OnTheMarket boss Ian Springett to ‘pick up shares worth £20m’ if float goes ahead

Ian Springett, chief executive of OnTheMarket, is to pick up 3.9m shares in the event of a successful float.

In round figures, should shares trade at between the projected £4 and £5, they could be worth almost £20m in total to Springett.

A trio of documents which EYE has seen and which have been sent to agent members of OTM, state that Springett would receive just over 3.9m shares.

The price put on these is stated in one of the documents which says: “Based upon discussions with Zeus Capital [the OTM adviser on the float], your board believes that the valuation range of OnTheMarket at IP could be between £200m and £250m.

“Should such a valuation be achieved, your board anticipates that the share price at IPO would be in the range of £4 and £5.”

Four un-named members of “key management” and their “immediate families” could also between them receive shares potentially worth almost £20m, should they take up their options for “nil consideration”.

The documents also show that as well as the ‘one other portal’ rule being dropped, it is also proposing to drop the ban on online agents.

The complex documents – being explained at a series of roadshow presentations to OTM agents all this month including one today – spell out that decision day is September 6 at a ‘members’ court’ meeting at 10am at One Wood Street, London, the offices of law firm Eversheds, where each scheme member will be entitled to vote, in person or by proxy.

There is mention of members in breach of their existing listing agreements with OTM, who must return their proxy forms by 10am on August 31 while those not in breach have until 10am on September 4. Those agents currently in default who do not either rectify the breach or enter into the listing agreement by the end of this month will have their membership terminated.

Their existing listing agreements will continue – and OnTheMarket says that their subscriptions will still be due and payable – and, following the recent litigation, chased up and held to account.

The documents confirm that for a successful IPO, members will need to exchange their interest in Agents Mutual for shares in the new company, OnTheMarket Ltd.

Agents will also need to enter a new five-year agreement until 2022.

The papers also confirm that only a minority stake will be offered to investors, with the aim of raising £50m.

Reference is also made to the “highly aggressive response from its [OTM’s] major competitors, including negative publicity and heavy retention price discounting as well as more positive changes in their products and service levels offered to agents and in increased expenditure on marketing.

“In addition, Zoopla joined in the funding of our opponents and provided substantial support in the recent litigation which caused considerable short term diversion of resources from the company’s short term business.

“Whilst OnTheMarket.com has made very strong progress to date with the relatively modest resources at its disposal, it has become clear that a change in strategy, together with much greater growth funding, is needed to allow it to reach its goal of substantial market coverage of UK real estate sales and lettings agents and high levels of brand awareness and traffic to support them.”

The documents say the board has spent the last year reviewing strategic options, but concluded that the money required could not be raised from agents.

The board therefore decided to move to a share-based structure, and to remove the “restrictive term” – the one other portal rule.

On online agents, the documents state: “Your board believes that the time is right to review its listing eligibility with a view to broadening the appeal and coverage of the portal, to reflect major changes in the market landscape and to ensure that it remains compliant with competition law.

“It proposes to drop the policy of excluding agents who offer at least the option of a full service without necessarily providing this from a bricks and mortar high street branch.”

The papers say that since launch, there has been considerable convergence between traditional and hybrid agents: it says the latter have “undoubtedly” increased market share, to around 6%.

The relaunched portal will also, controversially, accept listings from new homes developers, many of whom market large numbers of properties direct to the public and without using agents.

OTM may also introduce special and additional advertising services to create extra revenue “in a measured fashion”. These could, perhaps, include Rightmove-style featured properties.

However, the documents stress that agent ownership and support, as shareholders, will remain crucial to the portal’s future success.

Agents are promised no increases in subscriptions for the next two years, and a maximum annual rise of 5% afterwards.

A majority of 75% will be required to approve an IPO.

Costs will range according to number of offices in location, and will be individually negotiated for agents with 175-plus branches.

For those businesses doing both sales and lettings with a single office, monthly costs will be from £295 to £595. For businesses with between 125 and 174 branches there will be a 35% discount, with costs per branch ranging from £192 to £387. Virtual offices will be charged by reference to where they are, and the size of their businesses.

Last night, we invited OTM to comment on a number of questions we had after reading through the documents, including on Ian Springett’s shares deal.

It declined to do so, but did explain that the 75% vote required involved a technical procedure, based on the total number of members who vote, with those who do not cast a vote not being counted.

We have been asked to clarify that the documents we have seen were not supplied by Agents’ Mutual, its board, PR department or PR agency, and are happy to do so.


Email the story to a friend


  1. The Outsider

    “Your board, who will become overnight millionaires and until now have done nothing to grow the business from the day it went live, recommend you ignore everything we ever said about the benefits of being an independent mutual, and instead recommend we become a listed organisation with shareholders to answer for, and expectations from the city of a c.10% annual increase in price.”

    Errrrr.  Alright then!

    1. HJ12

      Based on the comment I understand you have not read the document or been to a meeting!!!

      If you had you would know that there is no talk on 10% increases annually lol


      1. smile please

        And you believe that?

        You cannot trust these people. If they want it up 5,10,15% they will put it up!

        Why would they honour that promise when they have broken every other promise?

      2. Marketshare

        This is true, they are fixed for 2 years then a maximum of a 5% rise annually.    However none of that is relevant as they will be introducing premium products which make a mockery of the monthly costs.  How much is your standard Rightmove cost compared to all the extras?

      3. The Outsider

        They will sell product after product that in the old (current) world would be part of the package.  As part of a PLC, they will be added extras, and you will buy them because they will freeze your regular membership cost if you do.  Then, before you know it, you’re paying as much per month as RM.

    2. g4lvo17

      Once it is a listed company, the boards duty is to the shareholders, they will look to monetise every facet of the business, directors and board members will look to take actions which will increase share price and therefore reward themselves because as with most listed companies they will be granted options at major discount or even zero, the agents they currently serve will just be a cash cow to be milked. If I was sitting in a position that would give me the potential of £20 m for doing very much nothing and I had no chance of earning that through actual work, I would recommend you all vote for it too!!!!!! PMSL ….really

    3. Cardiff Agent

      I have read with interest all the comments on this matter and agree with many of them. However, the way I see it, is that at present we are going nowhere. We are modestly funded by subscriptions and if we are to make any progress against the other two, positive (and expensive) steps will need to be taken. To attract more Agents to join, we have to have unique qualities and one of these is not accepting on-line only set-ups. We would be the Portal that is unique to real Estate Agents. It would mean a little less subscription, but that would be a small price to pay, to not support these phoneys.  However, on the main matter of the flotation, I don’t think there is a choice, we either do it, or the portal slowly dies. It is going nowhere and losses of membership will continue. I agree that it isn’t all we thought it would be, but it is still the only protection we have from being at the mercy of the other two. If they pushed too far, we could put some of our properties at least, exclusively on OTM and publicise the fact. The public would certainly make sure they checked it out, if that were the only place they could see them. We are Gold members too, so have an investment and still want to see it succeed. However, I see no way that that can happen, without the capital raised in a flotation.

