outa the groove

Been lax about posting since state association meetings. They are mind numbing in their predictability, but that's only a partial excuse. I also had to write a report on one of the committees, which turned out to be a bigger job that I anticipated, because of the political leanings of the readers, me and the state organization. All leaning in different directions--LOL. Finished it and submitted it and have heard nothing more--few ever read the reports. The amount of interest in state association activities among the rank and file practitioners is slim and none.

I'll throw in a part of the report that turned out to be enlightening to me--that's next post on the state organization "party" and how it relates to the right/left, republican/democrat ideology.

Today (see, I'm getting around to it--finally) I want to comment on a segment of the main event, a real estate show put on each year to raise funds for the region. One of the presenters focused on social media, other technology and what the consumers of real estate services really want from their agents. Interviews were done recently in Phoenix (I lived near there in Scottsdale for 30 years) and the results were reviewed. Many of the conclusions were based on the assumption that the consumer is right, that more technology is always better and that having more information helps the decision process. Those are typical viewpoints in the industry and they shape the state organization, the various vendors and the real estate community. Are they valid? Minor point?

If you've read way back among my early posts, you know I once did a seminar titled Back to the Future in which I argued that real estate had a golden glow 20-30 years ago that's lacking today.

Technology is here to stay and it's VERY easy and VERY profitable for the trade associations and the vendor industry to pander to the current consumer enchantment with new technology and strongly urge the adoption (and purchase) of all manner of technological bling by real estate agents who desire to remain in line for impressive business volumes. The inference is that without technology agents will suffer financial failure. The old fear factor at work.

Relatively impersonal Twitter and Facebook communication is becoming the norm, at least for the tech generations. Facial expressions and body language and vocal intonation are rarely in the mix in this new world. Information and research tools are made available to the consumer with little background or training. It's assumed that there is a universal genetic ability to perform multivariate analysis on several hundred fields of data and magically reach the perfect decision about which house to buy. Don't need an agent for that--the consumers can do it themselves. Of course many of the agents are so immersed in the technology pool that they believe this approach works. It sure is easy--turn the consumer loose with the data and get ready to write a contract--which can be done with e-signatures. Sure, the consumers will understand the 30-40 pages of paperwork! Using technology makes people really smart about whatever the technology touches, doesn't it?

The bigger question involves whether the real estate industry gives the consumers what they want or provides what is in their best interests.  Many would argue that isn't an important question because getting what they want is ALWAYS in the best interests of the consumer. What about subprime mortgages, super sized fast food, botox, mega SUVs etc., etc. Maybe real estate is just different?  

Back to the RIGHT HOUSE and RIGHT BUYERS concept as a measure of success (see earlier posts). If the Buyers don't always buy the RIGHT HOUSE, but do always get the technology and information they want, is that enough to represent success for the industry and the agents on the front lines? Many would say--DEFINITELY! Money metrics still prevail. Turn the sides and cash the commission checks. If technology makes that easier, technology is good and worth the expense. Technology is far easier to obtain that wisdom--it just takes money and if it makes money too, so much the better.

That's enough to digest. I'll continue to develop this argument, but rest assured I am not against technology, I'm in favor of wisdom applied in full consideration of human behavior, evolution and capabilities.

The place in which we live has a primal role in our existence dating back before we became human. Technology is an overlay that may not always assist in decisions involving the RIGHT HOUSE or in many other areas of our lives. Technology is seductive in its ability to replace ancestral patterns, but how plastic is the human brain in the face of unprecedented stimuli? How well do those signals map onto the foundations of human experience--like choosing a place to live?