Going to slip in a short post--still too busy with estate ripples from my mothers death and the mountains of papers to go through to get back on track toward coherent integration.
The launch of Chico et al. MLS triggered another flurry of "gee how wonderful we are" press releases from CAR. Those are increasingly irritating to an wider and wider audience. The system has been up for a year now--debuted formally at Monterey meetings January 09. It's still not complete and the user base is not impressive. What is impressive is the number of larger associations who have elected NOT to adopt the statewide MLS (which isn't and won't be) with the marvelous new technology (which hasn't been so far--but it's not finished yet).
The organizational narcissism virus has a firm grip on state and national trade organizations. The paid executive staff and core volunteer leadership (aka KoolAid Krowd) are devoutely focused on expanding the power and control of the organizations above all else. Member needs are seen from that perspective--ie what's good for the organization must be good for the members, because the organization belongs to the members--oh really? The welfare and satisfaction of the Buyers who pay for the whole real estate industrial complex is barely on the horizon.
This is also apparent in the RPR initiative--their data user agreement offers almost nothing for the pleasure of giving up MLS data so RPR can package, sell, slice, dice and archive for eternity. It is a very nifty quasi MLS application, but the cost seems a little extreme--unless you buy the idea that technology is the ONLY way quality service can possibly be delivered to the public. Is better technology worth absolutely any cost?
That's just the spin the trade organizations have put on things the past several years and, golly gee, guess what products and services they now offer their members?
Captive consumers are loyal consumers, particulary when there's a monopoly--as there is in standard forms.
Repeating my comment from an early post. 25 years ago the trade organizations played almost NO role in day to day real estate activity. Real people bought real houses--mostly from agents who worked full time in the business and had personal knowledge of each house on the market because they'd been in that house and discussed it's benefits and negative aspects with their contemporaries.
I know we can't go back again, but we can look back and learn some valuable lessons from the past. When real people make decisions about real houses, technology can't replace the human element. Technology is a tool to facilitate decisions based on intuition, emotion and inspired insight. Technology is not fiduciary duty in a neat little box.
The trade organizations seek to create products and services that define all aspects of the real estate industry, but that "one size fits all" approach disrespects the human element in real estate. That human element is the factor that ultimately creates singular service and it's being incrementally devalued by today's real estate industry.
Facebook Badge
Friday, January 29, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
purpose and vision
It's now Jan 27. My mother died at home on Sun the 24th and the days have slipped away since I started this post on the 23rd. A long illness doesn't necessarily prepare you for the actual end of life. I've had a few real estate data ideas during the conversations with people over the past few days. I'll finish up this post and then get started on a new one with a little different slant.
Started Jan 23--Sat.
Crazy week for weather on central coast. Kids playing in sea foam 2 feet deep up on the sidewalks and creed flowing over their banks for first time since '95.
Inman Connect came and went. One of the active commentators among the agents mentioned in a blog that the consumer (as in public) might be getting left out of discussion, technology and vision for the future--in MLS and real estate data display development. A very valid point I've been making for several years.
It's useful to look at history (when you're an evolutionary ecologist you ALWAYS look at history) once again. Pre tech explosion MLS info was an aid to the Brokers who then passed that knowledge on to the public. There was not a lot of money on the table with data display--no way to display it and no place to display it. Paper path and word of mouth was it.
Now there are many ways to display the data and much more data content to display. Agents and the public both have ready access to the data and a huge amount of money is being made by firms involved in that process. Incidentally, commissions are probably lower on average than they were 25 years ago--interesting math perspective.
There's the environment we're inhabiting, now the question. What is the purpose of data display, either through MLS systems or third party sources used by the public.
Obviously the proximal purpose is to provide information about properties, but what is the downstream purpose---where does the process that begins with information display end?
The Buyer might say to assist with the identification and purchase at a fair price with the least inconvenience of the RIGHT HOUSE. The best house available based on practical, emotional and financial needs. The Sellers might say to make the Buyer aware of their house and have it represented in the best possible way to maximize the perception of value.
Do the present technology systems achieve that purpose? Certainly not in an optimal way. Why not? Because the data technology systems are controlled, not by the principals, but by organizations and corporations that have somewhat different agendas. The brokers and agents are in the mix as well, but they are increasingly convinced that the technology defines the business of real estate and they don't control the technology--because they don't have the knowledge or the engagement.
That creates an interesting real estate industry ecology, where the "habitat" is created by entities (tech firms and trade organizations) that don't live in the houses and also don't depend on the sale of houses for commissions or proceeds or a place to live.
We're back again to confronting the human side of real estate--real people buying and selling houses with relatively little focused assistance from technology. The brokers and agents don't NEED technology to deliver the outstanding service Buyers and Sellers desire. Here's and interesting question--is the technology an aid or a limitation? Remember the and/or issue--what if tech is an aid AND a limitation?
Back to estate issues--next post will be further discussion of the human element in the ecology of real estate.
Started Jan 23--Sat.
Crazy week for weather on central coast. Kids playing in sea foam 2 feet deep up on the sidewalks and creed flowing over their banks for first time since '95.
Inman Connect came and went. One of the active commentators among the agents mentioned in a blog that the consumer (as in public) might be getting left out of discussion, technology and vision for the future--in MLS and real estate data display development. A very valid point I've been making for several years.
It's useful to look at history (when you're an evolutionary ecologist you ALWAYS look at history) once again. Pre tech explosion MLS info was an aid to the Brokers who then passed that knowledge on to the public. There was not a lot of money on the table with data display--no way to display it and no place to display it. Paper path and word of mouth was it.
