Could not agree more with you…

“Putting a positive face on the industry. Demonstrating a Realtor’s
value proposition by positioning them in a positive light and show
them as caring, knowledgeable market experts.”

Generally the boards and NAR got it all wrong when fighting the DIY movement.

When you see articles like that from REALTOR magazine: Flip Those FSBO’s that use this claim of homes sold FSBO, sell for 25% less according to the NAR 2006 survey is absolutely misleading.

I’ve done a blog post regarding this often used statistic that explains that the statistic is based on a “median” not that two if you two identical properties in indentical areas, in identical condition that the FSBO on average will sell for 25% less… that’s BS.

I indicate how the “median” can easily be skewed to show whatever you want, especially when the provider of the statistic has never released the data set.

What’s funny in this same article is the following chart on page 32 which states “FSBO’s earn less on home sale”. Impressive title. but look at the facts indicated directly in the article which talks about selling price.

Agent-Assisted: 250K median price – o.k., this is the average home sold.

First FSBO, then agent-assisted: $192,000 – this is still sold with agent, but is $58k less…. hmm… thought agents got top dollar or 25% MORE than homes sold by FSBO?

FSBO/Don’t know buyers: $187,200 – what, thats not 25% less than the “first FSBO, then agent-assited”.

Before all you agents come attacking… the above scenario provided directly from the NAR. Check your REALTOR.org/realtormag for April.

The FSBO, who was agent assisted actually nets $180,480 after paying the real estate commission… so it cost the seller who went FSBO about $6,720 more to use an agent. Interesting…

Mind you, I’m very pro FSBO but I’m not 100% against agents. I know that certain people (even some using our site) should and some MUST use an agent.

Some agents are worth every penny of the commission and a few of the 1-6 deal a year agents are worth absolutely nothing.

What gets tiring is how the NAR and REALTORS try to just bash and scare FSBOs and state that FSBO should not even be an option much like political smear campaigns instead of focusing on themselves and the value they bring to the table.

Your take and the CREA on this is very refreshing. NAR should be looking North for examples on doing it right instead of spending 25 million in anti-fsbo scare campaign messages promising some legal snafu or you’ll net 16% less since you sold it yourself.

That site should have been built in standards compliant HTML so it was easily indexable (so people on google who are searching for “how a realtor can help me” would find it much easier. Also so users who are older, hard of hearing, bad eyesight, etc. could use it via a screen reader or make the font larger.

Flash caters to one market and that is the directly advertised and young. Meaning if you weren’t sent the link at one point, you aren’t going to find it by your means and if you fall into the seniors area you’ll more than likely find it hard to understand and use at all.

If the message is so important why marginalize your audience? Especially since the site uses ONLY Flash to deliver the message. This is absolutely ridiculous for a web company to recommend and in my opinion reinforce the point that the Real Estate industry hasn’t the faintest clue how to use the internet or technology.

http://www.shaveeverywhere.com