Selling agent fees

I disagree, theyre giving you options,whats wrong with that? Id happily do a structure with some kind of incentive over a certain amount

 

Its a marketing tactics. Let the client become lost in options galore and hopefully they will choose one that yields more money for the agency. I cant fault the company - good business tactics.

 

Sort of... it depends on the contract. In some commercial spheres the assumption, and the contract, is that the photographer keeps the copyright and assigns particular use-rights to the person paying. This is often in cases where there is some hope of future sales or use of the photograph (wedding photography for example).
However there are a number of industries in which the opposite is true - the assumption, and contract, is for full and unconditional transfer of all use rights of the photos to the entity paying.
It all depends on the contract.

Note that, usually, the copyright of photos taken by an employee is owned by the employer. So if an agent takes the photos, the REA (usually) owns the photos.

For private/domestic commissioned photos, the copyright will be owned by the commissioning party (not the photographer), provided the agreement is in exchange for some 'valuable consideration' (meaning money or something else offered in exchange for the commission).

 

More like trying to confuse the living daylights out of the customer.

 

Not me I used to work as a data analyst. It took me less than 5 minutes to model the whole thing. My conclusion? 1.5% flat or I'm going with another agent.

 

My parents just sold in Brisbane. Their marketing budget was $650 and they sold for $7k more than they were asking.

I spent $3.6k marketing a place in Melbourne and got $15k less than what I wanted. It was a waste of money to spend that much on marketing. Imo.

 

Big will, do real estate agents selling homes at 300k work harder than agents that sell higher priced homes, say 1mill?
My current agent chargers 2.5% and that home will sell for 330k meaning he makes 8250. But if I sell one of my higher priced properties at 1.6 percent they get double the amount.

??

 

There are too many variables, so it isn't possible to say that it was a waste in that situation.

- Maybe you would have got less if you spent nothing on marketing the Melbourne one.
- Maybe you would have got more for the Brisbane one if they spent more.
- Maybe they were asking for a better price in Brisbane.
- Maybe there is limited stock in that area of Brisbane and don't need to spend much on marketing.
- Maybe there was less buyers for the Melbourne suburb.
- Maybe the agent in Melbourne lost a buyer because he was non-responsive to their phone call.

If it was for identical properties in the same area then you could see if there is any benefit in that instance.

 

Normally they will work harder because the commission is higher for the more expensive properties.

Depends on the agent but some want to sell the cheaper ones quicker to move on to other ones. Basically they have to sell more of the cheaper stock to make more money.

For example, the agent won't actually get $8250. Majority of agents would get maybe 40% of that amount depending on their commission structure, some upto 60%. So using 40% means they get $3300 before tax. Take home pay from the employer would be around $2300 then.

 

Not possible for you but quite possible for me. For example, part of the marketing campaign was $220 for "professional" photos. I have viewed hundreds of properties on re.com.au as a buyer, so I am well qualified to say the photos we paid for were very average. In the end, only developers made genuine bids and they don't give a dam about professional photos. We also spent a lot of money marketing to Chinese buyers. None asked for contracts and none turned up to bid. The Chinese are not buying this type of property and are not active in this area. So, the pro photos and marketing on Chinese web sites was a waste of money. A generic marketing campaign for a niche product is stupid and a waste. It is simple really. You have to market to your target market. This is marketing 101.

In terms of maybe we could have got more if this and that... we got the best result in the area for the day. By far. I'm certainly not complaining about the result. My sole point is that if sellers accept an overpriced, generic marketing campaign for their property, it is very likely that they are wasting money.

 

It can be hard to compare like for like; as mentioned there are too many variables.

The REA that is likely to be appointed as selling agent cited some $700+ for professional photographs. I found a pro photographer for $155, took some nice shots. The REA cited $150 for plans; I found an architect that cost $50.

I want to sell in mid-2016, so it's too early for paid advertising. A number of websites offer free listings. Is it worthwhile using these until a few months before the auction? It may be that an offer well above the reserve is made. OTOH, at an auction it may go higher.

