I’ve had little luck selling the idea that REALTORS® should embrace an Internet rating system. Local associations, individual REALTORS®, other association executives, NAR, and even other bloggers have rejected the idea of allowing clients to rate their agent. Twice last week I pitched it to influential leaders in the industry, but both times the conversation died with no support. Here are a few typical “reasons” this idea is rejected by the industry:
- My competitor will give me bogus ratings
- One bad rating and I’ll look bad even if most of my clients love me
- Only clients who are upset would be motivated to rate me
I did hear one legitimate argument last week, but it was not a deal killer for me. A wise REALTOR® explained that ratings would not work in the real estate business because a transaction was often a confrontation between a buyer’s rep and the listing agent. Since the agents were working for opposite sides, the other party’s client was bound to think poorly of you. Okay, there is some truth to that, but a properly set up rating system could make sure readers knew if the evaluation came from your client or from the other side.
The reason this idea will not leave my head is that I sit in many industry meetings and listen to REALTORS® and association executives whine about the lack of training and professionalism from their competitors or members. The common answer for most people to this problem is to require more training before and after licensing. While more education can help, it will never weed out the bad from the good. Taking more courses will not make you more ethical, professional or pleasant to work with unless you want it to change you. Only the power of the consumer will require you to change or quit.
Overall, I find REALTORS® to be an amazing group of ethical and professional entrepreneurs, but a few bad apples and rotten eggs has left a bad taste in the mouth for many. Surveys constantly back this up by showing that the public generally loves “their” REALTOR®, but rates the profession very low.
Interestingly enough, the other complaint I hear in the many meetings I attend is that there are too many REALTORS®. That is especially true with the market slow down. Unfortunately, it is not easy to remove the bad apples and rotten eggs from the REALTOR® grocery cart. In fact, legally, it would be very difficult for NAR to decide which members were “keepers” and which should be thrown back into the abyss. Yes, the Code of Ethics weeds out the really awful ones, but the ones that simply provide bad service are not violating any NAR rules, so they are allowed to stay.
NAR has done a lot to allow REALTORS® to distinguish themselves from the pack. There are now 70 designations to provide advance training, but only 30% of REALTORS® have one or more designations. Designations do allow consumers a little guidance when selecting which REALTOR® to work with, but again, taking educational courses does not require you to be “good” at customer service.
So, my answer is a rate your REALTOR® web site. I’d like one that was run by NAR and that was NOT optional. For three years now, I have been pushing this idea with the mantra, “if we don’t do it, someone else will.” Seems I was right; someone else has done it and quite well, I might add. Last week, while discussing this issue, someone suggested I visit www.IncredibleAgents.com. This is exactly what I have been suggesting.
Incredible Agents has mashed up every licensee in the country from license data. I’m not sure how many total agents they have compiled, but only a few seem to actually have been rated. The search engine seemed a bit wacky – when I searched for agents in “Virginia,” I got just over 2000 names of agents with the fist name Virginia. Only 4 had been rated, but they were all 5 stars out of 5. Before you jump to conclusions about the credibility of the ratings (or the superiority of agents named Virginia), I did find other agents that were rated poorly.
That brings me to my final point. I think REALTORS® should embrace the Rate Your REALTOR® concept because I believe they will be pleasantly surprised at the high ranks most will get. Like I said before, most people “love” their REALTOR®. As for the ones who don’t get high ratings; maybe a Rate Your REALTOR® site will help them reconsider the level of service they offer, or move on to become a cemetery lot salesperson. I don’t think they have a rating system yet.
Eric Bramlett says:
I’m definitely not afraid of a ratings system, but it’s not something I’m looking forward to. I’ve played around w/ asking clients to leave ratings on google local, and it’s pretty tough to get them to do so. So…it will be one more task I have to get done after a closing.
This site has been around for years, and is a good comparison to what we can expect. Browse around there and see how many positive reviews you can find. People go online to leave reviews when they want to gripe.
March 17, 2008 — 9:03 am
Todd says:
There is no way for agents to stop ratings systems from being built by consumers and pervasively used nationwide, something other industries found out the hard way:
http://getsatisfaction.com/about
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33uh3n
Yellowpages.com now offers star ratings on all their business listing, which cannot be altered or changed by the business being rated.
Logic dictates that agent embrace the idea and pro-actively help created a NAR run ratings system, to avoid having the concept removed from their control entirely.
March 17, 2008 — 9:29 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Logic dictates that agent embrace the idea and pro-actively help created a NAR run ratings system, to avoid having the concept removed from their control entirely.
That’s a great idea, but I seriously doubt we’ll get any traction w/ NAR on this.
March 17, 2008 — 9:41 am
Brian Brady says:
Welcome, Dave. Great first post.