Now there are many ways to display the data and much more data content to display. Agents and the public both have ready access to the data and a huge amount of money is being made by firms involved in that process. Incidentally, commissions are probably lower on average than they were 25 years ago--interesting math perspective.
There's the environment we're inhabiting, now the question. What is the purpose of data display, either through MLS systems or third party sources used by the public.
Obviously the proximal purpose is to provide information about properties, but what is the downstream purpose---where does the process that begins with information display end?
The Buyer might say to assist with the identification and purchase at a fair price with the least inconvenience of the RIGHT HOUSE. The best house available based on practical, emotional and financial needs. The Sellers might say to make the Buyer aware of their house and have it represented in the best possible way to maximize the perception of value.
Do the present technology systems achieve that purpose? Certainly not in an optimal way. Why not? Because the data technology systems are controlled, not by the principals, but by organizations and corporations that have somewhat different agendas. The brokers and agents are in the mix as well, but they are increasingly convinced that the technology defines the business of real estate and they don't control the technology--because they don't have the knowledge or the engagement.
That creates an interesting real estate industry ecology, where the "habitat" is created by entities (tech firms and trade organizations) that don't live in the houses and also don't depend on the sale of houses for commissions or proceeds or a place to live.
We're back again to confronting the human side of real estate--real people buying and selling houses with relatively little focused assistance from technology. The brokers and agents don't NEED technology to deliver the outstanding service Buyers and Sellers desire. Here's and interesting question--is the technology an aid or a limitation? Remember the and/or issue--what if tech is an aid AND a limitation?
Back to estate issues--next post will be further discussion of the human element in the ecology of real estate.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
what mysteries does the tech future hold?
Been several days. Had some challenges with lack of sleep--glad I never had children, but getting up in the night to care for 89 year old mother is probably much the same. Sleep deprivation is an adventure best not explored.
A few quick thoughts on where this blog is and where it will go next. Ironically Inman Connect NY is underway. Good topics for this one with RPR and various MLS efforts, not to mention Googlesque strategies to ponder.
The previous posts wrap around a central theme that technology isn't enough to create the "art" of outstanding real estate service. It can assist in delivering what the Buyer (and in kind, the Seller) wants and needs, but it can't go the whole way. That's a good thing or real estate would suffer the consequences of disintermediation as other service businesses have.
The technology purveyors and the technophiles continue to lead the cheering section for more tech as the answer to all things real estate (and so do the trade organizations--a perverse position-- considering disintermediation and its potential impact on their members), but the public isn't buying it. Few Buyers are technophiles--particularly when it comes to choosing a dwelling. It's that primal thing again.
As mentioned before, there is MUCH money to be made selling tech to the real estate industry--whether or not it's necessary or even desireable. Because of that money, tech won't go away. It will continue to grow in odd ways that are largely disconnected from the actual needs of the industry or the public.
Why? Because tech evolution is charted by technophiles. Many of whom don't really have a background in real homes and real people making decisions about real homes.
Instead of attempting to observe, learn and distill the little subtleties that create great real estate agents and incorporate elements of those skills into a new generation of tech-related products, the technology firms look around at their contemporaries and strive to deliver tech just a little better than their closest competitors. The problem is that the real consumers of tech have become the techies, not the Buyers and not the Sellers.
Never forget that the very best agents actually need very little technology to achieve dazzling service. In my 18 years of managing offices, training agents and dealing with problems, I noted very little correlation between tech ability and sales ability. In fact, my best and most productive and most trouble free agents had great interpersonal skills and relatively little tech knowledge. I usually supplied the tech, if needed. Conversely, agents who were big on technology seldom delivered a level of personal service that actually impressed, or even surprised, Buyers and Sellers.
To reiterate, the number one goal for most Buyers is to find and acquire, the RIGHT house, one that FEELS special above all others. The agent that can pull that RIGHT house out of the inventory again and again does so with the same kind of intuition that the Buyers use in reaching a final decision. Tech can help, but in it's present state of development it can't go the whole distance. The data containers don't have the contents and the filters aren't sufficiently selective.
Photos that are done with care MAY capture more of that intangible FEEL than traditional alpha numeric data. That's the next major quantum leap in real estate information systems. Displaying the art of the house that's behind the feel Buyers get when they see the real thing.
The RPR approach is just loading more data into the mix, but not getting us any closer to the tipping point of decision making. Agents and potentially the public (via RPR reports) will spend more time on information that won't play a pivotal role in the final choice. What's the harm in that? There are limits on time and intellectual resources for agents and the public. Those resources should be allocated to addressing information what will factor into the ultimate decision to buy.
25 years ago much more of an agent's time and more of the public's time was spent in actual houses where the rubber meets the road. Tech has produced a virtual real estate world that accounts for large corporate profits, but may not encourage wise decisions by the members of the public who end up paying for services that may actually hinder achieving their intended goal.
A few quick thoughts on where this blog is and where it will go next. Ironically Inman Connect NY is underway. Good topics for this one with RPR and various MLS efforts, not to mention Googlesque strategies to ponder.
The previous posts wrap around a central theme that technology isn't enough to create the "art" of outstanding real estate service. It can assist in delivering what the Buyer (and in kind, the Seller) wants and needs, but it can't go the whole way. That's a good thing or real estate would suffer the consequences of disintermediation as other service businesses have.
The technology purveyors and the technophiles continue to lead the cheering section for more tech as the answer to all things real estate (and so do the trade organizations--a perverse position-- considering disintermediation and its potential impact on their members), but the public isn't buying it. Few Buyers are technophiles--particularly when it comes to choosing a dwelling. It's that primal thing again.