The REA is keen to sell soon, advising that the market is changing due to changed lending rules. He also cites a glut of new apartments due to arrive in around April 2016 having an adverse impact on the apartment market. I'm not sure that a smallish apartment in a tower (mainly close to the CBD) compares directly with a much larger apartment in a small block of flats a bit further out. So while he has good points they may not relate to me that much and may be just to sign me up.

 

Good on you for shopping around and getting better prices @Burramys. I will have to keep that in mind for next time. You will have to keep an eye on the market but I don't think that mid-2016 will be a good time to sell. I don't know if the heat has already come out of the market but I would suggest to try to sell earlier in the year. I would not list the property early. I don't think stale listings are so good. I always look at stale listings and wonder what is wrong with the property.

 

Depends on the agent but some want to sell the cheaper ones quicker to move on to other ones. Basically they have to sell more of the cheaper stock to make more money.

For example, the agent won't actually get $8250. Majority of agents would get maybe 40% of that amount depending on their commission structure, some upto 60%. So using 40% means they get $3300 before tax. Take home pay from the employer would be around $2300 then.[/QUOTE]

I'm not having a go at real estate agents, asI don't know what's involved behind the scenes.
going by your figures of 40%-60% commission, does that commission still apply on higher sold properties?
As I still don't understand how an agent works harder to justify twice the amount

 

we don't take kickbacks on advertising packages, ours are 100% at cost.

It's easy to use a budget of anywhere from $2000 to $5000 on advertising. Feature listings are expensive, not always needed for every property but if yours is in an area competing with 300 other similar properties then it will get lost without a feature listing.
Any agent can offer $0 advertising and do the basic things - basic standard listing on realestate.com.au, basic generic signboard, nothing mentioned about the property, just states - for sale etc... but these things don't always work well, if they did then the agents that offer zero advertising would be achieving top sale prices - THEY DONT!

Visibility always wins in real estate - both for sales and rentals.

- my experience is that properties that are advertised well and are highly visible in the marketplace, great photos, great signboard that describes the property, top ranked listings on internet advertising, etc... are the ones that sell at the top prices. That is because more people see them and more people compete for them driving the prices up.

You may have a great product but if it's shoved behind other products on the supermarket shelf and not visible no one is going to buy it.

 

Part of that is the absolutely ridiculous subscription fees they charge. The joys of being a monopoly, i guess.

 

Good points @Xenia. I was concerned with our property that we spent extra on a feature listing in an area with a small number of listings and very few comparables. Throughout the campaign, there might have been 5 comparables at the most. They all got feature listings, so in the end none of them stood out. When you run a search for the type of property and all the current listings take up less than a page, there is no point paying extra for a premium listing. If you are on the first page of a search you are going to be seen. Besides in my case, I had a property that was clearly going to appeal to developers who don't care about premium listings.

I agree with you. If the property has a lot of competition and you need it to stand out, seriously consider a premium listing.

 

Also Perthguy I think agents should consider the cost of feature listing if the property is in a small suburb next to a main suburb. Ie say a property is listed in Glenelg North - which is a small area than Glenelg, even if there are lots of properties in Glenelg, a feature listing will only sit at the top of the glenelg north listing and not compete with the glenelg listings. In this case, feature listing may not help and is a waste of money.

Feature listings are just as important for rentals as they are for sales - they should always be on page 1 for visibility - but only when it can make a difference.

 

The amount of commission received from each listing is based on whatever they have agreed to with the company. So it could be different for higher priced properties for some.

 

Ok now that you explain the situation, yes the amount paid wasn't worth it in that instance.

I only wrote the first post because it seemed like you were comparing the marketing for the Brisbane property versus the Melbourne one.

 

Understood. I kind of was comparing them but in this way: my parents had a marketing campaign that was tailored to their property. It worked. It was a quick sale and I think they had 5 offers. In comparison, we paid for an overpriced, generic marketing campaign that did not get such good results. It is ridiculous that we let the agent do that considering that I have studied marketing and did very well at it. I blame myself.

Oh, I forgot another ridiculous expense was paying a professional copy writer to write the web site text. It was also very average. I could have written better copy myself.

I guess my point is that agents don't always get it right. Don't let them bully you into a marketing campaign that doesn't suit your property and shop around for plans, photos and write your own copy. Otherwise you are being ripped off.