multi list or Sole Agency ...waddya reckon?

[Scare_Rab]

How do you offer your places to agents? As a Multi-listing or a Sole Agency?

We have a Villa, almost ready to sell.

My Finance Committee is in favour of giving an agent Sole Agency and giving them Advertising $$$

However, having worked as a Salesman for an Agent during a difficult period of the '80's, I am against this.

Most sellers were the 'typically unrealistic on price" type. I was taught to just "Sign 'em up to a Sole Agency". Having the Sole Agency contract meant that, if circumstances changed - for whatever reason - and that 'typically unrealistic on price vendor' met the market...then I'd get paid.

• Aim 1. Sign 'em up for a Sole Agency - the longer the better
• Aim 2. Get some $$$ from them "for advertising".
• Aim 3. get buyers thru the place
• Aim 4 soften them up with lo-ball offers.

However, if a vendor was

realistic on price and was reasonable about access,

then we'd sell the place; with no need for Sole Agency, advertising dollars or any other rigmarole. We'd introduce those buyers we'd met using the advertising $$$'s and the open homes of the unrealistic. The Agency also had a budget to advertise homes realistic on price.

My idea is to find an approximation of current valuation, using sales prices of similar properties in the area. ( I'd even consider paying the valuer I used when buying the place...)

Then simply give the listing to:

• all 10 agents that I have talked to in the past 6 months;

plus

• those that that have contacted me cold (they gotta be keen)
• those that I have looked at buying other properties with
• those that have sold places for me in the past
• plus a 'few randoms' for luck

Property keenly priced.
Key available.
No advertising dollars

Multi - List ...not Sole Agency

Any questions/comments / suggestions welcomed.

I did do a search on this forum & found this link:

http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2658&highlight=sole+agency

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Where is the property, this affects the answer

[Scare_Rab]

Villa in Christchurch

Villa in Christchurch

[Orkibi]

is it a property that would appeal to investors like multiple incomes or L3 L2 etc, or ordinarily house?

where and what is it in chch? I may be able to help you.

[PC]

If you can bring yourself to set a realistic price (usually $50K less than what you think).
Then how about trying to sell it yourself?

You have enough experience to do it.
Give yourself 60-90 days.

[Findspace]

I have never sold a property before but have been in sales all my life and I don't understand the concept of paying an agent commission AND paying the advertising costs. Surely the costs of selling the property should be borne by the person reaping the benefit, i.e. the agent. Am I missing something here?

[Tan]

You are paying for their experience in placing well written ads where people will look and having them do the running around with potential buyers, then (hopefully) drawing up the contract and negotiating it.

I have no preference one way or the other. Depends how much time you have and how well you think you'll handle the stress. It is often very stressful.

[Davo36]

10-15 years ago agencies paid for all advertising themselves out of commissions.

But the advertising consisted of a small sign (no photo or anything like that) and some run ons in the Herald and other local rags.

These days everyone's got half page colour photos in The Property Press, the Herald, online, big flash signs out front and so on. And this does cost quite a lot of money.

The argument is that you need to spend this sort of money to attract the right buyer who will pay you top dollar. Well I'm not sure about that but this is what everyone seems to be doing. And I must admit, I find that when I look in the Property Investments section of the Herald now I always look at the big colour ads first and then read the run-ons secondarily.

[Davo36]

I have never sold a property before but have been in sales all my life and I don't understand the concept of paying an agent commission AND paying the advertising costs. Surely the costs of selling the property should be borne by the person reaping the benefit, i.e. the agent. Am I missing something here?

Yes, the agents want more money. They want the vendors to pay and they want to generate extra revenue (they charge more for the marketing than it actually costs them) and get extra profile by having their name/logos etc all over the papers, signs and so on.

And people pay it! So who's silly?

[mortgage broker]

In fact those companies that have charged an average price for selling your house are the ones who have survived through the rescission.

I would give a sole agency to the agent who sells the most in the area, especially those who motivate any of the agents within the brand to sell. Otherwise, peanuts = monkeys.

[Hec]

Try this one.
Tell the agency you will pay them double whatever advertising money they are asking for when the property is sold....... for the price they are telling you they can get for you(which is 99% of the time over the top to get the listing) or none at all .
Its fun to watch them squirm out of that one.
The game can be fun when you put your mind to it.
Hec

[mjmarketing]

Having had 15yrs as a REA I seldom took a sole agency for any longer than 1 month. This really works with vendors as they haven't got the property tied up for a long period and they know that it will be worked. Also in fairness to vendors if I hadn't sold it in that time they deserved to let someone else have a go.

I do not think it is a good idea to try to sell it yourself as a good experienced agent can often negotiate a much higher price than you maybe can get yourself.

I would definately not give a general agency - it would probally be a complete waste of time as no one will really work it.

I sold real estate in Christchurch for 5yrs. and could recommend a top agent - depending on which area your villa is in.

My suggestion would be to give a sole agency for 1 month with a clause put in that you have the right to sell it yourself. The agent will sqirm but will accept it. Then you have the best of both worlds and can have a go yourself if you feel like it. Would suggest Trademe as an avenue.

Hopes this helps.

[kingkong82]

Try this one.
Tell the agency you will pay them double whatever advertising money they are asking for when the property is sold....... for the price they are telling you they can get for you(which is 99% of the time over the top to get the listing) or none at all .
Its fun to watch them squirm out of that one.
The game can be fun when you put your mind to it.
Hec

i have done something similar to this...it worked like a charm.... made a deal that the agency will receive an extra 1% added to the commission if they sold the property for the price they promised...

needless to say..they could not keep their end of the bargain but i did benefit from their marketing ...i sold the property within three weeks after advertising in the press....

[Mark_B]

Notwithstanding that in Kong's example it didn't work out for the agency, it does highlight that if you incentivise people they will (or they should) work harder for you, often with a win/win result.

[AndyB]

I pass over the big glossy pictures - the agents and owners will want to recoup their expenses. They may also have an unrealistic view of the quality of their property vis a vis the many decent enough properties within the squeezed pages.
Also, it's not exactly a new method so every second page has a big glossy one.

Fish-eyed lens shots also tend to betray that the owner or agent feels there is a lack of space in the house.

On the other hand, blurry pictures are awful and make even a beautiful mansion look like the house in the Amityville movie. Have seen a few of these on Trademe. They are so distorted one can't even recognise the wall lines let alone particular colours etc. I can't believe people post shots like that.