Dale Ripplinger
CREA president Dale Ripplinger spoke to REM’s senior editor Kathy Bevan late last week about what happens next.
REM: When negotiations with the Competition Bureau were still underway, you used a real estate analogy to explain how things might go wrong, referring to real estate transactions that have broken down over the appliances. What exactly caused CREA’s negotiations with the bureau to fall apart?
RIPPLINGER: That’s actually a question better asked of the commissioner. We are surprised and disappointed that this has happened, because we thought we were close. With the clarification of the rule changes that we’d offered to the commissioner, effectively we had answered all of her questions.
REM: In the dispatch you issued to CREA members the same day the commissioner made her application to the tribunal, you attached a number of proposed changes to CREA’s MLS rules and Interpretations for members to vote on at CREA’s upcoming AGM in March. Are you still planning to bring those changes forward for a vote at that AGM, regardless of any tribunal hearing?
RIPPLINGER: Yes, the rule changes that are attached to our dispatch are what we’ll be proposing at the AGM, because any rule change has to be approved by the membership. Our lawyers may tweak a word or two here or there, but primarily those were the rule changes or clarifications to the rules and Interpretations that we had presented to the commissioner. It was always our intention, as we told her, that we were going to recommend to our membership that we make those rule changes.
REM: Had the commissioner seen those changes before the announcement came from her office that she was taking this to the tribunal?
RIPPLINGER: Yes. We met with her the week before she made her announcement.
REM: With your proposed changes in place, do you think that makes your case stronger before the tribunal?
RIPPLINGER: I can’t imagine that there’s a case to be brought before the tribunal with or without the changes, because we remain a highly competitive business with lots of consumer choice. So if making the changes didn’t satisfy the commissioner, that’s surprising but I do think it probably strengthens our case, because we have given her pretty much everything she’d asked for.
REM: One of the MLS rule changes included in the dispatch is the removal of the stipulation that the listing Realtor has to work with the seller all the way through the length of the listing contract – that’s a position you have defended strongly in the past, but you’re stepping back from that position now?
RIPPLINGER: We understand that – notwithstanding our rules – if a client wants to opt out of certain services, they’re allowed to do that. We can’t interfere – and these rules were never meant to interfere – with the relationship between a client and their agent. So the clarification to these rules perhaps better reflects the reality of the marketplace.
REM: Some of the comments that have come into REM’s online Forum have voiced the opinion that, if CREA makes any changes to its rules and regulations, it will look like there was something wrong with those rules and regulations in the first place?
RIPPLINGER: No, it’s as I said before, this just really clarifies what already exists in the market now. The rule changes perhaps add some clarity and to that degree we agree with the commissioner that we have a common value. The commissioner, the Competition Bureau and CREA have a common value of providing competitive choice within the marketplace. We think we’ve always been doing that – and we have – but if the bureau has a greater level of comfort if we make clarifications to those rules, that’s fine. It’s that simple. We’ve always been competitive and we will remain competitive – we’re just making these rule clarifications to satisfy the commissioner, because quite frankly they’re not going to make a difference in the marketplace.
REM: Our online REM Forum also includes comments that CREA should not negotiate at all, but instead should take this issue in front of an impartial judicial body and get a decision on this once and for all?
RIPPLINGER: We’ve heard that from some of our members and I understand that sentiment, because they know that we haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t disagree with members who thought we should just fight. We thought it was a good business decision to try to come to some sort of an agreement with the bureau, because we realize that the changes the commissioner was pointing to as being anti-competitive weren’t, so it wouldn’t have the impact that she thought it would on the market. I see both sides and I understand the anger that some of our members feel in wanting to fight because they’re right – they’ve done nothing wrong.
REM: The bureau has positioned this as a consumer choice issue; some within the real estate industry have said it’s about brokers and Realtors having a wider choice of business models. How do you respond to those positions?
RIPPLINGER: I would agree that the consumer has a great amount of choice within the real estate market, both within and outside of the MLS system. In the MLS system there are various business models – everything from a limited brokerage to a full service brokerage, everything from flat fee to negotiated commission rates. It’s a highly competitive industry and even outside the MLS system there are a lot of options for people to sell their house without a Realtor.