      1. smile please


        You vote to change the board and actually work to a mutuals benefit.

        Its obvious this was the plan all along.

  2. smile please

    Welcome to rightmove version 2.

    1. JAM01

      Primelocation 2!

  3. sb007ck

    And here you have it, the long term goal of OTM is finally revealed, yet another portal looking to fleece it “members” for all they can for the sole purpose of making personal profit. What is the point in having another portal if it is just the same as the other 2, but just less relevant. If the call centre types are allowed on, OTM become just as bad as RIghtmove & Zoopla. This was meant to be a portal for real estate agents, but they have prioritised their own interests, rather than focusing on growing the business.

  4. J1

    So it was a get rich quick scheme after all!!!!!

    Paid for by the naive and stupid.

    1. AgentV

      Paid for by those that were led to absolutely believe in a cause that would be great for the future of the industry!

      1. J1

        And if enough believe they should stick to the cause then they should vote against it

  5. revilo

    It’s just wrong!


  6. danny

    Will Ians shares be tied to perfomance. I would be wary if I was asked to sign a 5 year commitment to Agents Those who put in most take most out and get a larger share of the pot ( couldnt think of a snapper replacement for mutual) if the head of the organisation wasnt willing to do the same.I wouldnt any of the management team or those who are due to become millionaires touch one share till your contracts are seen though…. just my opinion

    1. Marketshare

      From my reading of the document 100% of Ian’s shares are issued if the vote is agreed.  None are dependent on any future performance.

      Does any member remember being asked how many shares Ian should have…?

      1. AgentV

        Didn’t it have to voted on then? Was anything ever needed to be voted on? Wasn’t that the whole point….an organisation with one member one vote……for the good of the industry.

  7. htsnom79

    Get Stuffed.

    I wouldn’t of believed it possible that I could be made to feel almost feel warm and fuzzy about R & Z at ten to eight on a Friday morning


  8. Marketshare

    This is nothing less than a complete betrayal of the core principals that we signed up to support.  The core principals that we took a commercial risk to stand behind, the core principals that we funded with our hard earned cash.

    This is a group of blokes in a room who have treated this portal as their own property and as a vehicle to achieve their own goals.

    We have had no say in how the portal has been managed as a Mutual, it is utterly laughable that they can even suggest we will have any control as a PLC.

    So, they are proposing a portal which allows Purplebricks, encourages private sales by allowing developers who don’t use agents and worst of all a portal which will create ‘premium products’ to put us all into competition with each other and increase our costs.

    Sound familiar?

    Mr Springett and the board, hold your heads in shame.

    Are we going to take it on the chin with the chance of some free shares in something we don’t want or are we going to remind them who owns Agents Mutual, replace the board and get this idea back on track?

    I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get involved.

    1. AgentV

      One thing is for sure, in my humble opinion….a board of small independent agents could run this organisation a damn site better than it has been for a while…..developing new products and attracting far more new members.

      If ever there was a time for an organisation with the founding principles to exist….it is now. Now is the time to build it further…..not destroy it for the sake of greed!

      1. Marketshare

        Well said.  Count me in.

        1. AgentV

          Marketshare….That would be good, how can you be contacted?

      2. Paul

        One thing is for sure, in my humble opinion….a board of small independent agents could run this organisation a damn site better than it has been for a while…..


        If you could get them to join in the first place……! 🙂



    2. universalreader75

      I could not agree more Marketshare.

      Just to get this out there. I am also a member, I have read the documents from the board and agree that things need to change as this model is currently not working for the majority of us. I’m not here in this discussion to discuss what needs to change, I’m here on this blog to discuss the PRINCIPLES!

      If they had sold this vision to me two and a half years ago as Rightmove or Zoopla part 2, it would not have taken me long to decide NO!

      BUT this was not the vision. So as many of others have, I took a depth breath and put my money where my mouth was, so if this did fail, which of course I want this to succeed and still do, at least I could hold my head high and say, I did TRY and change things collectively for the industry and I did not sit on the fence.

      This to me is not just changing the goal posts, it’s changing the field! This is not what I signed up to, so will not be supporting this. If it’s time for me to fall onto my sword, then so be it.

      I know that it’s only a proposal, but if this does go through, to me, this is something that now looks like something that I DID NOT sign up to, but I can’t hand my notice in/end my contract. I/we still have to fulfil our commitment. Talk about having it all your own way!

      I can’t remember signing up to get lots of shares to make me rich down the line. I said to my colleagues a few days ago and The Property Industry Eye has confirmed this in the headline, nice GOLDEN HAND SHAKE coming down the line for the board!

      It would be interesting to see if a group of us, end up in court, as a group of agents fighting for the PRINCIPLES. This is not what we signed up for. It would be interesting to see what a judge would say?

      Well those are my thoughts, I’m ready for the onslaught!


      1. AgentV

        Vote NO…..and put yourself forwards to carry the banner for those principles in a new era with new ideas and the commitment to make it well and truly happen!


  9. Ric

    The floating bit does not annoy me as much as the 1 equal share bit.

    But part of the proposal puts a small firm like ours, who in theory you could argue we risked more than others supporting this from DAY 1, will be treated with ZERO respect!

    The list of membership discounts for company size, makes you weak at the knees to know the corps will get it cheaper than me.

    It also means the large companies can in effect get their discount for size and not be tempted to try and get another discount for adopting the OOPR (which is obviously voluntary), therefore be on all three using my extra membership fee to pay for them being on a 3rd website!

    A absolute ******* disgrace! (and I assume the word will get blocked)

  10. AgentV

    £20 million huh? Wonder what the motivator is for proposing this and following it through then. How about the main beneficiaries wave their rights to anything more than the amounts they can justify they have put in?

    If they then still recommended this course of action, it would have far more credibility!!!

  11. Ric

    Perhaps it needs to be “invisible month” for OTM! Much less of a risk than doing it RM, I would imagine my clients would not give two monkeys. They shifted the goal posts, I would imagine there will be a judge keen to say AM you chaps are taking the **** now.

    1. smile please

      Count me in RIC.