As mentioned before, there is MUCH money to be made selling tech to the real estate industry--whether or not it's necessary or even desireable. Because of that money, tech won't go away. It will continue to grow in odd ways that are largely disconnected from the actual needs of the industry or the public.
Why? Because tech evolution is charted by technophiles. Many of whom don't really have a background in real homes and real people making decisions about real homes.
Instead of attempting to observe, learn and distill the little subtleties that create great real estate agents and incorporate elements of those skills into a new generation of tech-related products, the technology firms look around at their contemporaries and strive to deliver tech just a little better than their closest competitors. The problem is that the real consumers of tech have become the techies, not the Buyers and not the Sellers.
Never forget that the very best agents actually need very little technology to achieve dazzling service. In my 18 years of managing offices, training agents and dealing with problems, I noted very little correlation between tech ability and sales ability. In fact, my best and most productive and most trouble free agents had great interpersonal skills and relatively little tech knowledge. I usually supplied the tech, if needed. Conversely, agents who were big on technology seldom delivered a level of personal service that actually impressed, or even surprised, Buyers and Sellers.
To reiterate, the number one goal for most Buyers is to find and acquire, the RIGHT house, one that FEELS special above all others. The agent that can pull that RIGHT house out of the inventory again and again does so with the same kind of intuition that the Buyers use in reaching a final decision. Tech can help, but in it's present state of development it can't go the whole distance. The data containers don't have the contents and the filters aren't sufficiently selective.
Photos that are done with care MAY capture more of that intangible FEEL than traditional alpha numeric data. That's the next major quantum leap in real estate information systems. Displaying the art of the house that's behind the feel Buyers get when they see the real thing.
The RPR approach is just loading more data into the mix, but not getting us any closer to the tipping point of decision making. Agents and potentially the public (via RPR reports) will spend more time on information that won't play a pivotal role in the final choice. What's the harm in that? There are limits on time and intellectual resources for agents and the public. Those resources should be allocated to addressing information what will factor into the ultimate decision to buy.
25 years ago much more of an agent's time and more of the public's time was spent in actual houses where the rubber meets the road. Tech has produced a virtual real estate world that accounts for large corporate profits, but may not encourage wise decisions by the members of the public who end up paying for services that may actually hinder achieving their intended goal.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
More cyber scene
Been a few days since last post due to business, life and other distractions.
Have had a chance to talk with a few people about RPR--although most agents are totally unaware. The day to day impact of the trade organizations on their members is certainly present in a major way--but most of the members aren't aware of it. They are not engaged in the process--which works fine for the organizations.
Remember from my profile that I like to turn things around and approach a question from the opposite direction--just for fun (I have a strange sense of fun).
Regarding RPR, what doesn't it do? We're hearing how cool it is--but what doesn't it do. What will excellent agents need to add to the RPR contribution to provide impressive service to their clients to further their immediate wants and needs?
A quick aside recalls as tag line I used years ago in an ad--"we measure success the same way you do--one transaction at a time". That's the clients perspective--they want the best possible service for THEIR needs in a particular transaction. They don't care about annual production totals or average closings a month, etc., etc.
The knowledge necessary to facilitate wise decisions by a client will include some of the information in the RPR container (but not all--some of it is just extra baggage for most purposes), but it will also contain information derived from real world experiences at the property and in areas nearby.
It should include visits at different times of the day--light, neighborhood activity (noise, parking, pets) varies greatly as the day unfolds. The important thing about these off site factors is they are beyond direct control. You buy the houses, you get so much more and most of that is the way it is-can't be changed. That's an exploration and discovery challenge beyond RPR.
Spending time in the house to asses "feel", in addition to utilitarian matters, plays a big part in the final decision. If the feel isn't right, it may not be easy to change either. One of the things a good agent can do, based on experience with lots of houses and lots of clients, is understand why a house feels the way it does to a particular client. Some of those reasons can be addressed--some can't or just remain of uncertain origin.
If the Buyer is trying to get the best price on an income property, the critical assessment of emotional appeal may seem unimportant, but the next owner may occupy the house. Tenants also heed the feel factor --it may not impact rent a great deal, but vacancy factor is often affected.
You probably see a pattern. There are many things about a house that still require real world experience. Videos and photos offer a partial glimpse of those factors, but only a glimpse and the quality of visual representation of real estate remains mediocre at best.
Where's the balance? Agents certainly can't spend all their time at the computer and provide the expertise needed to deliver excellence in client service.
The flip side is that they COULD spend almost no time at the computer and achieve that outstanding service level. The caveat is that they'd spend a lot of time viewing houses in person, probably in a very limited area. Gee, that's what we did 25years ago. Current trends include wider market areas made possible with the technology boost. Service levels are the issue. If you went on a safari into the deepest darkest most dangerous jungle imaginable, would you want a guide who had done copious computer research on that very jungle or a guide who had actually lived in that jungle for 30 years?
Given technology and current business practices, there should be a balance and RPR probably sets a new standard as a means of filtering information to speed the process of indentifying likely houses to show. The danger is that some houses that might actually make the short list for final consideration may slip through the filters--and others that look good on paper, my not actually be worth considering. That's what happens with representations of reality--called sampling error in statistics. A huge number of attributes, but not approaching a couplete set, can produce a profile that looks appealing from a certain angle. Viewing the data cluster from a different angle or in person can be an unpleasent surprise and you never know what houses you didn't see at all because they didn't meet search criteria.
Real people live in real houses. The measure of satisfaction is defined by the quality of the experiences associated with living there. That resonance between house and occupant is shaped by intuition--not by endless columns of alphanumeric data.
