October 26, 2017 at 13:10 #48842
I think “down the back of the sofa” is about the only reasonable answer they could hope be believed.
It would need to be one chuffing big sofa, though…October 26, 2017 at 16:37 #48869
Indeed it was.October 26, 2017 at 22:07 #48885
Certainly the one you posted the pic on Tw@tter was – but I would suggest that to “lose” something like FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PROPERTIES FROM YOUR REGISTER WITHIN ONE CALENDAR MONTH would need a sofa of even more ample proportions.
14100 homes – that’s the equivalent of a small TOWN that’s seemingly ‘done a Lucan’, innit?October 27, 2017 at 10:13 #48889
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; color: #404040; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>Sorry to repeat this earlier post, but does anyone think this might be the case?….a combination of using on/off listings to both save fees with the portals whilst at the same time bringing in old ones to try and show more local presence than there actually is? My post before:</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; color: #404040; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>Just a thought, but does anyone else suspect that the reason for listings disappearing and reappearing might be a way of minimising the payments to rightmove and zoopla? For instance, aren’t they effectively charged a membership fee on rightmove for every 32 properties listed?</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; color: #404040; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>Therefore if you were to rotate your listings you would end up paying a lot less. Its a terrible way to sell, as potential buyers find properties disappearing and reappearing very confusing…and naturally believe there is something wrong with them. However its a good way to save on portal costs</p>
<p style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; color: #404040; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>http://media.rightmove.co.uk/pdf/Geographical_Advertising_Guidelines_for_Newly_Identified_Geographical_Advertise</p>October 27, 2017 at 17:14 #48899
Unfortunately your above post is far from easily readable due to formatting issues on The Arena.
I’ve got to be honest and say that I kind of brushed over it when originally posted, as I think it has missed the entire point of this thread. HOWEVER on reflection and several re-reads, it warrants an answer because firstly you gave your time to compose and post it, and secondly it addresses potential issues that may or may not have relevance to the workings of the hybrid/call-centre Agency model.
It’s been a long week – but I’m not sure how your question “…does anyone think this might be the case?….a combination of using on/off listings to both save fees with the portals whilst at the same time bringing in old ones to try and show more local presence than there actually is?” would be accepted by either the portals (who as we know want to mangle the nuts of every Agent) or by the property owners – although we all know of certain ‘Agents’ whose listings are up and down like a cheap date’s drawers. “Marketing Break”… “Selling Holiday”… “Vendors’ Vacation”… whatever it is called in an attempt to desensitise what it really is – the deliberate removal and re-listing of a property – such an action is nothing more than a #portaljuggle which has been officially outlawed by all major bodies for our industry.
As far as making an Agent’s presence appear greater than it actually is – this is one of the main points we focused on in our #portaljuggling campaign. It is plain stuff and nonsense that taking a vendor’s property off the market is in any way, shape or form in their best interests – it is 100% down to the Agent wanting to score a point of some description against the competition, or to impress (some may even use words such as “fool”, “hoodwink” or worse…) the next person to list with them – or to invest in them.
I simply can’t see how “rotating your listings” as you put it might gain an Agent actual monetary advantage, as even if it ‘worked’ in the way you suggest, then the potential long-term reduction in fee income would surely outweigh when vendors got sick and withdrew their homes for such slipshod marketing?
AHHH… now I get it (I think)
They’ve already had payment – haven’t they!October 27, 2017 at 18:50 #48900
In what can only be described as a miraculous happening, SEVEN THOUSAND AND SIXTY NINE listings have reappeared from their hidey hole down the back of the sofa!
How chuffin’ amazing is that?October 28, 2017 at 12:34 #48901
Problem with posting on the Arena is you can’t edit it afterwards. The formatting problem with my last post appear to be because I copied and pasted my previous post.
What does the latest ‘found again properties’ make the total?
I am trying to understand the reasons ‘why’ behind what is happening……hence my suggestion that it might save portal costs or be used to exaggerate local stock levels in order to gain business. Has anyone else got more theories?
Obviously you would presume that ‘some’ properties are removed after a sale has completed…and new ones will be coming on all the time.
Its a pity that we don’t have a way of consistently working out how many are repeat listings of existing stock….or do we?October 30, 2017 at 11:21 #48968
You can edit the post, AV – it’s just not easy! Neither, though, is the main site, sometimes…
My evidenced figures are as follows:
Highest recorded total listings – 32747 on 25 September
Lowest recorded total listings – 24477 on 27 October
Latest recorded total listings – 31791 as of 0730 this morning
Number of properties “added” (Zoopla) between 25/9 and 30/10 – 6234
The important thing here to note, AV, is that for as long as I’ve been observing them on a daily basis, the figures simply don’t ‘stack up’.
Even before the above shenanigans, there were days where the statistics would given the tag-team of Carol Vorderman and Rachel Riley a mutual headache of gargantuan proportions.
Take for instance 15 September. According to Zoopla, some 261 ‘listings’ had been added in the 24 hours to 0715 – yet according to the PB site, the total listings had REDUCED by 33 units from the previous day’s figure – a discrepancy of -294 properties.
I’ll not bore you with more – and in the spirit of fairness and transparency that was one of the highest discrepancies I could find – but on a daily basis, THE FIGURES SIMPLY DID NOT COMPUTE.
In answer to your query, of course there is a way of checking whether a “new” listing is simply a relisting.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.