patent infringement, this one appearing to be less patent-trolly than some other claims.

Published

on

apple iphone verizon social media

Apple is once again being investigated by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for a possible patent infringement.

The investigation is looking into a complaint from Aqua Connect Inc and its subsidiary, Strategic Technology Partners. They are Nevada-based companies with headquarters in Orange, California, filing their complaint with the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Apple is already being investigated by USITC because Qualcomm claims that the company is using in violation of its patent by using Qualcomm’s modems to power devices like iPhones.

Earlier this month, Apple was also sued by an Israeli company, Corephotonics, which claims that the tech giant has used its patented designs in the dual lens cameras on iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus.

Likewise, Aqua Connect and Strategic Technology Partners claim that the company is using their patented technology without consent for features like screen-sharing and remote desktop on some MAC computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Apple TVs.

It appears that the USITC investigation will look into these claims, but may take a broader view and look into other possible patent infringements.

“Initially, our product had Apple’s full support. But years later, [they] built our technology into its macOS and iOS operating systems without our permission,” says Ronnie Exley, CEO of Aqua Connect.

Apparently, Aqua Connect created the first remote desktop for Mac computers in 2008, but later they incorporated that technology into new products without permission from Aqua Connect. “These lawsuits seek to stop Apple from continuing to use our technology in their macOS and iOS operating systems,” said Exley in a statement.

Because the USITC has the power to ban the sale of products in the U.S., most companies choose to settle out of court rather than risk such a ban. It remains to be seen how Apple will ultimately respond.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

The
American Genius
News neatly in your inbox

Join thousands of AG fans and SUBSCRIBE to get business and tech news updates, breaking stories, and MORE!

Emerging Stories