RPR may humanize the resource in the future, but at present it seems to suggest that quality cyber space is all that matters to the agent or the public. Not true, now or ever, IMHO.
Final quick note on calREDD launch in Lake County--when have we ever experienced so many press releases about a simple MLS launch in a very small installation? Says a lot about calREDD and CAR--there is no routine success after the Fresno mystery.
Lastly, the hiatus from further expansion announced by CARETS is a smart move. Organizational and technological fine tuning is needed and with the impact of RPR still pretty fuzzy, the timing is perfect to make some adjustments for the future.
Have had a chance to talk with a few people about RPR--although most agents are totally unaware. The day to day impact of the trade organizations on their members is certainly present in a major way--but most of the members aren't aware of it. They are not engaged in the process--which works fine for the organizations.
Remember from my profile that I like to turn things around and approach a question from the opposite direction--just for fun (I have a strange sense of fun).
Regarding RPR, what doesn't it do? We're hearing how cool it is--but what doesn't it do. What will excellent agents need to add to the RPR contribution to provide impressive service to their clients to further their immediate wants and needs?
A quick aside recalls as tag line I used years ago in an ad--"we measure success the same way you do--one transaction at a time". That's the clients perspective--they want the best possible service for THEIR needs in a particular transaction. They don't care about annual production totals or average closings a month, etc., etc.
The knowledge necessary to facilitate wise decisions by a client will include some of the information in the RPR container (but not all--some of it is just extra baggage for most purposes), but it will also contain information derived from real world experiences at the property and in areas nearby.
It should include visits at different times of the day--light, neighborhood activity (noise, parking, pets) varies greatly as the day unfolds. The important thing about these off site factors is they are beyond direct control. You buy the houses, you get so much more and most of that is the way it is-can't be changed. That's an exploration and discovery challenge beyond RPR.
Spending time in the house to asses "feel", in addition to utilitarian matters, plays a big part in the final decision. If the feel isn't right, it may not be easy to change either. One of the things a good agent can do, based on experience with lots of houses and lots of clients, is understand why a house feels the way it does to a particular client. Some of those reasons can be addressed--some can't or just remain of uncertain origin.
If the Buyer is trying to get the best price on an income property, the critical assessment of emotional appeal may seem unimportant, but the next owner may occupy the house. Tenants also heed the feel factor --it may not impact rent a great deal, but vacancy factor is often affected.
You probably see a pattern. There are many things about a house that still require real world experience. Videos and photos offer a partial glimpse of those factors, but only a glimpse and the quality of visual representation of real estate remains mediocre at best.
Where's the balance? Agents certainly can't spend all their time at the computer and provide the expertise needed to deliver excellence in client service.
The flip side is that they COULD spend almost no time at the computer and achieve that outstanding service level. The caveat is that they'd spend a lot of time viewing houses in person, probably in a very limited area. Gee, that's what we did 25years ago. Current trends include wider market areas made possible with the technology boost. Service levels are the issue. If you went on a safari into the deepest darkest most dangerous jungle imaginable, would you want a guide who had done copious computer research on that very jungle or a guide who had actually lived in that jungle for 30 years?
Given technology and current business practices, there should be a balance and RPR probably sets a new standard as a means of filtering information to speed the process of indentifying likely houses to show. The danger is that some houses that might actually make the short list for final consideration may slip through the filters--and others that look good on paper, my not actually be worth considering. That's what happens with representations of reality--called sampling error in statistics. A huge number of attributes, but not approaching a couplete set, can produce a profile that looks appealing from a certain angle. Viewing the data cluster from a different angle or in person can be an unpleasent surprise and you never know what houses you didn't see at all because they didn't meet search criteria.
Real people live in real houses. The measure of satisfaction is defined by the quality of the experiences associated with living there. That resonance between house and occupant is shaped by intuition--not by endless columns of alphanumeric data.
RPR may humanize the resource in the future, but at present it seems to suggest that quality cyber space is all that matters to the agent or the public. Not true, now or ever, IMHO.
Final quick note on calREDD launch in Lake County--when have we ever experienced so many press releases about a simple MLS launch in a very small installation? Says a lot about calREDD and CAR--there is no routine success after the Fresno mystery.
Lastly, the hiatus from further expansion announced by CARETS is a smart move. Organizational and technological fine tuning is needed and with the impact of RPR still pretty fuzzy, the timing is perfect to make some adjustments for the future.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Property Resource demo
This is a quick post re the RPR demo and blog. RPR application is an impressive leap down the path leading away from real houses and real people toward a virtual brave new world where Realtors sit at computers to determine the resonance and intuitive feel and ambiance of specific houses for individual Buyers. Small problem, that can't be done, certainly not with RPR.
LPS designed lots of groundbreaking complexity into the resource, particularly in the upgraded CMA application---steep learning curve for many non-technophiles and that sort of analysis takes considerable time and patience.
Bottom line is that local agents who really understand their local market will know almost all the information in RPR already (and maybe even more), but, as the demo states-RPR allows an agent (any agent?) to become a local expert in 5 minutes---NOT LIKELY!
It would take way more than 5 minutes, even with RPR, and there are countless nuances related to value and appeal that aren't reflected in the RPR database.
Agent comments about the houses represent an online trend, but like most reviews of books or movies or mp3 players, many aren't that valuable. Maybe the agent at the computer should go out into the real world to see the houses in person, then form their own opinion--DUH!
If agents are spending more and more time at the computer in a virtual world, are they going to be spending the real world house time and people time needed to provide the expertise agents did 25 years ago?