      For them to get the outside investment they need to show stock, maybe coincide it the month they float to hit the share price as hard as possible

      1. Ric

        I’ve dipped in and out of favour of dropping the OOPR when those benefiting would be agents and agents alone, even quite happy with the salaries at the top….. but this is EVERYTHING that AM is not meant to stand for.

        I now know why my departing rep said to me (and I thought he was being sour) you wont like what is happening and I certainly could not sell the concept. He had worked for RM previously, so I assume was briefed on how his job moving forward would be selling products…. no doubt reps will be on a new “go rip em off” commission package.

        This is not RMv2, this is OTMv2 failed.

        Problem now is, every agent against this (if it does not float) may well drop them on the 5th year.

        All that noise to Gascoinges about the bloody OOPR and what AM stands for. wtf.


        1. smile please

          By my reckoning OTM have 6000 eligible votes.

          They need 75% or 4500 yes votes.

          we need to make sure we speak to enough agents that 1500 are true independent agents worried about the longevity of our industry.

          I would suggest speaking to all partners of firms you know. As powerful and well read eye is, not all managing partners read this and will only get the positive spin from the roadshows and OTM reps.


          1. Ostrich17

            They need a majority in number of votes representing 75% of the scheme value.

            There appear to be less than 4500 members and approx 6000 offices.

            There are 8 board members with 8 votes representing nearly 10% of the scheme value.

            My head hurts and my calculator is broken !!!




  12. Malcolm Barnard

    Can anybody remember how much Ian Springett made when Primelocation was sold to DMGT for £48m?

  13. GilesH

    If you truly are an independent agent, then be one and walk away from this. DO NOT BE SHEEP.

    1. AgentV

      Or why not the independents take it over with their votes, and truly run it for the good of the future of the industry!

  14. Siaf

    I’m a single office gold member and will be voting in favour. This will give me a chance to receive something back for the investment I’ve already made.

    OTM can’t survive without taking this approach.

    1. AgentV

      How much will you get back in comparison to what it could have saved you, and built for you….for many years to come?

    2. smile please

      It’s false economy.

      They will charge you you that amount 10 time’s over.

      OTM can work as a mutual just needs a new board without profit on their mind.

      1. AgentV

        Well said Smile please…..a board that believes in the best interests of it’s members and the future of their livelihoods.

      2. markpne

        Would sooner pay 10 x more and be a share older than pay rightmove and get nothing back.

        1. smile please

          What are you going to get back?


          You will not get dividends worth anything.


          You will get a handful of shares which they will claw back in subscriptions and products. You will end up paying for 3 portals.


          You will be out of pocket.

    3. Ric

      Morning Siaf. Must make you happy any agent with 7 or more offices, will get a monthly discount, the equivalent of being able to then drop the OOPR as the discount for that is 10% so, they are on a level playing field and not penalised for paying Z £30 a month, as Z will happily take the £30 a month.


      The discount for sticking to the OOPR should have outweighed any discount for company size, thus ensuring the very thing which actually makes OTM a potential winner is attractive to new comers.


      The scheme just entices big companies who will spend stupidly.


      Dream of turning loan notes in six digit share sales in the future are nothing short of fantasy land.


      I now bend over for the Anti-AM brigade and rightfully take what is coming our way! You told me so.



    4. Marketshare

      Hi Siaf,  first of all, glad to hear you joined as a gold member and as a fellow gold member I fully understand your frustrations.

      We have been sold down the river by the board who have run the business.  By voting yes you will need to sign a new 5 year deal for a portal that will then be run by shareholders for a profit.  You can cash in 10% of your shares in year one and 10% in year two but need to wait until year 5 to cash in the remaining  80%.  Considering this will be a portal that nobody wants you need to ask how much they will be worth at that point in time.

      Or, you could vote no, replace the board and help to get other agents on board so we can grow as a mutual with the simple goal of getting our properties out there at the lowest possible cost.

      I hope you choose the latter.

    5. Robert May

      “OTM can’t survive without taking this approach” By floating you’ll be able to get Quirky involved and he has a real talent for  bringing in cash to a lost cause. (tongue in cheek  emoticon)

      It ought to be a concern that members are  saying “OTM can’t survive without taking this approach”  I disagree with that, they just need to be doing something different to what they are doing.

      I am keeping out of this ( as much as I can) and observing the background  discussions going on. Hearing what people who have attended the roadshows and having visits from reps are reporting.

      There are two tales being told, one very positive at the roadshows but the rep visits are painting a desperate picture of  here’s a bucket, bail!

      Someone needs to get a grip of that and have 100% honesty and consistency of message.

      It is important that everyone who cares  about what has been created [I applaud getting 27% of the industry to work together  for 30 months as a genuine achievement] makes sure their vote is cast so that AM  progresses as the majority wish rather than as those who can be bothered or remember to vote wish.

      You  were given 1 member 1 vote but haven’t had chance to use it until now. Now is the chance to shape the future. To me it comes down to whether OTM ought to become a 3rd ordinary portal with the likes of Quirk and Bruce Bros on there if they choose to.  Share revenue growth won’t happen without them and a heap of innovation that hasn’t happened  up till now.

      Looking at the vehement divide in sentiment there is not much ‘mutual’ left and that has to be addressed above everything else.

  15. Essjaydee51

    Run by the members for the members!

    it was never run by you and now it proves that it was never intended (mid to long term) to be for you!!

    im sorry guys but your only option now is to vote against the float, against the board, see out your last two years and swallow the loss.

    All the £50 members will have to sign up to the new rate and the new 5 year term, I can’t see that happening so they will lose more numbers and stock and lose more clicks and visits and you will all be stuck in for 5 more years of what you have already experienced!!!

    Shame on the board

  16. Essjaydee51

    Run by the members for the members!

    it was never run by you and now it proves that it was never intended (mid to long term) to be for you!!

    im sorry guys but your only option now is to vote against the float, against the board, see out your last two years and swallow the loss.

    All the £50 members will have to sign up to the new rate and the new 5 year term, I can’t see that happening so they will lose more numbers and stock and lose more clicks and visits and you will all be stuck in for 5 more years of what you have already experienced!!!

    Shame on the board

  17. DA05

    A few points for the readers –  OTM doesn’t not create val leads or apps   for either sales or rentals the level we recieved each month is astoundingly low – some months no leads. – we currently list circa 150 flats for rent in RM and 100 for sale.

    The above trend will continue because 50 M is not sufficient income to  gain market awareness with the public – we are a gold member and i am desperate for our 5 year contract to end – i will not be voting with the board to float OTM – i am desperate to cut my losses and invest my monthly OTM expenditure elsewhere – the only positive for from this experience is you do not need to pay 2 web portals to grow your business – the hated or loved RM is dominant enough so consider that when you vote next month.