March 17, 2008 — 9:58 am
Cheryl Johnson says:
A real estate transaction is complex and there are a lot of fingers in the pie.
An agent often gets the blame even though the screw-up might have originated with the escrow officer, the loan processor, or even the termite guy.
I’d feel bad for agents that received low ratings because of other people’s screw-ups.
March 17, 2008 — 10:17 am
Cathleen Collins says:
Absolutely, the consumer-ran rating systems can be gamed: friends and family will be solicited to submit high ratings, unfriendly competitors can rate you low. And since we’re talking about a system to weed out the border-line ethical, you can bet those are the very agents who will game the system.
The system needs to limit voting privileges to only those buyers and sellers who were in a transaction with the Realtor. eBay’s rating system is so successful because the only opportunity you have to rate someone is after a completed transaction with that seller/buyer. The consumer sites might offer a rating system, but anyone who uses his mind will know that the data there is unreliable.
Title companies are in the best position to link the Realtor to her client, but they won’t band together to create the system. Now, if the NAR designed and hosted the system and promoted it to title companies, we would come closer to a credible rating system. And the clients’ ratings could be collected and processed by Title along with everything else they process at closing, which addresses the issue that only dissatisfied clients would bother to give a rating. Though it would be a little extra work for the Title companies, it can’t be as much work as other perks that Title companies are always offering to make our jobs a little easier. In fact, I’d bet that the Escrow officers would just love to have a hand in helping to eliminate the weeds among us.
I cannot imagine that any Realtor worth his salt would object to a rating system that is professionally run, as compared to an American Idol site where anyone can pipe up — whether or not a professional relationship exists. A professionally run site makes the contributor accountable for her contribution. So, Dave, if you can get the NAR to pony up for a Title company managed system, I think we’ll have a winner. It won’t be as complete as we might like — agent/client relationships that don’t result in a closed transaction won’t be included — but it will be better than having nothing at all.
Welcome to BloodhoundBlog!
March 17, 2008 — 10:43 am
cgmckeever says:
I definately lean more towards a rating system that verifies the origins of the critics:
http://www.qualityservice.org/
March 17, 2008 — 10:46 am
Dave Phillips says:
Cheryl,
You are correct about it often not being the agents fault. In my experience, it is generally one of the priciples to the transaction that screw things up the most. It is no different in any other business. On eBay, the seller’s ratings go down if the delivery company screws up. Good communications with your client can generally overcome unfair blame.
Eric,
I agree that you guys DO NOT need another task after closing (or before). That’s why I think the associations should run this for the members. I see an automatic e-mail being generated by MLS systems to invite a client to fill out a rating. I also see the REALTOR organization marketing the site to the public.
March 17, 2008 — 10:48 am
Dave Phillips says:
Cathleen,
Right on! There are technical and practical solutions to ALL the naysayer issues. Great idea with the Title Co. I’ll just send NAR an email and I’m sure the system will be up and running in a few weeks. 😉
March 17, 2008 — 10:54 am
Mike Farmer says:
Yes! I welcome it with open arms, as long as it can’t be gamed.
March 17, 2008 — 11:06 am
Nigel Clarke says:
After reading this piece I checked out my office under the Incredile Agents site. Many of the agents they list are no longer in the business let alone that office any longer and some have been gone over 12 months. It seems to be a site that uses the Incredible Agents review area to promote thir web site business to agents.
Nigel
March 17, 2008 — 11:29 am
Sean Purcell says:
Dave,
It is great to have a Board of Realtors view on things at BHB. The efficacy and purpose of NAR gets discussed a lot here so I look forward to some “other side of the fence” insight.
Great post: I especially love it because I disagree (and isn’t that the fun?) A system that can not be gamed is great in theory, but difficult to implement.
Todd said: Logic dictates that agent(s) embrace the idea and pro-actively help created a NAR run ratings system, to avoid having the concept removed from their control entirely. I think he is right, in that a consumer created site could be anything. On the other hand, an NAR created site would face an uphill battle in consumer perception (i.e. is the site biased in favor of its own members).
You said: While more education can help, it will never weed out the bad from the good. Taking more courses will not make you more ethical, professional or pleasant to work with unless you want it to change you. Only the power of the consumer will require you to change or quit.
Exactly!! Let the market do its job. If the NAR wants to improve the average competency, more training will probably not do it (for the reasons you mentioned) and a rating system will not do it. The answer may be much simpler: for an agent to maintain an active license they must close XX number of transactions per year. (There could be a lesser ‘trainee’ or ‘part-time’ license for those that do not make the cut-off.) This would communicate clearly to the public how active (read: professional) you are and, more importantly, what other clients think of you. Combine this with ongoing CE credits and the industry as a whole may start to climb back up to its rightful place in the public’s perception.