As far as the copious data in the reports generated for Sellers, few will really spend the time to review the details. They'll look at the adjusted price and the marketing strategy and the agent. Remember, the same reports will be available to ALL Realtors--there's still the differentiation issue. Sellers choose agents based on personal attributes, not how well they crunch data fields.
"Clients don't care how much you know as much as they know how much you care." That's a saying from way, way back that I heard when I started in the business in 1985. It was important to me because I tended to overdo the knowledge part. I can relate to what RPR is trying to do, but the "smother everything with data and analysis" strategy is not moving the agents in the right direction to best serve the interests of their clients.
Oh, one more observation---if this isn't an MLS system it sure walks like one and quacks like one. I bet it has feathers and webbed feet too. An offer of compensation box with terms and conditions check off is about all that's lacking.
It will be interesting to see the ripples (and large swells) generated in coming weeks. Congratulations on the technology, but a photo based system with alpha numeric tags is still a superior way to deal with house information.
LPS designed lots of groundbreaking complexity into the resource, particularly in the upgraded CMA application---steep learning curve for many non-technophiles and that sort of analysis takes considerable time and patience.
Bottom line is that local agents who really understand their local market will know almost all the information in RPR already (and maybe even more), but, as the demo states-RPR allows an agent (any agent?) to become a local expert in 5 minutes---NOT LIKELY!
It would take way more than 5 minutes, even with RPR, and there are countless nuances related to value and appeal that aren't reflected in the RPR database.
Agent comments about the houses represent an online trend, but like most reviews of books or movies or mp3 players, many aren't that valuable. Maybe the agent at the computer should go out into the real world to see the houses in person, then form their own opinion--DUH!
If agents are spending more and more time at the computer in a virtual world, are they going to be spending the real world house time and people time needed to provide the expertise agents did 25 years ago?
As far as the copious data in the reports generated for Sellers, few will really spend the time to review the details. They'll look at the adjusted price and the marketing strategy and the agent. Remember, the same reports will be available to ALL Realtors--there's still the differentiation issue. Sellers choose agents based on personal attributes, not how well they crunch data fields.
"Clients don't care how much you know as much as they know how much you care." That's a saying from way, way back that I heard when I started in the business in 1985. It was important to me because I tended to overdo the knowledge part. I can relate to what RPR is trying to do, but the "smother everything with data and analysis" strategy is not moving the agents in the right direction to best serve the interests of their clients.
Oh, one more observation---if this isn't an MLS system it sure walks like one and quacks like one. I bet it has feathers and webbed feet too. An offer of compensation box with terms and conditions check off is about all that's lacking.
It will be interesting to see the ripples (and large swells) generated in coming weeks. Congratulations on the technology, but a photo based system with alpha numeric tags is still a superior way to deal with house information.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
open houses (real houses, real people)
This is short post I decided to do after last weekend's open houses. I mostly work with new construction listings--upper end spec houses. Open houses are loathed by many agents, but when I started in the business even the top agents in little Los Osos, CA were out there EVERY weekend doing open houses. In some areas today there are few open houses at all.
Beyond the exposure the listing receives there are other benefits. OMG! REALITY. The agent spends LOTS of time in a real house soaking up the good design features and the not so good. Then there are the people who drop by to see the house. Mostly neighbors (good, because they like the neighborhood already and know other people who might want to buy close by)and the lookers (many names for them, but they are why the house is open).
Each person has a different perspective on the house, the real estate market in general and life. Some people are very negative, some overly positive, but inevitably the agent can learn some things about the house, real estate and life that they would never have learned on their own. Sometimes that knowledge can help answer a question or offer a suggestion that builds important rapport with a potential future client.
On a few occasions I have sold the house I sat open, but I've laid the groundwork for client relationships a lot more often. I also enjoy talking to all the people. I spend many hours a week online and many addtional hours writing and reading, so actually getting face to face with the people who make this crazy business happen is a welcome treat. I usually bring a book or two and some writing project, but I seldom get a chance to work on them.
Real houses and real people provide a glimpse of the intuitive aspects of dwelling decisions. MLS data is rather unimportant at open houses. You can tell people the numbers, but the house itself speaks with much more authority. How many houses are NOT seen, because some MLS/IDX filter lets them slip through? They might be the Right house and never get seen. That happens at open houses--people who have been looking at property come in and REALLY like the house held open--but didn't see it during the showings. Another reason to hold open houses-help the techie agents think outside the data filters a little bit.
Next post I'll summarize where we are (and you thought I hadn't a clue--LOL)and what the challenges are in the future of real estate and technology. Things can get a lot better---but it will take thinking outside the data box and inside the real world of houses and people.
Beyond the exposure the listing receives there are other benefits. OMG! REALITY. The agent spends LOTS of time in a real house soaking up the good design features and the not so good. Then there are the people who drop by to see the house. Mostly neighbors (good, because they like the neighborhood already and know other people who might want to buy close by)and the lookers (many names for them, but they are why the house is open).
Each person has a different perspective on the house, the real estate market in general and life. Some people are very negative, some overly positive, but inevitably the agent can learn some things about the house, real estate and life that they would never have learned on their own. Sometimes that knowledge can help answer a question or offer a suggestion that builds important rapport with a potential future client.
On a few occasions I have sold the house I sat open, but I've laid the groundwork for client relationships a lot more often. I also enjoy talking to all the people. I spend many hours a week online and many addtional hours writing and reading, so actually getting face to face with the people who make this crazy business happen is a welcome treat. I usually bring a book or two and some writing project, but I seldom get a chance to work on them.