I don’t know of another business that’s as competitive as ours, so I really don’t get it. Making these rule changes – because our rules aren’t anti-competitive – won’t a make a great deal of difference. There’s lots of choice now and there will continue to be lots of choice.
REM: How has your membership in general been responding since the news broke that this was heading toward a hearing before the tribunal?
RIPPLINGER: I think – rightly so – that our members are offended. They know how competitive our industry is, they know that consumer choice exists in the marketplace and they’re as puzzled as the rest of us that this is even happening. So yes, they’re really frustrated and I don’t blame them.
REM: The commissioner has stated publicly that, if CREA is willing to bring forward the changes that she wanted to see, she’d talk to you again and this might not have to go in front of the tribunal at all. Would you still be interested in trying to negotiate this and not going before the tribunal?
RIPPLINGER: Yes, I would. Going to court is never pleasant, so you try to avoid it. That’s why we were negotiating and were hopeful that we would reach an agreement. So, if the commissioner is still willing to talk, yes we’d definitely have to take a look at that.
REM: Do you see things in the commissioner’s Notice of Application to the tribunal that CREA can’t live with?
RIPPLINGER: I don’t want to speculate on any of that, because I don’t know what specifically she would approach us with in terms of a settlement at this point.
REM: Would you be approaching her?
RIPPLINGER: It’s really up to her. She’s the only one who can withdraw the application. She knows now – as she knew before the application was presented – that we’re prepared to change our rules. She has to decide whether or not she’d be satisfied with that.
REM: Is it your hope that, if the tribunal rules in CREA’s favour, this will send a clear “hand’s off” message to the Competition Bureau?
RIPPLINGER: The Competition Bureau could lose at the tribunal and still decide that there was something else that they want to address. Rightly so – they’re charged with making sure there’s no anti-competitive behaviour, so if they were to happen to find something that they weren’t happy with, they could still come back. But, like I said, nothing in our rules is anti-competitive – yet we’re still potentially coming in front of the tribunal.
We have to protect our members’ interests. We own the trademark to the MLS system and there are certain requirements to effectively running the MLS system that are necessary. We can be reasonable with our approach to the commissioner – as we have been – but at some point we can’t allow changes that will destroy or undermine the MLS system, because that is not in the best interests of Canadian consumers.
It’s all ridiculous. Next thing you know, Commissioner Melanie Aitken will be targeting the Law Society to have the public require lawyers to offer “setting a court date” as a separate item, opting out of all their other services. Sheer foolery! If she thinks by splitting out the real estate professions most important tool, the public will realize substancial savings, she is an idiot.
There is no way CREA should be accommodating any changes to MLS with the Competition Bureau. This is Canada, this is a site built and paid for by realtors, for realtors and we choose to provide this service, as a service to the public.
Don’t be dictated to by the Bureau, let’s go to court, all the way to Supreme Court if necessary and have our day!
There is plenty of competition in Canada for realtors, many forums and opportunities for the public to sell their homes privately – we should not be compromising our standards, nor our member site!
I am disgusted we have not been represented more aggressively by CREA! Let’s go to court! Perhaps Canadian Law will protect enterprise and our profession.
MLS Competitive? Yeah right, I searched current listings for the EREB and 95% of the Realtors are offering the same commission to other Realtors. Good luck being one of the other Brokerages offering less, your listings will be filtered out. What a joke we Realtors are trying to defend this current corrupt system. Lorie and Mike, I bet you the co-operating commission in your Boards have the same numbers, 95% all offering the same.
Where I really believe CREA is failing is in the public relations war. They send the membership the odd statement saying that reports in the paper are erroroneus yet I never see any effort to state the case to the public. Every media report refers to the evil realtors making so much money and failing to offer the public choice, no where do I read anything explaining what MLS really is, the competitive choices that exist to the consumer, the responsibilities involved in agency relationships and the liabilites that realtors assume.
