Daniel Rothamel, the Real Estate Zebra

• Bloggers Connect NYC '09 Blog Makeover C...
• Connect NY 2009
• Connect SF 2008
• Real Estate Brokerage of the Future
• Reforming Real Estate
• The Future of Real Estate Lending
• The Future of the MLS
• The Real Estate Agent of the Future

• Manage |RSS50+ Real Estate market
• Manage |RSSI've been 4RealzEd!
• Manage |RSSInman News Feedback and Suggestions
• Manage |RSSReal Estate Agent Mastermind Group
• Manage |RSSReal Estate Bloggers
• Manage |RSSReal Estate Marketing 2.0
• Manage |RSSReal Estate Trends
• Manage |RSSRESPA reform

One other thing that I somehow managed to leave out of that tome of a comment was the fact that agents and brokers have no physical product. The product being bought has a MAJOR impact on the brand. The brand might motivate you, but the product is what you are after. If the product is exceptionally good, or woefully bad, it has an effect on the brand. Example: BMW-- BMW's product is exceptional. It reinforces their brand promises. It can also, however, be completely independent of their brand promises. You could fall in love with a BMW and return to it time and time again without ever really interacting with their brand, ie. even if you only bought BMWs through random used car dealers, and never were exposed to the BMW "brand" you might still be loyal to BMW. Of course, one can argue that the product is merely consistent with the brand, etc. The difference with agents and brokers is that their product is service. The physical items with which they deal change all the time. The brand, therefore, is built around something intangible. Thinking about intangible things sometimes leads to unfocused thoughts, which I think is partly responsible for the lack of easily identifiable real estate brands. The solution to this is kinda what Rob talks about when he mentions being the "Triathlete real estate company." That is something immediately recognizable, understandable, and measurable. That is significantly harder for a brokerage to do on a large scale. Especially when most large brokerages are dealing with differing geographical areas. http://www.RealEstateZebra.com

In my experience, the issue is that agents and brokers mistake a "logo" for a "brand." Those are two entirely different things. Sure, if I am a cattle farmer, and I burn my logo into the living leather of my herd, then I have "branded" them. I have not, however, created a brand. The quality of my cattle, the effectiveness with which I deliver them to market, the experience I deliver to the vendors with whom I deal at that market-- those are all things that contribute to my brand, not the piece of hot iron. The same is true in real estate. Real estate brokerages, traditionally, have done an excellent job creating logos and "branding" everything in sight. What they have not done, however, is built meaningful brands. Say the names of the largest brokerages in the country to yourself, and then immediately ask, "what do they mean to me." I'm going to guess that you are hard-pressed to come up with an answer. Most likely, any answer you do come up with is because of your experience working with the agents of said brands. And therein lies the issue. Real estate agents have worked under the independent contractor model for decades. Both brokers and agents seem to like it because it allows each to sever their relationship with the other at any time, and creates little responsibility on the part of either party. A side effect of that is that it also creates an attitude whereby the agent feels like she can do whatever she wants, and the broker feels like she owes the agent very little. It's a mess, and it hurts brand power. The reason that it hurts brand power is because the broker does little to enforce any kind of brand culture, and the agent fills even less obligation to be part of any culture that might exist. There are other issues that have helped create weak real estate brands, but the independent contractor setup, and the psychology with which agents and brokers have approached it, is a major factor in real estate brand weakness. I could go on about this for a long time, but this is supposed to be a comment, so I won't. Perhaps a blog post is in order. . . :-) http://www.RealEstateZebra.com

This article was timely for me, since I was looking at the site earlier today. I'm impressed. I agree with Robert on one thing-- "Realtor.com continues to be one of the worst atrocities ever inflicted on the Realtor community." As I REALTOR, I can't argue with that. One thing that makes houselogic.com different is that it is not centered around the Realtors. It is centered around the homeowners. Heck, even figuring out that you can use the site to find a REALTOR is hard to do, as it should be. For me, I can foresee sending my clients to the site so that they can learn about becoming more informed homeowners, answer some of their questions, and alleviate some of their fears. I'll send them to the site, and hopefully, when they are using the site, they'll remember that it was me they found it from. To me, it is something I can use to cement my role as a consultant to my clients who exposes them to the resources they need. Now, for Rob's idea of having local REALTOR experts for certain geographical areas-- I hope that won't happen. Because the only way it could happen is after NAR extracts copious amounts of money from the REALTOR who wants to be the expert. Quite frankly, I'm tired of NAR bleeding its members through the guise of giving them marketing resources (see the aforementioned REALTOR.com). http://www.RealEstateZebra.com