Real houses and real people provide a glimpse of the intuitive aspects of dwelling decisions. MLS data is rather unimportant at open houses. You can tell people the numbers, but the house itself speaks with much more authority. How many houses are NOT seen, because some MLS/IDX filter lets them slip through? They might be the Right house and never get seen. That happens at open houses--people who have been looking at property come in and REALLY like the house held open--but didn't see it during the showings. Another reason to hold open houses-help the techie agents think outside the data filters a little bit.
Next post I'll summarize where we are (and you thought I hadn't a clue--LOL)and what the challenges are in the future of real estate and technology. Things can get a lot better---but it will take thinking outside the data box and inside the real world of houses and people.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
ancestral callings
This thread started on Dec 12th--it might read better if you start there--or not.
I'm examining technology in real estate and considering the costs and benefits to the public and the agents.
Only extreme technophiles believe there are no costs and infinite benefits. The cynical would point to the huge profits made by firms taking advantage of real estate agents who want the same stuff that everyone else has on the premise that technology can generate success. Trade organizations are cheerleaders for the tech is king theme. They get more power over the industry along with financial rewards through subsidiaries and affiliations.
Here's the thing--real people live in real houses, not virtual houses defined by alphanumeric data or a few photographs of varying quality. Those real people operate using brains evolved over millions of years--long before "humans" became such. Significant real estate technology is approximately 25 years old. One could argue that technology can, and has, changed the way people approach basic life decisions, such as which prospective dwelling "feels" best. An alternative view is that our ancestral, mid brain, hard wired sensitivities to certain attributes of dwellings may sustain prime consideration, regardless of the avalanche of equally weighted data fields MLS and Internet technology injects into our consciousness. The added danger is that real estate agents will also be seduced into the easy technology means of gaining information about real estate, information that may not be the Right Information for the Right Buyer. Agents are becoming tech support for Internet services, rather than purveyors of experience and insight into real world decisions that should be individually intuitive.
With the understanding that individuals are sure to differ on personal preferences, according to culture, experience, family history, etc., the following are among the standout general attributes of houses. Put another way-the decision to buy will be made based on an intuitive "feeling" largely determined by these features. Other characteristics will seldom tip the balance in the final decision--and yet agents keep taking photos of guest bedrooms, guest baths and utility rooms.
Neighborhood effects-topography, view panoramas, light on parcel (ie solar tracking), trees, creeks/ponds/ocean etc.
Safety/security-one of the main functions of a dwelling to provide a secure ambiance. Lacking that, all else falls away. This involves privacy outside the home, privacy inside-window placement vis a vie nearby properties, fencing, landscaping and such.
Adjacent houses-architectural style, setbacks. If you like craftsman and find a great example, but the two adjacent houses are ultra contemporary--might be a problem.
A quick note here--none of the three categories above are very well covered with MLS data or other online sources. Street View, like Google Maps offers help, but MLS systems are slow adopting and most Buyers don't utilize. The focus of IDX and MLS is very much "on site". Off site characteristics can be very important.
The way the house is sited on the parcel is important--curb appeal, driveway, approach to the entry area are all keys in determining the "feel" of the house, before the Buyer is even inside.
Main entry, porch, portico or whatever. Entry areas can make or break. Obviously a small bungalow is going to generate lower expectations than an estate quality home, but even so the door, exterior light and door hardware make an impression.
Once inside, the visual elements surrounding the entry foyer are significant and should offer a preview of the tone and ambiance of the interior.
Inside the primal basics prevail. Food preparation and dining--certainly THE primal tie between humans and dwellings.
Fire has an appeal going back to the dawn of the species. The hearth area and gathering space hearkens back to huts, tents and open campfires.
Master Bedroom offers sanctuary from the day's challenges and should feel secure and comfortable.
Master Bath is where preparations are made to leave the house to confront the outside world--dress for battle as it were.
These are the key elements. For a few Buyers there may be other spaces that are potential deal breakers, but these 10 or so areas will produce the intuitive "feel" that will drive the decision. Pictures or data about other aspects of the house just take up space. Surprise features, design detail and careful attention to lighting in these few areas warrant special attention and they don't receive it from the tech driven information stream.
All the data fields in MLS systems are given equal weight. Some are displayed on the main search page and others are access via an additional features search page, but they all have equal weight. That's inconsistent with real world perceptions. A "wow" factor needs to be available in MLS comparison applications used by buyers and agents.
The object of photos is to intrigue the buyer and induce a strong desire to see the property in person to check out just how amazing it is. This is a lesson for new construction and design as well. Spend the money where it will do the most good.
Photos can come closer to representing reality than alpha numeric data, even offering a glimpse of the subtle nuances that create "feel". An MLS system based on photos with tags to accommodate some alphanumeric data would be a major move toward organic comparison more in tune with ancestral callings.
Next post is about open houses--why I like them--do them every weekend. Many think that's strange, but I never tire of them. Why?
I'm examining technology in real estate and considering the costs and benefits to the public and the agents.
Only extreme technophiles believe there are no costs and infinite benefits. The cynical would point to the huge profits made by firms taking advantage of real estate agents who want the same stuff that everyone else has on the premise that technology can generate success. Trade organizations are cheerleaders for the tech is king theme. They get more power over the industry along with financial rewards through subsidiaries and affiliations.