I really find the communication from CREA has been lacking
Speaking from the standpoint of a former conciliator with the O.N.H.W.P. (now Tarion Corp.) 1987 to 1992, I look at what is happening between Mr. Ripplinger and commissioner Aitken as a classic case of “failure to communicate”. They speak the same language, but because of their opposing backgrounds (the real world/Ripplinger vs the world of theory/Aitken), one can never appreciate the deeply held views of the other. One is an entreprenuer by nature, the other a rule-follower by nature; that is why they occupy the positions that they do; these are their comfort zones. The best defense is a strong offense; Mr. Ripplinger, don’t give in to the desire to try to please all of the people all of the time; it has never been done before; you won’t be the first to do it. If you feel that your position will prevail at court, just do it! Who stands to lose face the most if one’s position is undermined within the public forum…an industry’s built upon competitive values, or a bureaucrat’s espousing government lawyers’ positions, attacking those of us in the system who are “out there” competing to make a living vs those who shoot from the sidelines/ comfort/protection of their highly salaried positions wearing self-imposed mantles of “we know best what is good for all”? If “they” haven’t stood in our shoes, “they” have no moral right imposing changes to a legal/functioning system of doing busines…unless we let them. Mr. Ripplinger, don’t let the spectre of Flip Wilson’s comedic refrain “Here come da judge” make you question your position in the face of a bluff; GO TO COURT. Don’t acquiese. We will be respected more for standing up for what we believe to be right more so than for buckling to satisfy a misguided bureacrat’s idea of how the world should operate (from behind a desk). I am sure Commissioner Aitken is a very nice person, with what she believes is the will of the people on her side, but she may be wrong; she may simply be mis-guided by a lack of hands-on experience within the real-world; this is sometimes the case with government workers. This is why there just may be a failure to communicate between Mr Ripplinger and Commissioner Aitken. If so, it is neither of their faults; it is simply a situation in need of a judgement call. Here come da judge!
I “believe” I know what the completition bureau is saying – that it’s all about the consumer being able to pick, chose and pay for only the services they want instead of being told they have to pay a lump sum for everything when their homes are sold.
Have you ever helped a seller get his house sold in a day and be asked, “So, what did you do to earn all that commission?”
But like I said, that’s my interpretation. I’m with Tom. The lack of communication is terrible.
REALTORS have to abide by full disclosure…why are we being kept in the dark and not given all the details?
I have to agree with Tom that CREA is losing the public relations war. And has been playing on the defensive from the beginning.
I also believe like Brian that there is major lack of communication and we will prevail if we are strong enough to go to court instead of giving in to Aitken. Nothing is more frustrating than a bully – and Canadians if they see this through more effective media coverage and going to the Tribunal – will not like the bully.
Stop trying to avoid court – when we are right, we are right CREA.
Lorie: Have you read the Notice of Application submitted by The Commissioner of Competition on February 8, 2010? It can be found on the Competition Tribunal’s web site.
If not, I recommend that you do so.
It clears things up substantially without the media hype.
If, as President Ripplinger states ” I can’t imagine that there’s a case to be brought before the tribunal with or without the changes”, then why is CREA negotiating? The grass roots movement of our grass roots leaders, in my opinion, is precisely the opposite of what the CREA Directors have pursued.
Agreed…. CREA is losing the public relations war as each day passes. No one in CREA has stepped forward to layout the situations and benefits the consumer faces usinga realtor or not….why is this ?
Dale Ripplinger is not showing tru leadership…de didn an online interview at the Globe and Mail last week, with questions being emailed from the public live. He left before the session had finished ! What ?!
Did you ahve something more urgent to attend to Dale ?
We have radio, tv, internet and they have done nothing to defend their position to the public ! It’s insance and WE WILL LOSE, if CREA does not pull it’s finger out.
Foe example, why has CREA not surveyed the public on their opinion about realtors, fees and associated issues ? Why not !
Let’s CREA get off it’s overpaid backside and get on the offensive.
There are very few industries that are more competitive and and offer more choice than our indutry does. My family spent $9000 last year putting gasoline in our cars. I cannot remember the last time two gas stations across the street from one another offered different prices. That’s price-fixing and highly anti-competitive and affects everyone who purchases gasoline everytime they fuel up. No one goes after the gas companies making billions of dollars a year. Give me strength!!!
