Your Website Sucks

Does a carpenter’s hammer suck? Websites are tools. I try to use the best & most effective tools available. The best tool for me comes with lots of pagerank & pageviews, which help drive traffic to my slick IDX interface that then delivers me leads.

Which one? I have several of them.

Actually my clients tell me over and over again that they work well, have good information, and are user-friendly.

More to the point from a business perspective, they consistently have made me money since 2002.

Speak for yourself. You’re not “there with me.” My web sites work just fine.

Of course I can’t be defined by unique views. I can’t be defined by what I had for lunch, either, but it doesn’t follow that eating sucks.

Book of Genesis? Did you expect the Internets to be in there? Yikes.

pointless.

Hmm, Not really sure what you are looking for here. My website generates clients and sales on a pretty consistent basis, are you saying that you don’t think anyone’s site is successful? Websites are like yard signs. They make the phone ring or the email come in, what happens after that is up to the agent. If your site isn’t generating clients, maybe you should rework it!

GM was once the most profitable, succesful auto manufacturer in the United States. They did what worked. People were buying their cars. Slowly, the whole world was changing. They ignored it, or didn’t want to acknowledge it. By the time they got on board, the consumer had left them behind. Now, Toyota is king, and the beat goes on . . .

I want you to stretch your brains, I want you to think beyond, “my website generate leads, therefore it works.”

Can’t we come up with something more than that? Can’t we do more than what we are doing now? Is this it? Really, is what we know as the real estate website the best we can really do?

I don’t think it is. But, if we are going to find out what is possible, we are going to have to admit that “good enough” isn’t good enough.

When I was at NAR last November, I heard famous football coach Lou Holtz speak. Lou Holtz said that the thing he regretted most about his career was his early success at Notre Dame. He said that his success made everyone in the program, himself included, complacent. They stopped trying to get better because they already thought they had acheived everything they could acheive. Next thing you know, Notre Dame is struggling for national relevance, and most recruits don’t even think of it in their top 5 programs. That is what can happen when you rest on current success.

We should always strive for more. Demand more. More from vendors, more from our associations, more from our brokers (or agents), more from OURSELVES.

I do not understand where you are coming from with

I want you to think beyond, “my website generate leads, therefore it works.”

Hiya Zebra – I’m trying to understand where you want us our minds to go. If I may summize:

a) the site sucks because it isn’t me and can’t deliver a personal relationship.
b) you want us to demand more from our websites, but not fancy gizmos if they don’t reinforce a).
c) but even if we demand more, a site can never make life easier, more convenient, better, or do what I can’t/won’t have time to do.

c) is where you loose me. But here are my thoughts, FWIW:

I think that as the internet and technology – and the general level of ‘tech’ ability among people – evolves, our sites must evolve as well. A fabulous lead generating site today may not do the same thing in 10 years. Or sooner. So I see value in imagining the next evolution and working towards it.

If we say the next evolution revolves around the whole social media movement, around the development of relationships online, then there’s an inherent difficulty with creating a unique, personal experience given the medium. It’s a one-to-many, not a one-to-one medium.

As an agent who wants to do business, I need to hold back some personality or I risk appealing to too small of an audience. I need broad appeal.

However – I think that if I want my site – as a business tool and relationship builder – to deliver more and/or more commited people to my doorstep, then I think the best appeal that I can make is one that attempts to deliver the kind of information that person wants to see, at the time they want to see it. The right information, to the right person, at the right time. There was a discussion about DISC assessments and their usage over on Bloodhound a while back, and while I’m not incredibly familiar with that particular broad quantification of personality, I can say that people make decisions either fast or slow, and based on logic or emotion. And I can design a site that will make sense for all of those types of people. So that they feel more comfortable, and so that the site acts more human in that it interprets a user’s previous choices, and provides future choices based on past real action.

Given the one-to-many nature of the medium, I’m not sure we can do much better than that. Or at least until the next paradigm shift.

Kelley, that was absolutely brilliant.

A fabulous lead generating site today may not do the same thing in 10 years. Or sooner.

I would say sooner. Much sooner.

deliver the kind of information that person wants to see, at the time they want to see it. The right information, to the right person, at the right time.

Exactly. IMO, this is the highest and best use, and what the blog component of a site does better than anything else.

I see value in imagining the next evolution and working towards it.

Not just with online evolutions, but with market evolutions. If you think in those terms, then this attitude dovetails with the previous quote about delivering the right information to the right person at the right time. This has been my approach to blog content. I could care less if agents read it – I want clients, and I get them via the listings or as a result of delivering the information that they were specifically looking for and then found on my site. That person receives immediate gratification, thus perceiving greater value, expertise, etc.

I took Daniel’s point to be that of d) we have tools we don’t know how to use. If he meant c) then I disagree because d) would apply. In order to determine either, you have to define your end goal as Dan has done. Once you have the goal, exam the results. For Dan and most others, if they are getting buyers to sell or sellers to list, then the tool is doing the job.

If you are not getting the desired results, I would suggest that d) applies and the tool is being used incorrectly or inefficiently.

A bunch of people who have been given the tools necessary to acheive sucess beyond our wildest dreams, but without instruction on how to use them.

So, what are we going to do about it?

Start by
a) defining the goal. Once that is clearly defined, then
b) analyze the results. In the context of the results,
c) evaluate the methodology in light of
1) increasing conversion if results are satisfactory, then look for ways to increase conversion.
2) increasing leads If conversion is maximized, then look for ways to reach more potential leads to convert.
3) results that are not satisfactory – are you
(please no flames about “people are not leads” – this is marketing and ‘lead’ is an appropriate term for the purpose of the discussion).

Have to agree with Mack the subject was extremely well covered by the comments – hats off to all.