    Finally i why do i want to line the pockets of the board whom include more importantly my competitors namely KFH, SH, KF to name a few with millions of pounds on their balance sheet – we have very tough times ahead and the big boys will struggle as we all well – but  maybe some of the bigger agents will close offices to consolidate costs –  with more business opportunities  for the decent indies – please please  say NO to this vote and lets honor the next two half years agreements – if we vote no OTM may not be around much longer…….

    1. AgentV

      A no vote could lead to a new board who have the NEW ideas and commitment to truly make it work!

  18. Eamonn

    Four un-named members of “key management” and their “immediate families” could also between them receive shares potentially worth almost £20m

    When I read immiediate families it tells you this is a DONE deal my friends and the cyclically always was the case.

    “Management distraction” lol means couldn’t let the cat out of the bag.

    THis must have been in the pipeline from a long time and Springett spent all your hard earned money fighting a court case that not even he believed in.    The following day he drops the one other portal rule.    You couldn’t make it up.



  19. GeoW10

    No real surpise here !!

    The “chiefs” in RM and Zoopla wrote the play book for this get rich quick scheme on the back of customers. So Springett simply wants to join them in “the land of milk and honey.”

    I supose he thinks no one will notice?

  20. marccox

    Is anyone else out there thinking “I wish I came up with this idea” ? Love him or Loathe him Mr Ian Springett is no fool.

    Also reading the mood it doesn’t look like they are going to get their 75%, so what happens then without the capital injection required to compete with Rightmove and Zoopla?

    It also looks like that the agents that are tied in for another 2-3 years wont resign when there contract is up !! #epicfail



    1. AgentV

      It’s not necessarily about having the right ideas……what ideas that are different, have they truly had? It’s about being the right person in the right place at the right time.

      This is basically throwing the towel in half way through a project for a personal profit. If it fails ….walk away with £20 mill….nice one!

    2. Robert May

      read EAT from late October 2011 and someone did. 100 agents sat in a room in Cambridge in May 2012 and heard this as a vision for the future to build on something already built and running in the South West


      The secret is not the idea but how to manage it and sustain it. I apprenticed into agency in 1986 joining a Devon Team agent.  AM ‘s journey is  following a similar pattern of  enthusiasm, support, discussion, opinion, divide.  The discussion, opinion, divide bit is absent from  OTM’s competition so in order for a floated OTM to succeed agents have to give up on the idea they are shaping things. As you can see here, that is not going down well. Something agents were given is now necessarily going to be taken away.

  21. surrey1

    Have to say I’m conflicted on this. OTM has lost momentum and without a change of heart from a substantial amount of agents who didn’t support it, it will continue to drift in the doldrums. It needs more members and more stock  to drive more traffic and it needs more marketing to drive awareness. Rightmove know they have us over a barrel at present and we need a better proposition to rival it (Zoopla ain’t it). Ultimately more cash will be key to moving it forward. Agents will still be the majority shareholders with the power to sack the board if they drift too far into Rightmove MKII territory. However, given the founding principles of OTM I’m at a loss to understand why “online” agents and developers should be allowed access, the industry is being quite cannibalised enough without further fuelling it and we certainly don’t need bolt on products a la RM, although in the meeting I attended yesterday there was no mention of that.

    1. smile please

      You need to remember to board want the floatation.

      The roadshows are there to sell you the benefits nothing more.

      1. AgentV

        The roadshows should include a seperate committee of members opposed to the proposal…..to give a balanced view for the other side.

    2. Marketshare

      Hi Surrey, page 10 of the book they sent you explains about the new premium products.

      1. surrey1

        Thanks. I’m yet to wade through it, a colleague has it for the moment.

  22. AgentV

    The indepependent agent sector in this country should be the most powerful voice in the industry.

    If this goes through I feel we will just be seen as a herd of dairy cattle by the big corporate companies……we go out into the pastures to do the everyday business and processes, and then every so often we are herded together to be milked for everything we have produced!!!

  23. J1

    Regional multi-branch firms will have no choice but to vote for this to go through as they will want the share value.

    Firms with head office overheads, who are proving to be less sustainable in the current low fee environment will need the money.

    It will be up to the little guys who really bought into the mutual concept to vote against this.

    I posted months ago that the only way forward for this failing project was to float.  It is a shame the agents haven’t pushed it more, and it is a bigger shame that OTM got so bogged down in it’s legal fight that it forgot about it’s brothers and sisters who paid to get it off the ground.

    Lost momentum led to a lost opportunity.

  24. waco79

    If it was on a stage it would be named the greatest trick of all time! To have convinced so many, that something was for their good, and not for the main protagonist’s good. Absolutely shameless. If the general public understood what has been going on here, it would epitomise what usually wrongly gives agents a bad name, though this time someone has been saying what you wanted to hear so that they can get a deal done.

  25. KemptownAgent

    Well, It looks like we’ve all been bamboozled!

    Methinks this be the reason why Zoopla bailed them out on the court case, maybe they knew their master plan?

    I think all of us won’t be renewing out contracts with Mr Ian Scamett

    The lesson we can all learn is what we advise our own clients…don’t sign into lengthy contracts!

  26. Industry_Pro

    “Regional multi-branch firms will have no choice but to vote for this to go through as they will want the share value.”

    -Whilst I share your concerns the value of the shares and the time span involved to realise their value will simply be a drop in the ocean to most firms medium or small. The future value is actually insignificant compared to the costs and fees in the medium term.

    The agency community including the regular readers here need to re-calibrate their ambitions and aim very high.

    Whilst we continue to discuss the issues and do nothing the OTM ‘leadership’ moves on with its agenda. Sadly, the current leadership has now been distracted by the promises of personal enrichment and have lost sight of the bigger picture and original goals.

    With the correct leadership in place and an exponential growth strategy plan [i.e. doubling in size every year] supported by all, OTM can become the market leader. This is the real peanut in this story.

    OTM has 5,700 monthly contributors and I’m sure there are at least 5,700 ideas on growth and strategy. No one seems to be co-ordinating this potential.

    We know that the Rightmove operation currently costs £58m per annum [ £4.8m per month ] to run and there is probably a lot of fat within those costs. This is equivalent to £250 per office per month including the fat. Granted there are circa 19,000 RM members but this is a very attainable number under the correct conditions and strategy.

    OTM members who, let’s not forget, currently own the business need to galvanise their thoughts, organise themselves and grow the business with a leadership team that they believe in and one that represent their interests fully and un-selfishly.

    Someone needs to take the lead.

    1. AgentV

      Industry Pro, it would be really good to talk to you. How can you be contacted?

