There’s always something to howl about.

Web 2.0 — Fashion, Fad or What?

Last week Marcie Geffner, a real estate reporter in Los Angeles, penned an article for Inman News titled, “Web2.0: Where’s the beef?” (unfortunately, now behind Inman’s subscriber wall).

In her article, Geffner points out that, “an overly heavy reliance on blogs, social networking and video as a business strategy is a questionable proposition since no one has demonstrated that Web 2.0 works as a marketing tactic.”

Granted, there has been no large scale study or analysis of the success (or failure) of “Web 2.0” in real estate. I can attest from my personal experience that blogging has resulted in numerous prospects and more importantly clients — ie: closed transactions that resulted in food on the table and shoes on the children. Many other agents reading this have similar experiences.

However, many would also be quick to say, “I’ve blogged my ass off and received nothing.”

Is blogging/Web 2.0 the answer to all real estate agent’s woes? ARDELL, arguably the “Godmother of Real Estate Blogging” is on the record as saying that she believes that “all agents should blog”. Normally Ardell is spot on in her thoughts, but I have to respectfully disagree with her on this. Blogging is not a panacea, nor is it the right tactic for every agent. Yes, blogging’s Web 2.0ness results in transparency, it allows agents to see things from the consumer’s perspective and it is, bar none, the best way for an agent to demonstrate their personality and expertise to the masses. But blogging is hard work. Writing is an excruciating process for many. I happen to love blogging, I’m sick that way, but many people will despise the time and effort it requires.

That doesn’t make them any less an agent than one who does blog. Just as my refusal to door knock, cold call, or “farm” in more traditional methods doesn’t make me any less an agent. We’re just different, with different approaches.

I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I’ve been asked, “how many prospects/clients/closed deals have you got from blogging?” And I can’t answer that question. Yes, I could prove quantitatively SOME of the results. I have received the coveted “Come list my house” emails or phone calls. But far more often Web 2.0 results are much more difficult to quantify. Does getting quoted in the paper, being on television, or getting invited to conferences lead to business? Probably not directly, but clearly there is an “indirect goodness” that comes out of things like this.

Geffner asks, “What was the cost in time and money to generate those leads and close those transactions? And were those per-unit costs cheaper than traditional forms of advertising?”

Great questions! The out-of-pocket expense of blogging is minimal. WordPress is free, and my hosting costs on the order of four bucks a month. Time however, is another story. I spend several hours a day reading blogs. The knowledge I gain from this is, to me, priceless. There is a vast expanse of knowledge surrounding all things real estate out there, just waiting to be absorbed. Marketing tactics and strategies, local and national market conditions, networking opportunities — all of these things are difficult (impossible?) to quantify in terms of “dollars earned”. Actually writing posts for me comes fairly easily. I type pretty quickly and the words flow out of my head in some semblance of order. I “edit on the fly” and don’t have to fight for words. Lengthy posts are not an issue (as evidenced by this very tome). I’m lucky that way (though I’m sure some, if they’ve read this far, are rolling their eyes and screaming FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, WRITE SHORTER POSTS!).

Geffner questions whether “Web 2.0 the next big thing for real estate” and says, “What’s needed is reliable data from proven sources that can track, measure and analyze the results of Web 2.0 in hard numbers that contribute to the bottom line.” She ponders “whether Web 2.0 is a short-term fad in the history of leisure activities or a true paradigm shift in lifestyles”. Given the nebulous nature of defining tangible results from Web 2.0’ing we will likely never have a large scale analysis of the results. Anecdotal results may well be all we ever get. But if I may go back to something Ardell said that I can completely agree with, “Web 2.0 is good for everyone. It gets more information than ever before, out into the open where it belongs.”

A fad? I think not.

Hat tip to Connie Clark for pointing out Ms. Geffner’s article. If you are an Inman subscriber, you should read it as it provides much food for thought.