Last time I wrote an opinion piece about Agents' Mutual it was met with a furore of speculation, criticism and conspiracy theory. All good stuff because it was also the most read and the most commented upon piece of the year.
The reason I wrote that piece and why I'm sticking my head above the parapet to write this one, is because I believe the Agents' Mutual story to be one of the most interesting and fascinating of this year and perhaps for many years.
EAT has been conducting a survey giving agents the chance to state their views and intentions as far as Agents' Mutual. So far, nearly a thousand agents have completed the survey; if you haven't contributed your views, why not do so to make your voice heard
The most hurtful criticism I received after the last article (don't worry I have a thick skin) was the accusation that I am anti-Agents' Mutual because I'm in the pockets of the Duopoly, well for those of you who think that, this article may surprise you.
I am not anti-Agents' Mutual and, in fact, think that its attempt to rein in any potential anti-competitive behavior in the future by the Rightmove ZPG Duopoly is sensible and helpful to the industry and its success or failure will have far reaching consequences for all estate and letting agents.
Unfortunately, however, I also think that unless Agents' Mutual listens to the industry that it says it wants to serve and changes its current strategy, it will fail and that failure will deter future attempts at reining in the Duopoly and could hand greater power to Rightmove and ZPG forever.
The single biggest problem with the Agents' Mutual proposition as I see it is the demand for exclusivity (choose only one other portal) from the word go. Having taken on board a lot of feedback that EAT has received from agents and given it a lot of thought, the exclusivity requirement from day one just doesn't work for two key reasons:
Firstly it simply places too much risk on the businesses that agree to it, while handing too much advantage to those who don't and secondly, it is the biggest barrier to Agents' Mutual getting to the sensible level of market penetration that give will them a fighting chance.
Not that I am against exclusivity per se anymore, which I now see as a great threat, just like a strike is a great threat when a union negotiates for its members.
The problem comes when you carry out the threat and it fails or at least is not very successful. So a strike is called which fails because only 30% of your members support it. After that the employer doesn't take the union seriously and their power is broken. Worse still, those who support the strike suffer financial hardship and sometimes never recover. Of course the Union officials tend to keep their jobs and move on to some other form of trouble making.
For Agents' Mutual to have any real chance of success it has to succeed first and foremost as a portal in its own right. To do that it needs a lot of properties, at least half the market then, provided its platform is good, it has a chance of attracting a large enough audience.
Currently, Agents' Mutual hasn't even got a website and yet it appears that either through arrogance or naivety, they want to pull out their gun before it's even loaded. Let's face it, most agents are jealous of Savills, Knight Frank and co and would like to be them but they are not them. These elite London and International agents may not need both Rightmove and ZPG and if this ends in tears it may not matter that much to them but it will matter very much to the majority of agents who follow their lead.
There is nothing wrong with the motivation or intentions of Agents' Mutual, it's just the premature execution that causes the problem. So what is the solution It comes down to getting the portal off the ground successfully. The current strategy is doomed in my opinion because they will never get enough agents to join and therefore fail to get enough properties to attract an audience; their exclusivity rule is going to prevent that.
I know of dozens and dozens of agents who would join Agents' Mutual when the time is right on the basis that they may introduce exclusivity rule in the future, not now, and that they would use this threat to tame Rightmove and ZPG. Maybe I'm wrong, but if the price was right I think most agents would sign up on this basis. I would be fully behind their campaign which I would see as a good thing for the industry as opposed to the current proposition which I'm concerned is leading some agents blindly towards a disaster.
Once they have the inventory, the site could launch as a credible portal and start attracting an audience. Perhaps three years down the road there would be enough leads coming from the site to give agents reassurance that if the exclusivity threat was carried out they could live with the consequences, chances are, like nuclear weapons, it would be such a powerful deterrent to exploitative fees that it would never have to be used.
In the meantime Agents' Mutual could act as a control on Rightmove and ZPG, constantly waving the exclusivity threat in their faces, something that will curtail their fees and if it doesn't, well, when the strike happens it will have overwhelming force.
Ok, that's my point of view. Do you agree with me If so, then those leading Agents' Mutual really need to listen because if they don't listen, what use are they going to be if they are not prepared to represent the majority industry viewpoint
There is nothing wrong with making changes to the proposition in response to constructive feedback. Better to admit there is a better way now, than sticking to their guns leading to a failure which could have far reaching consequences for every agent.
Listening and making the right change in strategy now would, in my opinion, not only enhance their credibility but also significantly enhance their chance of success and achieving the best outcome for everyone.
Take the EAT Survey and give voice to your views.
%20(002).png)
Comments