We are a very competitive industry indeed. Witness the more than 20 brokerages in our small real estate board of less than 400 members – yet in a country of 30 million people we have less than 20 cell phone providers. Competition isn’t just about the fee for service, but just as importantly it is about what each agent does for the commission they earn.
I concur that CREA has been slow in getting our message out to the public. If the facts had been put out to the public earlier, perhaps the CB would not have forced this issue to a tribunal. A tribunal we will undoubtedly pay for twice – as taxpayers and as REALTORS.
A number of REALTORS in my office have commented that very few leads come from http://www.realtor.ca while the majority come from individual sites and our local MLS board site which we promote whenever possible.
With that in mind, many have wondered why bother to “push” the data to a national site that is under attack and a site that may be turned into a glorified FSBO website.
This approach would certainly splinter the nation wide approach and make us more like the US system which is light years behind our truly national MLS system.
Any thoughts on the decentralizaton of our MLS data?
Hi Marcus,
If you go by your example, then we price fix as well. We aren’t told what commission to charge and yet what percentage of the agents out there have commissions set at 5%?
Don’t get me wrong I hate gas prices, but they’re just doing business, as are we. As are our sellers when they agree to list their houses for the same price as what the house down the street sold for the week before.
Please don’t support the capitulation of our agency pillar…we have a right to require the public to deal with our members…foregoing agency requirement would facilitate the use of our system almost directly by the public…which could not ever fit our professional business model…
CREA seems to be in full run and hide mode…on our behalf…I think we have to stand firm for our industry…
It seems the Competition Bureau is after transformation of our system to a full public use system…How could that be on?…We’ll have to class action suit against the loss of our incomes…
Write and dialogue with your Board’s directors…who will decide on CREA recommendations…
Here is Vancouver, our Board provided a session with CREA, a lawyer and our Board president. The one thing that kept getting mentioned over and over again (as some have mentioned above) is that CREA needs to do a much better job explaining the benefits of using a Realtor. Running TV ads telling the public that we have a life (as the recent ads do) doesn’t do it. We have a life that not a lot of people would want. These ads don’t give the messasge that needs to get out – over and over again. The other thing that came out was that what the commission is trying to do is take our trade mark away from us. We own the MLS trade mark. Think about this – the familiar shaped Coca-Cola bottle is a registered trade mark, just as MLS is. What do you think would happen of any of us came up with another drink and insisted that we have the right to put it in a Coke bottle and sell it as Coke. How far do you think the commission would get if they tried to force Coke to allow you and I to market our drink in their trade mark? CREA needs to get a backbone. We need to fight this one to the end, and if it means we have to go to the Supreme Court, then so be it. This is too important an issue to just cave in. I know it would cost us money, but in the end it could save us more than it would cost. Come on CREA, fight for us instead of against us. Because that is what you are doing by caving in.
Funny. If I wanted to advertise an offer of selling your home by Realtor on the MLS for a $3000 flat fee (that’s total !!) I am not allowed to do so as all incentives have to be brokerage based — how is that competitive? If I go get my brokerage license and establish $3000 Realty and do this, I would be the most hated person in Real Estate but I suppose I am allowed to do this. (see Seller Invite in Edmonton). Problem is no other Realtor would show the house even if the house is exactly what their client is looking for (whose best interest are you looking out for??) and the brokerage would be bad mouthed by other Realtors to every person they can talk to. I know this happens, hell, it happened to a brokerage I worked for — two of them in fact!!
If the CREA declares that incentives and inducements are now Realtor based and the licensing bodies sign off on it we would have FULL competition. I do my taxes as an “independent” contractor but that isn’t true, WE all work for a Broker and must submit to their collective collusion.
When a seller calls in 10 Realtors for market evaluations from 10 different companies and they ALL state the same commission rates…….. competitive how?