March 17, 2008 — 11:45 am
Eric Anders says:
I’ve quietly lurked around BHB for the last few months trying to develop an understanding of another part of the relocation community. You folks haven’t disappointed.
I was resolved to be a passive participant until I read Dave Phillips post today. Bang around the web enough and you’ll find that these types of word-of-mouth, consumer oriented “rating and review” sites are becoming increasingly popular in some specialized product and service communities.
I think I understand why there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support from the RE community for the Incredible Agents business model. At the same time, though, I haven’t noticed a lot of detractors lining up to discuss its shortcomings.
Regardless of the venue, detractors almost uniformly use the same arguments to criticize these types of subjective rating engines for failing to closely monitor/administer their business model weaknesses or control the “gaming” in their review process. It’s human nature not to want to be judged, especially in negative terms.
But don’t tell that to site operators like Amazon or TripAdvisor. They’ve found a goldmine in the process.
Many vendors who initially resented being placed under the microscope, now pay a premium to enhance their presence at some of these sites. The majority cite that their customer’s perceptions of their product/service reported online are more positive than the feedback obtain in their normal CRM process.
There appears to be growing body of evidence that the benefit of this type of scrutiny is more effective – and cheaper – than their traditional sales/marketing campaigns. And therein lays the primary catalyst for their popularity.
Now the hard part! What measurable, uniform, and objective service or product metrics would your client use to rate their Realtor, title company, mortgage broker, banker and home inspector?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Incidentally, from someone on the outside looking in, you’ve put together a great site, Greg!
March 17, 2008 — 12:01 pm
Dave Phillips says:
Nigel,
Only NAR can keep this up-to-date. That’s why their involvement is critical. With that said, we need a 3rd party like Incredible agents or QSC to “run” the system. NAR should not actually run the rating system because that will appear to be insider baseball.
March 17, 2008 — 12:28 pm
Dave Phillips says:
Sean,
You had me until you said,
“The answer may be much simpler: for an agent to maintain an active license they must close XX number of transactions per year. (There could be a lesser ‘trainee’ or ‘part-time’ license for those that do not make the cut-off.) This would communicate clearly to the public how active (read: professional) you are and, more importantly, what other clients think of you. Combine this with ongoing CE credits and the industry as a whole may start to climb back up to its rightful place in the public’s perception.”
If you think a well-built, privately owned and operated system can NOT be made “game-proof,” then what hope is there for a system that combines the efficiency and effectiveness of NAR and 50 state licensing agencies. No offense to NAR or state regulators, but the minute this system is subject to politics of these two organizations, it becomes an Edsell.
I must back peddle a bit… I said in the original post “run by NAR.” Either my thinking has evolved in the last few hours, or I mis-spoke (take your pick). NAR has a role, but they must partner with a third party for a rating system to work. Only NAR can keep the agent data up-to-date, but they should not be involved in the ratings.
March 17, 2008 — 12:43 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Dave,
I see your point. The last thing I want to do is get involved with 50 separate state licensing agencies. I am one of those that would like to see most of the state licensing disappear for that matter.
run by NAR or NAR has a role
Either still works for me within this idea. How about if NAR made the minimum transaction concept a requirement to being a REALTOR? That way the designation would mean more than “I have sworn to uphold a level of integrity that all agents should uphold and most are bound to by agency law.”
I do not believe the public differenctiates a REALTOR from a real estate agent. In most cases I hear people use them interchangeably. That is a disservice to those that are REALTORS and to NAR itself. If NAR maintained a certain level of professionalism as evidenced by actually being in the profession and doing work… that would offer the public a clear choice on who to do business with and why. Long run, there might even be a net increase in membership.
March 17, 2008 — 12:57 pm
Dave Phillips says:
Sean,
You win the prize for the best point:
“I do not believe the public differenctiates a REALTOR from a real estate agent. In most cases I hear people use them interchangeably. That is a disservice to those that are REALTORS and to NAR itself. If NAR maintained a certain level of professionalism as evidenced by actually being in the profession and doing work… that would offer the public a clear choice on who to do business with and why.”
That’s why we need the rating system. License law has caught up with the Code. We (the REALTOR organization) are a victim of our own success. Time to raise the bar again.
March 17, 2008 — 1:04 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Dave,
You win the prize for the best point
I love it! …Can I cash that in anywhere? 🙂
An addition like you is one of the reasons BHB just keeps getting better.
March 17, 2008 — 1:34 pm
Incredible Agent says:
Dave,
Lots of great points. I agree whole heartedly that NAR should be involved somehow. I have spoken with them about this and it doesn’t appear to be on their radar just yet. In truth, all I need from NAR is an updated list of their membership on a monthly basis. Clean data is one of our our biggest concerns and a difficult one to fix without their help.