  27. AgentV

    Are there members of OTM out there who are willing to start a resistance movement to this proposal, who are willing to help inject new ideas and work at attracting new members with new products and proposals……to form a new board for the good of the future of the industry?

    More business generating ideas (and we already have those…but need a platform to make them happen), more members…….more members, more stock……..more stock, more traffic…….more traffic, more leads…..more leads, more members!


    To me this is an absolutely fantastic challenge, with two thirds of the market still untouched. I don’t think AM or OTM have been properly working on generating new members for quite a while now.

    1. AgentV


      1. Digital Expert

        I think you’ve missed the point if you think that they’ve been in operation to help agents in any way shape or form since day one. THIS is their plan, and it’s a pure money making operation (not that it’s doing much of this!) and one that’ll monetise every single aspect of portal opportunity. As do Zoopla, RM and every other company beholden to shareholders.


        You’d do better to start your own agent owned portal than to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable.

        1. Marketshare

          This is our portal and all we have to do is find at least 25% of us to say no.

  28. docklander52

    I have been, and always be, a staunch supporter of the original values behind OTM. Given the huge profits made by Z and RM, the contempt with which we are (generally) treated and the possibility that one day they will become an agent, I admired the aim of having a co-op run by and for the benefit if its members. That is why I parted with the dosh for the loan.

    I did step away from OTM when I was lied to.

    Now it appears I may have two choices; (hopefully) get some shares and some/all of my original investment (loan notes) back OR start a fight.

    Given the self-destructive nature of our industry, do I really believe 1000’s of us will join hands and raise up in a single voice with a mutual goal? I am not sure that I do. But, I may be open to persuasion….

    However given the amount that OTM spent on marketing during its launch and its complete lack of traction or public awareness, do I believe it can not only continue to exist but grow? On that I am even less sure.

    BTW, the irony of a mutual wanting to float and then its members having to fight that mutual to stay as such is not lost on me.



  29. Woodentop

    The idea behind OTM was to help high street agents from the pressures of the rip-off monopoly of the then two big portals, marketing overhead stability and on-liners cost cutting, negative income philosophy which had serious consequences, particularly for smaller independent agents. It was to be agent owned, to maintain control and non-profit making to assist agents budgets (accepting a reserve fund).


    Soon to be:


    1.  To be profit making, not for agent members.


    2. To provide a silver lining to directors and their families!!!


    3. Proposing to drop the ban on online agents.


    4. Increase in fee’s, not discussed with members agents budgets.


    5. Agents will loose control, they may retain a majority of 51% but would require every single agent to vote to retain. There is always a few who for whatever reason never get around to voting.


    6. OTM is being turned into a commercial venture for the benefit of shareholders.


    Which of the 6 comply with the original idea and reason for so many agents to join in the beginning? And what happens to the members who say no and their stake funding. Do they get it back or loose it like RM did when they floated?

  30. Rivero

    Dig deep people…it’s time for you all to throw good money after bad.

    You’ve been royally Springetted.


  31. marcH

    This thread seems to be wandering down a new and very interesting route. But the reality is we only have 4 weeks (and in the middle of the holiday season) to make up our minds whether we support this IPO or not. Call me a cynic, but from what I heard at the meeting I attended yesterday it does seem like the perfect exit strategy for the original backers of AM now that the whole project has lost momentum and stares failure in the face.

    But – and it’s a big but – these original backers with their huge share allocations are not gong to be able to flog off the bulk of their shares for 5 years (which, if reading some of you correctly, will be worth diddly squat anyway). Even if the shares do well and flatter their balance sheets in the meantime, they can still not capitalise on 80% of their value for 5 years. So, we are all locked-in together in a business we own and, in theory, to a certain extent, control.

    £50m raised via the IPO is £50m we would otherwise not have. Would each member have been willing to contribute another £17k to get to this number? I don’t think so. What is done with the £50m and our annual subscriptions is absolutely key to the future development of our portal. I totally resent the proposed inclusion of the on-liners and developers but this is not a deal we can cherry-pick. It’s all or nothing. If it’s nothing – as a good many postings here seem to indicate – then we might as well kiss goodbye to OTM and our next 30 months’ subs because worthy as the idea is to try to organise something to kick out the Board and take control, it just won’t happen. Ideally, this should have been mobilised months ago and well before the court case was decided.

    We need to take a long hard look at the options. Is this the best last shot we have at making a go of this (and I share the anger and frustration of many of you here, having been a Gold Member and Note Holder from the off) or do we just fold our tents and slink off back to RM/Z and continue to get shafted every year for the foreseeable future. I know what I’m going to do.

    1. Beam Splitter

      Even if the shares do well and flatter their balance sheets in the meantime, they can still not capitalise on 80% of their value for 5 years. So, we are all locked-in together in a business we own and, in theory, to a certain extent, control.

      No you won’t, you’ll be locked in as a minor, minor share holder and only able to exercise any control if all of you (those who are with OTM) wield a collective voice…but you won’t lets be real, that’s never happened and will never happen. Don’t get my wrong, boisterous large lads and lasses with their hearts in the right place (agentv etc) you do have already, but actual majority share holder powers you will not if this goes through. The extra monies mean nothing in the end because you guys will have no control.

      The only thinking you can do is all vote against it as best as you can collectively. Seriously good luck as you know what the industry is like and how cut throat it can be.

      Hope you guys vote against it and form a faction within the group to wrestle control though, that’d be cool.

    2. Marketshare

      All a PLC wants to do is make money, that is its core focus. We are shareholders but we are also the ones that drive the profits i.e the more they can squeeze from us the more the PLC makes.   How may PLC’s do you know where the share holders appeal to the board to reduce profits?

      The prospectus already states that onliners are in, the one other portal rule is dropped, private adverts in the guise of developers selling without agents are allowed and worst of all, premium products are developed.  This is a clear picture of how the future looks as a PLC.

      The management takes their 8m, say it out loud EIGHT MILLION shares worth £40m and we get another Portal bleeding our hard earned cash.

      1. smile please



        It really worries me other agents do not see this. Its as clear as day.


        Some agents should not be allowed to run a business.

  32. s71

    How much will Paul Smith of Haart make from this flotation?

  33. marcH

    To Woodentop – I agree 100% but even if the new OTM exists to make profits for its shareholders, don’t forget, you will be one of them. The fly in the ointment for me is the complete silence from Springett yesterday on the aspirations for future dividend policy. Fine if the vast bulk of post-tax profit  is ploughed back into the business – but what if they do an RM and most of the profits are paid over to the shareholders, with the biggest of course doing the best? I bet there will be enormous pressure from the big boys to go the latter route if and when OTM plc makes profits. This is where the pressure from us agents could make a difference.