When I was a conciliator with the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, and I had to award contracts to contractors bidding on warranty work that the builders would not or could not complete, I always awarded the contracts to the contractors with a good track record (no screw-ups). They always made me look good in the eyes of the new home owners. These contractors invariably were not the lowest bidders, but they provided the best service, every time. Of course, I was always breaking the rules by not awarding the work to the lowest bidder as required by the Warranty Program’s dictates; I was constantly having to defend my actions to the beareaucrats who ran the joint. But my year-end costs for repairs were on a par with or lower than the other conciliators who followed the rules. However, “my “homeowners didn’t have to put up with having the same problems “repaired” two or three times by different low-ball “contractors” (who couldn’t get contracts anywhere else). We get what we pay for in this life, most of the time. I’m not sure that just because many/most Realtors charge 5% to list, market and negotiate a sale on behalf of their clients, that they produce equal results for their clients. That’s where the real competition occurs. Everything can’t be boiled down to a “system” based upon percentages when there are human beings involved; there is no way to quantify the value of one Realtor to another before the fact; it is all just so much spin. When consumers praise the efforts/results realized on their behalf by their Realtor, seldom is the commission rate mentioned. That’s because in the minds of the consumers it was not the paramount criteria for choosing that Realtor in the first place. Astute people look for quality as well as price. High quality realtors have trouble selling themselves short.
Like many Realtors, I have been following the competitions bureau events and have some thoughts of my own.
We know that one product (service) licenced Realtors in Canada provide is a process for the public to bring real property to the market which protects both parties of the sales transaction to the highest degree through our rules, regulations and code of ethics, while effectively insuring the integrity of market value for real estate in Canada. This process primarily protects the purchaser. The second and equally important product (service) is a process for ascertaining and vetting qualified purchasers in a professional manor that again, protects both parties in the sales transaction to the highest degree through our rules, regulations and code of ethics.
Both are equally important “pillars” if you will, to the Real Estate sales process. Both are equally deserving of diligence and protection through the regulations of our industry and in the products and services we provide. To protect the buyer during the process of Real Estate trade in Canada, properties must without exception be under contract to and represented by a Realtor. Without that representation a property can never be presented on Realtor.ca thus further insuring these protections to the buyer.
Why do we not have the same protections in place to protect the seller and insure the integrity of the second “pillar” of our business by allowing only vetted and under contract buyers to access Realtor.ca?
If both parties to a transaction are required to have representation, why are we not limiting the access to Realtor.ca to those who are under contract with a Realtor be they buyer or seller?
Had MLS.ca been set up originally as a password protected site accessible only to clients of licenced Realtors (both buyers and sellers) I doubt very much that we would be under this pressure from the Competitions bureau and certain private entities to open it up. Our previous paper listing catalogue process worked much this way and I don’t recall it ever being challenged by a government body as being anti competitive.
The sole purpose of Realtor.ca should be to serve in the transaction of Real Estate to the highest degree of professionalism. Instead we have tried to use it additionally as a marketing, if not, popularity gaining tool for our profession by making it an open and free service to the public. In doing so that message and the true value of Realtor.ca is somehow lost.
I think we should take the public site down. That would end a lot of the problems. I am unbiased on this as a small broker for 35 years I think CREA will lose in court. My experience with our association has been dissapointing. I have managed to keep my customers happy for 35 years by offering affordable services mostly via exclusive listings at a reduced commission. Their loyalty and support has kept us in business for 35 years not organized real estate in any way. Organized real estate has fined me $2000 for not having an MLS sticker on a sign and just recently $1500 for making a mistake in one of our adds. That on top of all the money we pay every year. Cost of doing business ? Or maybe it’s because most of my listings aren’t on MLS. Sorry guys but I think the competition bureau will come with enough ammunition to blow you out of the water in court. It will be interesting and times are going to change whether we like it or not.
REBBA in ontario don’t allow flat fee and %tage commissions to be charged in the same deal its either one or the other (that legislation is written by the government). I wish I had a choice of what cable TV channels I wanted and only pay for those I watched, wait a minute I do , I can not have Cable TV or watch TV over the internet , Why is MLS any different?
We have been sold out by CREA!!! Such nonsense!
Take realtor.ca down as a public site. Keep it as a intra net for our own use. We own it we pay for it and we should have a say in its future!!!
Without the public access the sleezebags will dry up and go away.
This really tells us that all our associations have failed to take steps to communicate with it’s members on important issues like this.