Here's the thing--real people live in real houses, not virtual houses defined by alphanumeric data or a few photographs of varying quality. Those real people operate using brains evolved over millions of years--long before "humans" became such. Significant real estate technology is approximately 25 years old. One could argue that technology can, and has, changed the way people approach basic life decisions, such as which prospective dwelling "feels" best. An alternative view is that our ancestral, mid brain, hard wired sensitivities to certain attributes of dwellings may sustain prime consideration, regardless of the avalanche of equally weighted data fields MLS and Internet technology injects into our consciousness. The added danger is that real estate agents will also be seduced into the easy technology means of gaining information about real estate, information that may not be the Right Information for the Right Buyer. Agents are becoming tech support for Internet services, rather than purveyors of experience and insight into real world decisions that should be individually intuitive.
With the understanding that individuals are sure to differ on personal preferences, according to culture, experience, family history, etc., the following are among the standout general attributes of houses. Put another way-the decision to buy will be made based on an intuitive "feeling" largely determined by these features. Other characteristics will seldom tip the balance in the final decision--and yet agents keep taking photos of guest bedrooms, guest baths and utility rooms.
Neighborhood effects-topography, view panoramas, light on parcel (ie solar tracking), trees, creeks/ponds/ocean etc.
Safety/security-one of the main functions of a dwelling to provide a secure ambiance. Lacking that, all else falls away. This involves privacy outside the home, privacy inside-window placement vis a vie nearby properties, fencing, landscaping and such.
Adjacent houses-architectural style, setbacks. If you like craftsman and find a great example, but the two adjacent houses are ultra contemporary--might be a problem.
A quick note here--none of the three categories above are very well covered with MLS data or other online sources. Street View, like Google Maps offers help, but MLS systems are slow adopting and most Buyers don't utilize. The focus of IDX and MLS is very much "on site". Off site characteristics can be very important.
The way the house is sited on the parcel is important--curb appeal, driveway, approach to the entry area are all keys in determining the "feel" of the house, before the Buyer is even inside.
Main entry, porch, portico or whatever. Entry areas can make or break. Obviously a small bungalow is going to generate lower expectations than an estate quality home, but even so the door, exterior light and door hardware make an impression.
Once inside, the visual elements surrounding the entry foyer are significant and should offer a preview of the tone and ambiance of the interior.
Inside the primal basics prevail. Food preparation and dining--certainly THE primal tie between humans and dwellings.
Fire has an appeal going back to the dawn of the species. The hearth area and gathering space hearkens back to huts, tents and open campfires.
Master Bedroom offers sanctuary from the day's challenges and should feel secure and comfortable.
Master Bath is where preparations are made to leave the house to confront the outside world--dress for battle as it were.
These are the key elements. For a few Buyers there may be other spaces that are potential deal breakers, but these 10 or so areas will produce the intuitive "feel" that will drive the decision. Pictures or data about other aspects of the house just take up space. Surprise features, design detail and careful attention to lighting in these few areas warrant special attention and they don't receive it from the tech driven information stream.
All the data fields in MLS systems are given equal weight. Some are displayed on the main search page and others are access via an additional features search page, but they all have equal weight. That's inconsistent with real world perceptions. A "wow" factor needs to be available in MLS comparison applications used by buyers and agents.
The object of photos is to intrigue the buyer and induce a strong desire to see the property in person to check out just how amazing it is. This is a lesson for new construction and design as well. Spend the money where it will do the most good.
Photos can come closer to representing reality than alpha numeric data, even offering a glimpse of the subtle nuances that create "feel". An MLS system based on photos with tags to accommodate some alphanumeric data would be a major move toward organic comparison more in tune with ancestral callings.
Next post is about open houses--why I like them--do them every weekend. Many think that's strange, but I never tire of them. Why?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
We stroll further down MLS history lane
This Thread of Blogs begins with December 12th--it might read better if you started there--but maybe not--LOL. Here we continue tracing MLS evolution and the collateral impacts to agents and the public.
A little more MLS history on the way to modern times, such as they are.
The first online computerized MLS systems in the late 80's were pretty basic. Our firm had a really clunky smart terminal that we bought from surplus-this was not the Internet, just a 14.4 modem and a fuzzy phone line to a router. I ahd a Mac and of course the early MLS system weren't Mac compatible--some still aren't.
Early versions of online MLS didn't provide for broker loading of listing data. That was still an MLS staff function and may have been a key factor in limiting data fields, particularly among smaller associations with limited staff resources. The urge to regionalize didn't gain great momentum until technology improved and Internet access through broadband opened way to massive information transfer. Bandwidth was still a problem for photos and in rural areas access to broadband remained problematical. Incremental updates to desktop real time databases were a popular alternative, but still required trips to broadband availability. Cable broadband, DSL and satellite Internet access finally arrived in rural areas less than 10 years ago and the appeal of broad geographical boundaries increased along with the number of data fields.
Each local MLS inevitably has special data requirements, with the cumulative effect that data containers just keep growing. This is a part of a more global issue leading to too much information (TMI). Agents insist “of course we want more” data fields and geographic coverage. I don't ever recall anyone saying they want fewer fields and less data coverage outside their primary market area. Vendors want to please their MLS accounts and MLS administrators want to please their members so more it is—whether it's a good idea or not. No one asks the public what they want and whether they understand that TMI and wide geographical coverage has costs that may negatively impact the chance a Buyer finds the Right house.
CAR technology surveys proudly proclaim the increasing percentage of agents who are online many hours a day, on social networks, using smart phones, blogging, tweeting etc., etc. Consider the time spent on that technology and the fact that the day has no more hours than it did 25 years ago. Agents in those dark ages spent essentially NO time on technology. Do the agents of today spend as much time encountering houses on a personal level and talking to other agents in person as the agents of 25 years ago? If they do, they must invest considerable additional time to keep up with their technology tasks. My belief is that personal property encounters and personal discussions about property make up a significantly smaller part of the average agent week than they did 25 years ago.
