Before I begin, I would like to make clear that this is not a comparison of practicing real estate professionals to hair stylists, rather, it is a comparison of models along with successes and failures of models in the realm of consumerism.
What you’ll discover at the onset inside of Toni&Guy is a question at the front desk about choosing your stylist’s level of education. If you think for a second that a simple men’s haircut could not possibly cost more than $35 bucks, you’d be mistaken- it’s more, and it can go even higher. What is disturbing is that no hair stylist is created equally, and the level of education means nothing when you consider that you have no idea how current the stylist is, whether or not they are familiar with modern styles, and if will they listen to you (or take a more vain “I know best approach” with your hair). You have no portfolio of work or references to view, nor do you have anything to actually evaluate other than a certificate on the wall. Your wallet is the only thing between you and the front desk clerk who is now evaluating your ability to pay- obviously, you’ll choose higher ed over risking your hair, right?
Now, I’m not saying this is a racket, as we in the real estate industry hold continuing education in high regard as a must in most circumstances. It is how you as a practitioner keep up with changes in local and federal laws as well, but practically speaking, savvy isn’t a skill learned in a classroom- business savvy is a gift and rarely is a certificate handed out for such a skill (unless you count the top producer plaques on the wall above their desks).
Further, I challenge the model of education levels and time in service based on the premise that it’s only good for the model and not the actual stylist. The entire branding of the business is built to drive loyalty to Toni&Guy from the start, beginning with the fictitious name of the stylist (no, that is not their real name you’ve been given). Now obviously, this is said to be a policy to protect the stylist, but in fact it is a policy derived to protect the salon brand from the stylist taking their clients with them if they should chose to leave Toni&Guy.
Protecting a brand from loyalty erosion is an illusion to the brand. I say this strictly from experience. If my stylist leaves the establishment, so will I, unless I’ve been introduced to another stylist along the way and connected with them. Otherwise, I’ll probably slip through the cracks and find a new place to cut my hair, just as I would if my agent left a prestigious real estate brokerage- I would want to follow my human agent, not a brand.
The disconnect in this scenario is the failure of the brand to partner with the agent in the process. Toni&Guy empowers their agents with continuing education the same way many real estate brokerages do, but beyond the receptionist, there is no customer service from the broker or Toni&Guy brand ambassador (or manager). Consumers disavow an entire brand based on a single interaction with an agent (or stylist) because there is no connection readily available- do brokers call their agents’ clients to check up on them? Do managers come out to offer explanation of services? No, they do not. And they should, because regardless of what the agent (or stylist) thinks, that client is in agreement to the broker (or brand) and that broker (or brand) has a responsibility to ensure follow through- that is what builds brand loyalty.
Now in fairness, the Toni&Guy Brand in general is nothing to scoff at, in fact, I do take the training they receive very seriously, especially when I meet a stylist in a new salon, and it’s my understanding that most salons do hire based on that training and appreciate it as well. This is a plus factor for the real estate brokerage as well I’m sure. When hiring, we want the agent with the best training, however, we’re also going to take a hard look at actual execution, production levels, and follow through before hanging our hat on a new sheriff in the office.
In all, I think Realtors and brokerages should take a very hard look at this model and ask themselves how do each protect themselves? Is the academy approach the right way to go? Is basing price levels on education or length of service appropriate, and can an agent dedicate themselves to a brand who allows no consumer connection whatsoever?