This is comment posted to my blog (www.BarrieRealEstateBlog.com) this morning and my reply:
I know as a consumer before I enter into any contract I do research on the item first. This is the value of Realtor.ca as it stands in its present state, as anyone can view a yard sign, go on realtor.ca and view the home to see if it is right for them. If you were to limit that function to only consumers that our under contract I believe you will deter potential buyers, and in doing so you will have less leads on the property.:
I hear you Jason and I agree as this has been one objective all along for which The Canadian Real Estate Association created and continues to maintain Realtor.ca
It has been quite successful in this regard. The primary purpose for creating the site was so Realtors could give additional exposure to home listings nationally rather than having them exposed only through locally available media sources which used to be the norm before the Internet came about. In the same manor businesses like Ikea, Canadian Tire or Sears have created national websites to showcase the products that they are under contract to sell for their clients.
What has been happening for the past few years is ambitious alternative real estate entities have initiated multi million dollar law suits as well as gone to the Canadian Competition Bureau to among other things, try to force The Canadian Real Estate Association to allow the public to post their listings onto Realtor.ca for a small fee without any obligation to use the full services of the licensed Realtors who pay for and maintain the integrity of the site. The argument being that by restricting the privilege only to persons working with a licensed Realtor this is anti competitive and or monopolizing the business of real estate.
CREA has agreed to allow a fee to post your listing option to the public however the Competition Bureau commissioner Melanie Aitken says this is not enough and that she believes anti competitive behavior could still arise at the local board levels though there is no historical proof that this has or would be a likely event. In reality we are so closely monitored at various levels that such fears border on clinical paranoia. I wonder if she served on the McCarthy hearings panel in the 1950’s?
As a Realtor for 10 years I can tell you when you walk into a potential sellers home it is them not the Realtor who sets the financial terms of the contract, my option is to accept it or walk away and if I do walk, there are hundreds more right behind me who will take that contract. I would use the term “Uber” competitive to describe our industry, not anti competitive.
If you do a Google search you will see competition is rampant from within and outside of our industry. There are an endless and constantly growing number of private and for sale by owner type products and services each with their own online property search and display sites no different in practice than Realtor.ca
Truth be told, none of them receive the traffic that Realtor.ca experiences so some of them and the public who showcase their homes on these discount sites want to be able to put them in our display windows too on Realtor.ca and reap the benefits of the traffic our site receives as a result of its reputation and our active advertising of the service.
Despite a very clear and convincing defense by our industry President, the competition bureau has shown itself to lack the capacity to grasp the full dynamics of our industry and our marketing and seems determined to undermine the integrity of the licensed Real Estate industry in Canada. Their director is on a legacy building mission it would appear.
If their position was applied to the two companies mentioned above, Sears and Ikea then their position would be that you and I should be able to put any items we might be saving for our spring garage sale into their online catalog for a small advertising fee. Would Sears and Ikea’s refusal to allow that be anti competitive? I’ll let you decide.
My own thinking is that because the Canadian Real Estate Association is under no legal obligation to provide the Realtor.ca website and given the unwarranted interference from both the private sector and government to take it from us, then just close it down or limit its access to clients only.
Once you flood the site with listings in which the data (room sizes, features, condition, disclosures, leans, encumbrances, chattels, fixtures, rights of way, zoning, taxes, environmental, safety, building code requirements, lot levies, clear title and the hundreds of other details a buyer has a right and need to know before making a decision) has not been verified by a Realtor who is under legal obligation to disclose fully and accurately, then what happens then to the integrity of Realtor.ca?
That is its main value, the information is accurate and guaranteed so, under the umbrella of our industry’s strict rules and regulations. Again I say that before this industry is stripped of its ability to protect the clients we serve we should privatize the whole site and unfortunately you as a buyer and myself as a Realtor will likely suffer for it.
What everyone is missing is driving around a buyer for 2 months a 1.00 a litre is a considerable cost. So after two months you need the 2 to 2.5% a 1% payout doesnt cover appointments time expertise, market evaulation and negotiation. This is common sense.
How come no one is worried about the excessive bank penalty fees when a mortgage is broken?
Mike Montague says: (in part)
‘If their position was applied to the two companies mentioned above, Sears and Ikea then their position would be that you and I should be able to put any items we might be saving for our spring garage sale into their online catalog for a small advertising fee. Would Sears and Ikea’s refusal to allow that be anti competitive? I’ll let you decide.’