Here's the tough question. Is the technology time agents invest today an effective alternative to the personal time agents used to spend looking at houses and interacting with other agents in the office?
Many, including the trade organizations, and all the firms involved in the multi billion dollar real estate technology industry would argue that technology time is more efficient and reduces the need to deal with clients and houses on a personal level. After all, MLS systems have LOTS of data from huge areas and there are maps and photos and all kinds of neighborhood information. All that is available right on an LCD screen in the office or at home or even in a phone. Virtual houses are so much easier to deal with than real ones.
Am I being an overly negative neo-Luddite? Perhaps, but here are some concerns. Buyers eventually live in real houses, not virtual ones. Agents sell real houses not virtual ones. Sellers and Listing Agents price real houses not virtual ones. Toward the end of the search process reality comes knocking on the virtual door of technology. Are the Buyers and Agents ready to fling open that door and gaze out onto a vast landscape of features, attributes, area characteristics and subtle nuances that the MLS data container lacks? When they do gaze out, will they savor the lush richness of the real world, or will they seek the security of the virtual fuzzy blanket of technology?
Choosing a dwelling is very probably an activity at least partially under the control of primitive portions of the human brain stem. The neo-cortex is amazing, but selection of habitat characteristics predates the human species. It's a primal thing. Real estate technology is largely less than 20 years old.
Is the human brain so plastic that the primal aspects of selecting a dwelling are already overwritten by technology via alpha numeric comparisons of data fields? Not likely. People still live in real houses. You can't appreciate a DaVinci painting by gazing at a numeric representation of the wavelength profile of a color scan. You can't appreciate a house by looking at 200 data fields and a few mediocre photos.
Next post will cover key primal cues associated with houses and address why technology can still play a valuable role in the quest for that “feels right” house while not interfering with the humanity of the search process.
A little more MLS history on the way to modern times, such as they are.
The first online computerized MLS systems in the late 80's were pretty basic. Our firm had a really clunky smart terminal that we bought from surplus-this was not the Internet, just a 14.4 modem and a fuzzy phone line to a router. I ahd a Mac and of course the early MLS system weren't Mac compatible--some still aren't.
Early versions of online MLS didn't provide for broker loading of listing data. That was still an MLS staff function and may have been a key factor in limiting data fields, particularly among smaller associations with limited staff resources. The urge to regionalize didn't gain great momentum until technology improved and Internet access through broadband opened way to massive information transfer. Bandwidth was still a problem for photos and in rural areas access to broadband remained problematical. Incremental updates to desktop real time databases were a popular alternative, but still required trips to broadband availability. Cable broadband, DSL and satellite Internet access finally arrived in rural areas less than 10 years ago and the appeal of broad geographical boundaries increased along with the number of data fields.
Each local MLS inevitably has special data requirements, with the cumulative effect that data containers just keep growing. This is a part of a more global issue leading to too much information (TMI). Agents insist “of course we want more” data fields and geographic coverage. I don't ever recall anyone saying they want fewer fields and less data coverage outside their primary market area. Vendors want to please their MLS accounts and MLS administrators want to please their members so more it is—whether it's a good idea or not. No one asks the public what they want and whether they understand that TMI and wide geographical coverage has costs that may negatively impact the chance a Buyer finds the Right house.
CAR technology surveys proudly proclaim the increasing percentage of agents who are online many hours a day, on social networks, using smart phones, blogging, tweeting etc., etc. Consider the time spent on that technology and the fact that the day has no more hours than it did 25 years ago. Agents in those dark ages spent essentially NO time on technology. Do the agents of today spend as much time encountering houses on a personal level and talking to other agents in person as the agents of 25 years ago? If they do, they must invest considerable additional time to keep up with their technology tasks. My belief is that personal property encounters and personal discussions about property make up a significantly smaller part of the average agent week than they did 25 years ago.
Here's the tough question. Is the technology time agents invest today an effective alternative to the personal time agents used to spend looking at houses and interacting with other agents in the office?
Many, including the trade organizations, and all the firms involved in the multi billion dollar real estate technology industry would argue that technology time is more efficient and reduces the need to deal with clients and houses on a personal level. After all, MLS systems have LOTS of data from huge areas and there are maps and photos and all kinds of neighborhood information. All that is available right on an LCD screen in the office or at home or even in a phone. Virtual houses are so much easier to deal with than real ones.
Am I being an overly negative neo-Luddite? Perhaps, but here are some concerns. Buyers eventually live in real houses, not virtual ones. Agents sell real houses not virtual ones. Sellers and Listing Agents price real houses not virtual ones. Toward the end of the search process reality comes knocking on the virtual door of technology. Are the Buyers and Agents ready to fling open that door and gaze out onto a vast landscape of features, attributes, area characteristics and subtle nuances that the MLS data container lacks? When they do gaze out, will they savor the lush richness of the real world, or will they seek the security of the virtual fuzzy blanket of technology?
Choosing a dwelling is very probably an activity at least partially under the control of primitive portions of the human brain stem. The neo-cortex is amazing, but selection of habitat characteristics predates the human species. It's a primal thing. Real estate technology is largely less than 20 years old.
Is the human brain so plastic that the primal aspects of selecting a dwelling are already overwritten by technology via alpha numeric comparisons of data fields? Not likely. People still live in real houses. You can't appreciate a DaVinci painting by gazing at a numeric representation of the wavelength profile of a color scan. You can't appreciate a house by looking at 200 data fields and a few mediocre photos.
Next post will cover key primal cues associated with houses and address why technology can still play a valuable role in the quest for that “feels right” house while not interfering with the humanity of the search process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