    1. Woodentop

      For the record, as if many didn’t already know my position. I am a Gold member and stake holder. I agree in principle to OTM being a bonafide competitor to the existing duopoly for the benefit of independent agents and their future existence which is constantly under threat by here today, gone tomorrow (eventually) disruptors. Just as SJEA states below, the agreement to join was based on certain principles.


      The question today is …. what value are principles …. what price for integrity ………. what advantage to me is it to go PLC?


      The answer is: You are what you are based on your principles …. you are jugged by your peers by your integrity …. AM is now finding that to their cost. Going PLC is of no advantage to me.


      You will get a NO vote from me and should the result be NO … heads must roll at AM for they will have no support or confidence of the members? I am considering challenging breach of contract by AM on a number of counts, including the use of existing funds and change of direction by board members to their own advantage. I shall be asking for my stakeholding returned. It appears that the move to PLC has been on the cards for some time.

      AM have killed the principles OTM.

  34. SJEA

    I am a ‘Gold Member’ and originally joined and invested my money on a few principles, all of which have now gone out of the window !

    Tie myself into another 5 year contract = 60 x £595+vat =£42,840. This is in addition to the money paid in already with little return on my investment !

    I personally would not be lead into another contract based on share value as again, many original members joined with what was hoped was foresight and protection of the High Street Agent.

    The main issues for many original members will be the fact that OTM will be available to PB. One other portal rule, New Homes Builders etc do not cause me any concern – but those not offering full service with bricks and mortar offices being able to join DOES !


    1. Andy

      Well summed up SJEA. We’re gold as well. We’re here because we believed in the core principles. I’m not sitting next to PB on our website. A ridiculous idea. The original agreement appears to have been torn up on the boards side, but apparently not on our side. We still have to adhere to the principles of the agreement. This doesn’t seem fair and reasonable. I can’t say I want to commit any further expenditure on a project that is going in a completely different direction. The question now is, on saying NO, what are the implications?

      1. revilo

        Andy – A vote of no confidence in the existing board maybe?

        Attempted breach of contract on their part?

        I suspect we’re f****d whatever we do!

        And this bit leaves me speechless! Immediate families…?

        “Four un-named members of “key management” and their “immediate families” could also between them receive shares potentially worth almost £20m, should they take up their options for “nil consideration”.

      2. Digital Expert

        Genuine question, Andy.

        Why are you so afraid of your profile sitting next to one of Purple Bricks? Whatever you think of them, they are the second largest estate agent in the UK, and they are your direct competition.

        Interesting that you think being next to them is a disadvantage. I’d call it a necessity.

        Also, they’ll be on On The Market by the end of the year. The shareholders will see to that.

        1. Beam Splitter

          Genuine question, Waitrose.
          Why are you so afraid of your profile sitting next to one of Poundland? Whatever you think of them, they are the second largest retailer in the UK, and they are your direct competition.

          Brands. No decent independent wants to be in the same “house” as PB…hell they don’t want to be in the same “street”. Decent corporates (hahaha) don’t want to be associated with them either but share holders need their paper, gotta stack those bills. #stackingbills #swag #helpme

  35. El Burro

    Be really interesting to know how many posters are bona fide OTM members. They’re the only ones whose views I’m interested in.

  36. Oldtimer

    I shall be interested in what James Dearsley and other ‘external’ commentators have to say on this!

  37. harry hood

    So if Springett wants to boost his share price then all he needs to do is turn your fees up.


  38. harry hood

    Now who is the parasite Springett?

  39. davidandrew52

    After working my fingers to the bone today I’ve come home to find this!

    Springcheat  is quite simply a theaving  little c***

  40. GPL

    Let’s ignore the “usual suspects” posting their anti-OTM views based either on their direct Rightmove/Zoopla connection or dubious links with The Duopoly.

    The only views that matter in this debate/Vote are the actual/existing members….. all the external noise is merely that, noise.

    As a Day 1 Gold Member my company embraced the concept/vision of OTM….. for me, in a nutshell it was providing our industry with a real focal point for real estate agency. I, and no doubt others, sought NOT to be “controlled” by The Duopoly. We simply wanted to collectively use an online platform to serve our clients and promote the real worth of our industry….. because The Duopoly no longer served its paying members, it sought to dictate the way our industry was promoted & run, and how it would evolve in the future.

    Rightmove’s shadow now casts darkly across our industry, it seeks to govern so many aspects of our industry from from its self-appointed position as Head of the UK Property Industry. Training courses, advice on how to promote your business with their products, using our clients properties to promote other services/income streams and sucking profit/paying shareholder dividends on the back of automatic annual membership increases and the huge online income streams which our industry supports.

    I drum on about Rightmove however I have watched it evolve over my 30 Years in this industry and I have been as guilty as others in helping our industry sleepwalk into the online cul de sac that is Rightmove.

    However, enough of Rightmove…. what about OnTheMarket, Agents Mutual, Ian Springett & Co.

    Robert May is quoted earlier on this thread stating how he applauds the fact that 27% of our industry have worked together under OTM for 30 months… and it is that fact that shines out as a real foundation for our industry to move forward and to evolve to meet the changing face of our industry.

    I am quoted here a week or so ago, stating RIP OTM/Ian Springett… because they have failed to deliver, it is that simple. Whatever the reasons…. they have failed to deliver. Most of all they have failed to manage OTM, actively involve its members and the undoubted talent that sits amongst our membership – surely we can put our egos aside and harness our talent for the collective good, whilst still of course remaining in competition… competition is good for our industry. I and many others would no doubt serve OTM for zero payment because we want our industry to breathe, to promote all that is good with our industry and to serve our clients best interests. We undoubtedly have sales & marketing talent amongst us, digital/online expert talent, talented people with finance, strategy, communication, management skills and amazingly……estate agents & letting agents!

    It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say I will be voting “No” as I know The Duopoly can rejoice whichever way I vote. I went into this in the knowledge that my company may have to write-off the investment & fees paid…. however that was a price worth paying rather than standing by watching our industry spiralling down the portal toilet,  which seemed like commercial suicide.

    So….. is there anything “Positive” to take from the OTM “Exit Strategy Vote”? 

    Absolutely!!! It is a chance to Vote NO and move to take OTM forward with a New Board with a New Structure, harnessing the best talent available to take our industry forward collectively. 

    Personally, I feel we have been subjected to the “Divide & Conquer” Management Method….. minimal communication from a tight almost anonymous management/board group who effectively controls its members with their own agenda whilst portraying that they are really acting for us all.