There are several points in the comments that I agree with and some I disagree with. Gaming is something we take very seriously, however as you can imagine it is hard to identify. Just the other day I found out that someone’s assistant was entering in positive reviews for their boss with the clients names. I assure you I’ve thought of many ways to try to stop it and we will be implementing some of them in our newest release.
In order to truly stop gaming, we would have to limit our reviews to people who were in a “recorded” transaction with a Realtor. Which makes sense…however, what if the consumer hired a Realtor and their home never sold because the Realtor didn’t market the property sufficiently? Opinions can be formed before ever going to final docs. These opinions are still valid even though they would never show up at the county recorders office.
There are plenty of solutions out there, however none of them are perfect. It makes it far more difficult when you have to consider both the Realtor and the consumer. I’m always open to hearing other suggestions and working the process out further.
March 17, 2008 — 1:35 pm
chris el says:
I never understood why one should get the designation “Realtor”, pay for it and try to convince any one, that has higher ethics, that the ethics are required by the state on the licensing exam.As far I’m concern is window dressing.
Ebay’s rating system is successful by default ,as the whole transaction is virtual, there is NO other way to evaluate it.(yet there are multitudes of horror stories)
Now real estate brokers and agents (not “Realtors”) are practicing on the real world.Their performance is reworded by the level of service they provide (or not)
There is not better advertising known that “word of mouth”
Why in the world one will give power to an other “get rich quick on the back of others” venture?
Who are these people that have this idea and how is the consumer benefit from it? I fail to see it.
There is an old axiom KSS “keep it simple stupid”.
This is a simple business and countless inventions/innovations over the years (discount brokers,Zilow etc)have come and gone.If one wonders why, is because is a very PERSONAL business.Period.
You can have the best doctor if you are not comfortable around him he won’t be effective Period
There are teachers/professors that are geniuses, yet they are not effective in the class room, as they have no talent/practice in the transfer of knowledge.
Real estate is the same.Is a personal business.
Time will show again, during this down turn period, that people will survive and seceded ONLY, if they are able to develop personal relationships.
That’s hard work day in and day out and has to be on ones control, not in the control of some irrelevant web site.
March 17, 2008 — 1:41 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
Welcome to the team Dave. Great first post and a good start!
Best
Eric
March 17, 2008 — 1:57 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Dave-
Fantastic post and welcome to Bloodhound!
Associations of most types give me the hives, so I was prepared to not like anything you said. Imagine my dismay to find out you’ve truly given me something to think about. 😉
(Gawd, I love this place.)
March 17, 2008 — 5:42 pm
Bawldguy Talking says:
Welcome Dave — seems you’ve started out pretty well.
The question I’ve been asking without a rational answer yet is this: Under what fantasy scenario do any of these sites do anything but cause trouble, demean innocent agents, and make money for the site owners?
This is what happens when 2.0 takes transparency to its silly end game.
March 17, 2008 — 6:25 pm
Greg Swann says:
Dang, boy! That’s one heck of a great start! Very impressive.
That’s the Bloodhound way, too. Find a hunk of beef, tear off a big piece and dare the other dogs to take it back. The meat might be raw, but your handling of it was strictly well done.
March 17, 2008 — 6:33 pm
Russell Shaw says:
Welcome, Dave. As long as I get really good ratings all the time, count me in.
March 18, 2008 — 12:05 am
Vance Shutes says:
Dave,
Agents and clients deserve each other. Birds of a feather flock together. Etc., etc., etc.. No matter the rating system, agents and clients will always end up attracting each other. And, after all, that’s a good thing.
March 18, 2008 — 1:36 pm
Toronto Condos says:
There are some absolutely wonderful thoughts behind all the comments here. Adding my two cents here I feel that as you have mentioned in the post more training can get anyone to do a great job and hiring people with quick wit who can act spontaneously and independently too can be the keys to success.
November 9, 2008 — 7:34 am
Joanna says:
Hi Dave –
I too feel your pain around resistance to real estate agent rating/review sites. I’ve got one in Edmonton called What-Customers-Say.com, and, although we’ve received lots of great feedback, we’ve also had some seriously irritated & frustrated agents. And they always say just what you wrote:
– What if someone’s trying to sabotage me?
– You can’t verify that the review is legitimate
– I’m going to sue you for “slander”
I did a post about this on my own blog. (I provided my URL to you.) It’ll be a good day when customers start demanding more proof of performance before hiring an agent… and when agents start seeing that the best way to win a client’s confidence is to let all your clients talk openly about you.
The top-rated agents on What-Customers-Say.com already know that customer reviews matter — which is why they’re getting a surprising number of leads off our site.
~jw
November 18, 2008 — 5:50 pm