When Sears & Ikea share the same website & prices but claim to be competitors…this argument will be spot on. When Sears sells ads to Ikea on the Sears website…let me know.
I’m not knocking Mike Montague, just this idea in the real estate community. The idea that a website is exclusive to certain groups is fine. The idea that the certain groups you wish to share with are your toughest competitors but not the public….it doesn’t hold water.
Other then that the real estate industry seems competitive to me. In fact, it is the closest thing must ordinary Canadians get to real capitalism (except for yard sales I suppose)
just my 2 cents as a consumer
Mike, Please show me where “prices” in the real estate industry are shared amongst companies, which I believe you mean fixed. In Barrie Ontario where I ply my trade there are over 800 Realtors. Rarely does a sign go up on a lawn that wasn’t bartered for by the Realtor who’s name is on it. I typically miss three out of five of the listing opportunities I am called on and always because someone was willing to undercut the price the home owner was able to negotiate with me. One often costly irony in all of this is the consummate Realtor everyone should be looking for to sell their house is one with the best negotiating skills yet it is the ones who have trouble negotiating their own paycheck that often end up with the responsibility of (hopefully) negotiating top dollar for your most valued possession. Have a look at a recent blog post of mine. Competition is good but like most things there is a point where something has to give and the consumer is typically the one that bares the brunt when all is said and done.
Mike: You are bang on when you state that…”the consumate Realtor everyone should be looking for to sell their house is the one with the best negotiating skills…”.
Unfortunately, many (most?) sellers are fixated on the “How much do you charge?” merry-go-’round; they can’t seem to reconcile the “quality negotiators are worth more” concept; they think we are all the same (cut from the same cloth), when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. ‘We’ all know that, but some consumers and Ms Aitken don’t seem to, nor do some consumers and Ms Aitken seem to want to acknowledge this reality. Thus we are all lumped into the melting pot of mediocrity, at best. It’s the old story; take the listing at whatever price the consumer thinks is right at a listing percentage just under what the next lowest real estate sales person quoted….and wait…and wait…and wait; great negotiating skills! When said listing expires unsold, quess who often gets it back?…The one who f____d up in the first place! It’s no wonder some of the public and Ms Aitken might think that we are a bunch of mercenaries. Hint…Maybe some are…probably?…likely?…Probably.
Unfortunately, the strategy works…(for the real estate sales person in question), which in my mind said strategy is questionable ethically (the Realtor can usually outwait the seller). It’s one way to make a living in the so-called non-competitive world of real estate under the umbrella of CREA. Does this strategy really work on behalf of the consumer’s interest by default? There can be no proof one way or the other; that is the problem. So bring in the theorticians; they think they know the answer.
Regards,
Brian.
Before sitting in the judgement seat, anyone wishing to obtain that special designation, appointment, governmental or otherwise, and the honour of holding same, should be required first to “get a licence, or as in Ontario, become registered.”
Likewise, it should still be a prerequisite to owning and/or operating a company. Who made the new rules regarding – anyone can? Whose (not so) bright idea was that? MIght have come from the strain that (I think) a medical office doesn’t have to be owned by a doctor, perhaps. Just my thoughts.
Carolyne
This is where I part company with some of my colleagues.
If you’ve lost a bid to a low-baller it is unfair to characterize them as not being able to negotiate on their own behalf, while suggesting that you, are a better negotiator. The fact is that you failed to do exactly that which you suggest you are better at doing…negotiating.
Your negotiation skills did not win you the deal, you were bested by someone whom you think is unworthy and you did not prepare an effective strategy for selling yourself.
The same argument you would use against the low-baller holds true for you – If you couldn’t negotiate for yourself, can you effectively negotiate for your client?
What happens when you as listing rep face the low-baller buyer rep, do you stand pat that your client must get X price and watch the buyer walk away or do you negotiate a fair price?
Nonetheless, when you consider that some buyers will opt for the less expensive inspection company and this is just a few hundred dollars, it is unwise to assume that when it comes time to sell that paying top commission would be their preference. Choose wisely the type of clientele you wish to deal with and you won’t be disappointed.