    In my view….. we need a New Structure, a New Board of course, however with active Regional input to ensure the UK Property Industry is driven forward proactively providing property sales and letting services which the consumer expresses a real level of satisfaction that by choosing a real estate agent or letting agent – they actually made the right choice. Our industry should not be viewed as a necessary “evil” ….it should be viewed as a service that the consumer willingly selects because they see and experience a real value & benefit in doing so.

    Of course I respect any OTM Member and the choice that they make… being a member gives them the right to decide how they feel their best future interests are served. All I would ask is that we all consider the UK Property Industry and how we can best serve it collectively.

    However you wish to Vote…… Vote. We will receive the outcome in due course, that will then determine how our industry will move forward….. I sincerely hope it is collectively. 


    1. Marketshare

      As a fellow gold member from day one I couldn’t have put it better myself.  I am also voting no for similar reasons and agree that rather than accepting the boards proposal with apathy I honestly think we can turn this around.  It we go PLC the soul of AM dies, we become a business run for profit which needs to be supplied by guess who.

      I care about the future of my industry, I care what happens in 5 years when everyone cashes in and wonders why there are now three portals collecting our hard earned money.

      in my meeting today I was told by Ian Springett that they had done ‘everything possible’ to make AM work. Seriously? There are 2,700 member firms and each of us probably know two or three agents we could get on board.  That’s an extra 8,000 firms and gets us to about 70% of the whole market.

      i haven’t heard from AM in the past 12 months, they have never had enough sales reps on the ground. They have ignored the untapped potential of the owners of the portal, all of us who have a huge investment and by that I do not mean in a financial way.

      the management (none of which are practising agents) will take their 8m shares worth circa £40m (based on their numbers) and we will be left with the mess.

      So, we just need to find 673 like minded souls and we’re home and dry.

      1. AgentV

        This is so true. I believe they have only paid lip service to active recruitment for the last 18 months. Why have they not written regular…..say monthly….articles for PIE for instance. They could have done so much more…..and still could.

        Just think of this…..there are 6,000 plus members paying subscriptions comtributing to say £20 million plus, a year, turnover. Supposing some of that could be used for more Collective Active Intelligent Marketing to win new business for the members…..and when it worked, what a fantastic recruitment tool that would be to attract new members.

        How many independent agents wouldn’t want to join a portal that created more new business value for them than it cost in monthly membership fees?

    2. Woodentop

      I agree with everything you have said GPL and I am more than confident that there are many other agents who will agree.


      Over the last couple of months or so I have made comment that AM have been sleep walking during the last twelve months. Or so it would have seemed! That AM need to be more dynamic, forward thinking and produce results. It is becoming clearer by the day that AM have no vision and no longer fit for purpose. This debacle is totally at odds with the reason for OTM membership and has been in the planning stage for some considerable time ….. no wonder they kept it quiet. So what was the point of the court case, now?

    3. smile please

      Jesus Wept for once in my life i agree with GPL!

  41. Ric

    Condition 4.4 in conjunction with condition 6.1 of the Deed.

    Anyone else take comfort in this, for those who worry we have no choice if floated.


    1. GPL

      You must be reading very slowly Ric

      1. Ric

        Sorry speed reader…. I’ve been busy listing houses! x

    2. Marketshare

      Are you referring to the limit placed on listing fees?  If so please don’t forget that they are introducing premium products.  Rather than a group of agents working together we are now in completion for premium displays and the like.  What percentage of your Rightmove costs are extras?  This makes a complete mockery of the base pricing model.  Does this all start to sound somewhat familiar…

      1. Ric

        No I am referring to the original deed which you signed as a gold member and reference to what happens if the company (AM) is listed on LSE or a similar platform. 4.4 only says one outcome will happen.

  42. Woodentop

    As I said over the last couple of weeks, AM have failed to understand independent estate agents just as the bank and insurance companies did in the 1990’s, none of which are still in the industry. Some of the AM board members have corporate aspirations. You would have thought they would have listened and learnt from the experience. Independent agents are just that, Independent. it is their business and it is their views that matter. Some will agree and some will disagree with decisions to be made BUT many will object most strongly if they feel they are or have been lead up the garden path or worse still being dictated to by those that have more to gain than them.

    Do you really think anyone who was considering joining OTM …….. will now!Do you really believe that anyone who would consider joining OTM ….. will now! 

    AM Board you didn’t ask, you have planned in secrecy and now seem dictating to the people you are supposed to champion. The people that backed you are expecting integrity and fairness for all. You have self-destructed. You cannot be trusted ever again. You have completely miss handled the situation as soon as you dreamt up the idea. You are dead in the water, never to be trusted again. YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND and that is why you have to go.. 

  43. Woodentop

    Does AM really believe that anyone who was thinking of joining OTM will be that interested ….. now! Do you really believe they will trust any AM board member if they join, many existing members appear not to. A new board is the only way to stop the rot.


    Collectively OTM is good news for agents and is not complicated. It is a  web portal to upload your properties and an easy access for customers to browse. As simple as that, just as all web portals are.


    Why do AM need to make things difficult. All that is required is a secure server and software with minimal management to maintain and service. An accounts department. A panel of members to evaluate performance and continued viability with regular reports to the membership (email). A team of field personnel with a leader to oversee. Yeah the last sentence is the cracker, at first they sailed along for the ride of the goodwill and for some, desperation of agents willing to join. Now the going gets tough … where are they? Focused completely on something different and divisive. The people you need to listen to and support from are, estate agents. Without their stock you can float along in your boat but will sink and take all onboard with you.


    And to those so called agents who are anti-OTM. The common complaint from you lot is that OTM is not the Holy Grail, that will do you job for you. Some seem to expect they can just sit back and the customers will come flooding in. Wrong, it is an advertising outlet THAT YOU HAVE TO PROMOTE, just as you do with RM & Z. While you continue to promote as first choice RM or Z, it should be no surprise that the public don’t see the need to go to OTM. You have killed the hand that was there to help you. RM have always spent very little on media advertising because they USE YOU as their best form of advertising, at your cost. The odd TV add is there to keep dissenters at bay but has very little impact. If every agent replaced their window stickers with OTM ….. that is where the public go. You are your own worse enemy. I see so many OTM agents still promoting both RM & Z with a token gesture for OTM expecting customers would use them as a first stop. As for the public not knowing about OTM …. rubbish, yes they do and if they don’t who’s fault is that ….. YOURS.

    1. AgentV

      With the right NEW ideas and enthusiastic momentum OTM could become THE ‘Disrupter Portal’. How valuable would that be to the independent community?

