I am just making observations and telling it the way it is. I am not attempting to expose the portals as unworthy of their positions – the market gets to keep what the market supports. (If only you knew my history! *L*)

Again, I say, “There are listings that are on agency websites that are not on the portals”. Why would you take offence at such a simple and true statement?
It is what this fact suggests to that is much more interesting.

And anyway, along with Robert and Glenn, I can’t wait for Google ‘Realestate’ to be launched in Oz. Having used the US version on Oz listings when Google was testing it, I know it has the potential to revolutionize the OZ portal marketplace. (And remember, Oz is a lot different from the US and UK in terms of agency online knowledge, usage and aggregation). (The big challenge will be to get ordinary mum and dad buyers to the Google Realestate search page by comparison to the ease of typing-in REA, cos it’s certainly no walk-in-the-park at the moment! Try finding Google Analytics!)
Peter Ricci and his ‘uploader’ mates will be interested too as the $25 p mth p agency REA fee/rip-off might come into question with some serious competition. (Oops! Sorry Max, is that bias against your beloved portals?)

All the breast, Maxy.

Sal

Sometimes it seems your dislike for the portals makes you try your hardest to prove or expose them as not worthy of their positions.

I dont mean this in a nasty way, and you’re not alone on this site, but you remind me of some of the republicans in the States right now…. the weakening economy actually effects them personally but deep down they love it and want it to keep sliding to prove some pseudo point.

no no no…in answer to your question – I dont even live in Australia mate.

It just makes me laugh sometimes how far off the mark you are.

Ps Are you some sort of purile portal stooge, Max Max Max?

PLEASE NOTE ALL AGENTS: Unfortunately, despite some agents in this forum previously pooh-poohing my hypothesis that a buyer cannot rely upon the major portals for all listings in an area, I have found myself in the situation where I need to visit the website of at least every agent in the area. And this is an absolute pain in the neck!!

So, good agents, get off YOUR lazy arses and understand that the King has no clothes! Not all listings are on the major portals – and we all know why! So let’s not get into a discussion of why and just realize
your/our websites are not good enough and all your/our talk about comparing leads from this portal and hits from that portal don’t matter if you don’t get THE buyer! (And we tell our vendors that we are getting the BEST buyer!Ha!

Sal
Grrrrr

We seem to agree on some points, and others might need a little more clarity from me to help you understand things.

When I discuss the differing levels of discounts awarded to Franchisors (under the current REA way), I am highlighting that the discount awarded appears to be plucked from thin air. As coastal agent raises, Ray White receives 20% discount, yet all members of the REINSW only receive 10%? Ray White would have around 890 agents in Australia, and REINSW would have around 1600. Both jumped on board the REA bandwagon at roughly the same time.

Which ever way Ray White managed to get a 20% discount on your products is beside the point (although an interesting one). What I am asking is, why isn’t the same amount of discount awarded to all REINSW members?

When I bring out individual agencies, I am actually highlighting a more fair way of awarding a discount. That is, why don’t you base discounts on loyalty/length of time an agent is a subscriber.

The agencies are the ones with whom you have a contract, not the Franchisor.

By continuing down the current REA way, all the agencies in Franchises such as C21, L.J Hooker (god help the smaller groups) along with independent agents, who have been advertising with REA for many years and gone against what various Head Offices and Institutes have told them to do – end up paying more than others.

Not really a way of saying thank you to the customers who have been with you for a long time, and evidently gone against pressure from another entity, to not use your service!

It is not the groups with whom you have a contract with, it is the agents. Again I raise the question, why penalize agents ( your customers) for something which a third party (the Franchisor) does?

Let me put it in a story which you may understand.

Once upon a time, an average looking bloke called, Greg (seems appropriate) found the woman of his dreams. He kept seeing her at bars and social gatherings, and finally one day managed to get her number.

They dated for a while and things were getting serious. Being the good girl she is, she wanted her parents to meet Greg.

It did not go well. Her mother thought Greg was not right for her daughter, and she used every bit of emotional blackmail to stop Greg seeing her daughter. She would say Greg would cheat on her daughter, that he was ‘up to no good’, that she wanted her daughter to stick to the values with which she was raised.

But Greg persisted, as he knew they would have a great future together. He eventually proposed marriage.

Today the couple have a few children, and they have traveled the world together.

The mother in-law has now decided that she was wrong, and has grown fond of Greg in a certain way. Greg being the family man he is, knows that a close relationship with his wifes family, is good for his wife and children. Whilst he may not like what happened in the past, life today is pretty good.

Max, and all, I suggest you do not tell that story to all your kids. But here is the moral.

Despite the mother in-law (Franchisor/Institute), Greg (REA) married (Signed a contract) the woman (agent) of his dreams. He did not treat his wife any differently because of the mother in-law, and eventually her family came to support him.

If Greg had let his wifes family effect him, then who knows what the consequences would have been? Broken home (agent paying full price subscription)? Children with divorced parents (agent leaving franchisor, but still with no discount)?

Max, don’t you think that it is time you loved your customer. The one you have a contract with. Ignore their family/franchise baggage, and acknowledge those who have endured pressure within their own franchise family, all because they supported REA.

If you want to penalize the Franchise Head Offices (mother in-law), then charge them more for the third party display they have on your site. Then you are punishing the right corporate entity.

But don’t punish your customers. Reward long term customers, and adjust your discounting policies to reflect that you value the loyalty agents have shown you over the years.

This applies equally to the suppliers who send you listings data, and other bodies.