I was asked again last week to contribute a response at Inman News to a provocative article from Brad Inman.  Last time, he wrote about the potential disruption of the broker-agent relationship from online portals, in the way that Uber has disrupted the traditional limousine industry’s relationship with drivers.  And in my response, I challenged the idea that technology might be as disruptive as people think it’s going to be, but then argued that if it does happen, it’s the brokerage industry’s fault for not creating a better experience for our clients.

This time, Brad suggests that the industry has been too focused on marketing and customer acquisition at the expense of a concentration on improving the customer service experience, and that technology startups might be a driver toward changing that experience:

But the current discussion should not be about revenue models, it is about who can fundamentally change the old ways of doing business. For now, everyone is focused on marketing and customer acquisition, including Zillow, Trulia, realtor.com, Homes.com, etc., not the overall consumer flow from home search to closing. Regrettably, the identity and the reality of the industry has always been about marketing, sales, recruiting and advertising. The old-school model continues to win, with the portals playing a role in the cabal.

***

But more change is needed, and opportunity and lighter technology will drive it. The company that offers a complete and superior consumer platform will have valuations more like Uber and Airbnb — $10 billion today and rising.

The winner will present an integrated combination of a stellar front end with a robust CRM and transaction management system on the back end, offering a connected, elegant and easy-to-use online place for buyers and sellers as they go through the rigorous 90-day workout.

The challenge in responding to this argument is that I essentially agree with it — I’ve been saying for years that the industry needs to be more client-oriented, that we need to change our focus from our own needs (lead acquisition) toward providing them with a better experience.  So I basically agree with him.

So my response took a bit of an angle on his argument, pointing out that the problem is not the technology — which I think already exists at some companies. Rather, the problem is that we don’t have enough good agents to implement that technology, and the reason for that is that the clients are just not choosy enough!  That is, clients are willing to work with lousy agents, and because of that they create all the wrong incentives — agents put money and time into marketing because they see clients respond to that, clients who would be better off doing a more rigorous vetting process to find a great agent, but who simply work with whoever answers their internet lead, the phone on their incoming inquiry, or sits the open house when they’re at the right point in their purchasing process.

Having read the piece now that it’s out, I’m a little concerned that people will  think I’m letting the brokerage industry off the hook. I’m not.  Basically, I think that we are the ones who have created the consumer perception that all agents are the same, that they’re all salespeople, and that they don’t need to be selective in choosing one. It’s really our fault.

It’s kind of a self-reinforcing loop: we do a bad job of differentiating our services, leading to commodification; clients see us as a commodity, so they believe all are the same and don’t feel they need to be selective; and agents see how clients respond to marketing and lead generation techniques, rather than performance and track record, and invest their time and energies accordingly.

Take a look, and if you have comments feel free to make them on the Inman piece.