But, if competition is fierce enough that the choice is between eat or starve then you can either prove you are a worthy negotiator and eat or, stand by your decision to claim that you deserve a higher fee and starve.
Hi PED: I’m assuming that I am one of your collegues that you referred to above re ‘parting company with’; your point is well taken and certainly has the ring of truth to it.
However, my point may have been misinterpreted and, or, not explained clearly enough.
My point is this: I do not prepare any kind of strategy for selling myself to a potential client; I don’t believe in the concept of a sales strategy other than being myself and stating my beliefs to someone; they can take me or leave me as I am. I will survive, thrive or fail as a real estate sales representative on those terms/that reality only. That kind of attitude plants me firmly in a minority position when it comes to sales persons’ attitudes/practices. I’m not saying that my modus operandi is any better than anyone elses’; it’s just mine; it’s what ‘I’ am comfortable with.
You are quite right, I often get outmanouvered/outnegotiated by other sales representatives when it comes to acquiring listings; but I do not believe that I get outmanouvered/outnegotiated by other sales represenatives when it comes to representing clients who do choose me as their representative, be it as a buyer or as a seller representative. There is a big difference between how I act/negotiate as a person asking for business vs as a person representing already acquired business interests, and the difference is substantial, as you might imagine.
Yes, I do miss out on listings, because I will not compromise myself/my beliefs when it comes down to saying what could/should be said to win a listing that flies in the face of what I believe to be true/accurate regarding how much I believe I am worth to said potential clients. People often disbelieve the truth and believe B.S. based solely upon the presentation strategies, or lack thereof, of both. (This sounds like a rant, doesn’t it).
Your point is well taken PED, and based upon all of your previous posts, I respectfully accept your concern/counselling; I am, after all, just a new guy on the job with still firmly held beliefs regarding how this business should be conducted, and I’m a stubborn S.O.B..
Best Regards,
Brian.
Hi Brian,
Thank you. You point is also well taking particularly regarding a potenial client taking you as you are. Just stay that way, because compromising yourself means you will compromise your standards and that is the major point I tried to make.
We have to realize that we will all at some time lose a potential client to someone else, and this will especially be so if we go after every person who calls on us to submit a quote.
There is a vast difference between allowing yourself to be outmanoeuvred by a low-baller or someone who promises the world than being able to assess that the potential client is not someone for whom you would like to work. It takes 2 minutes to figure this out. Say thank you but no thank you and never look back.
Nevertheless, in case we really want the person’s business it is incumbent upon us to anticipate every possible argument a contemporary may have and go in with a presentation that would counter theirs.
I can by no means claim that my sales count is huge, but I can claim this … I have turned down more clients than I probably have had because I decide when I will take on a client; I have never not sold a listing – the majority of which set record prices that have often taken many months to a year or two for similar properties to break; the listing REALTORS for houses where I have represented buyers cannot brag about their sale to list price and, I am the beneficiary of extraordinary performance appraisals.
For me this is enough. But if you as a new registrant cannot afford to pick and choose your clients then go in prepared for all circumstances – that is after all the difference between a strategist and a run of the mill salesperson. I might add that even if you relent on your commission percent and are yet so sure of your ability that you will sell and close the property quickly , then why not prove your point?
Hi PED: Your input is appreciated. My problem is that I am older and fairly set in my ways, and they are the “old” ways, so to speak. I have a difficult time looking ahead to a financial “pay-off” as my primary motivation; I do look ahead, however, to a vision of a happy client. My belief is that if I help to generate the former, the money will follow, hopefully soon enough to allow me to be able to afford continuing within the business. If not?…Then I don’t belong in this business…simple.
I was very impressed with your statement…”I have never not sold a listing…” Do you mean within the initial listing period (generally 90 days?) at the initial list price? If you are doing that, then I want to meet you personally, because you have something that most of us do not have…seriously! Now that is something that I aspire to on behalf of my clients; who doesn’t? Other than pricing the property correctly, what is your secret? I am never sure that I will sell and close a client’s property quickly.
Thanks for your interest.
Regards,
Brian.