  44. marlington52

    Surely everyone remembers Primelocation.   It started with almost the same principles as OTM and sold it’s self to Zoopla.   This is the first step to the same fate.

    OTM will not stop the like of Purple Bricks gaining market share what will is the Industry making the public aware of the great service we offer that is free up to the point of delivery.   Or PB pay and your property might sell.  Only about half of all listed properties sell in the UK this is like tossing a coin to see if you have wasted your money.


  45. PeeBee

    “Only about half of all listed properties sell in the UK this is like tossing a coin to see if you have wasted your money.”

    I would suggest that more than half the properties listed actually sell – but that number may be only half of the listings.

    Go figure.

  46. 70GJ

    Just another portal that you will need to join for fear of missing out. Nothing new and no benefit to public or agents.

    1. PeeBee

      “Just another portal that you will need to join for fear of missing out.”

      If you join a portal for that reason alone you have nothing to possibly gain from it other than a monthly bill.

      “Nothing new and no benefit to public or agents.”

      How different might that sentence have looked today if those that could have joined OTM had…?


  47. Russell121

    OTM just needs to die and everyone wipe their face and move on, otherwise just another portal subscription to add to our growing costs. There is no guarantee of the investment it would need to challenge rightmove & zoopla once it was a PLC either.

  48. GPL

    Russell121? …..I could comment that your previous comment just needs to die ……and I have!

    Rightmove is torturing the UK Estate Agency/Property Industry…. whatever way one views it, Rightmove is the unchallenged Dictator… however what dumbfounds me is that we/the UK Estate Agency Industry have consistently supported their systematic destruction of our industry…. sadly marching like lambs to the slaughter.

    Zoopla just didn’t have the guts to challenge and wisely have diversified whilst thinking about how they can be Rightmove.

    OnTheMarket has flaws, no doubt!!! ……however it is shatteringly obvious that OTM is the hand reaching out over the abyss to rescue our industry as it is about to fall into the infinite black portal hole created by Rightmove!

    Rightmove have been able to rely on our own industry’s natural ability not to collectively talk & agree how we can develop our own industry to meet the inevitable changes that we face. Instead they stand Jesus like with a glowing halo beckoning “follow us, we can lead you to safety”….. sadly, they are anything but!

    I attended the OTM Floatation Tour today and I witnessed living/breathing estate agents discussing our industry with real energy & passion… each knowing exactly how we are being controlled by Rightmove and tortured financially by them, with the financial torture level increasing by 10% automatically each year! Every single agent in that venue today had views/ideas/strategy etc on how to move OTM forward.

    I gave my personal opinion of Ian Springett and The OTM/AM Board in no uncertain terms….. however, I know this….. if I don’t keep breathing I WILL DIE! ……and if OTM/AM is to succeed, floating or not…. EVERY SINGLE UK ESTATE AGENT MUST COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AS WE ARE THE CUSTODIANS OF OUR INDUSTRY….. WE TALK TO THE PUBLIC EVERY DAY YET WE DON’T TALK TO EACH OTHER?

    Sadly, I am happy to blame Ian Springett and The Board for their failings up to this point however I also know the UK PROPERTY INDUSTRY must shoulder its responsibility for failing to SUPPORT OTM!!!

    I told Ian Springett face to face today that I felt he did not deserve the potential reward he may receive, nor should other board members be rewarded…… yet! I would personally hand them their rewards when they have delivered a real measure of success with OTM….. however, we shamefully remain the lambs awaiting slaughter with our lack of OTM Support.

    If OTM Dies? ……then our Industry Dies!

    It’s either The End? ……or a Final Chance!



    1. Russell121


      Why are we hung up on the portals. We all know we only need 1 of the portals and good business practice to succeed. With the savings of not using the other 2 we can absorb the rise in cost of the you know who portal however much it stick in our throats to pay it. OTM haven’t showed any track record that they are going to succeed and have fallen flat on their face and are now going to totally go against what they told us. All you are going to do is potentially make millionaires of the people who have failed to succeed and add another cost to your businesses.

  49. GPL

    If OTM Dies? ……then our Industry Dies!


    It’s either The End? ……or a Final Chance!


    So, ….I throw the industry dice and suggest the following action….


    1) The entire UK Estate Agency Industry steps forward to support OTM with the proviso that such support is on the basis of a restructuring of The OTM Board to include an active/meaningful Regional Representation of members to ensure that OTM Members across the UK have a real voice/input to the future direction of OTM in the years to come.


    To enable that amendment to be made OTM/AM must either Act Now with a Formal Announcement pre Vote stating they will honour such an amendment or the existing OTM/AM Members VOTE NO to the the planned Floatation until such action is taken to involve members at a meaningful level…. and then, a Floatation can be resubmitted for member approval.


    2) Our industry submits an Open Letter to Rightmove   seeking transparency on member costs, clarification on their apparent comments to investors that they forsee their ARPA simply rising year on year to a future level of circa £2500 per month per advertiser/agent, justification of annual circa 10% fee rises with no added value for the agent, a refocus of property adverts for the benefit of our clients and their properties rather than being used as a lure for 3rd Party Services – we as estate agents are of course instructed to honour the best interests of our clients therefore many 3rd party advertising is diminishing the focus on on our clients properties – no doubt this Industry Open Letter should have other points detailed.


    The aforementioned is my view of the direction I think our industry needs to urgently take to ensure the USP of our industry.


  50. GPL

    I am gathering Estate Agency reaction at this crucial stage with a view to seeking ways to collectively move our industry forward. Ros and her team at PropertyIndustryEye have demonstrated by the reaction/engagement of forum members that there are real estate agents with both a passion & business intelligence to drive our industry forward highlighting the real positives of what we do differently and why the public should engage our services with a real understanding of how we are going to serve them much better than a simple Online Only service.

    If you agree that our industry needs a real focus and wish to actively support our industry, share ideas and genuinely engage in moving it forward please email me at this early stage…


    Ros & PropertyIndustryEye gives us an opportunity to air our opinions for which I and many others offer their sincere thanks… I would appreciate hearing directly from real estate agents who feel that the UK Estate Agency Industry needs a New Campaign to promote a real understanding of the real value that we provide our clients.

    Our industry is beginning to appear as if it is trying to deliver fast-food style Estate Agency? ……yet real estate agents offer much, much more than that. Technology, portals, online traffic etc are certainly part of our business however we are No 1 – a people business, serving our clients, negotiating for them, in their best interests, using sales and marketing including online marketing. The internet doesn’t make or sell cheeseburgers and it shouldn’t seemingly just make “estate agents” who are merely “Property Listers”.

    your ideas, views, opinions to Graeme (GPL)




You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a Reply