Let me lay out some data and pose a couple questions . .

According to the brand-new NAR Buyer Survey, home buyers found the home they actually bought using the following methods:

Real Estate Agent______(34%)
Internet ______(29%)
Yard Sign ______(14%)
Builder ______(8%)
Friend, Relative or Neighbor ______(8%)
Newspaper ______(3%)
Knew Seller ______(3%)
Home Magazine ______(1%)
Open Houses ______(1%)

Yet, as an industry, according to a survey this year by Borrell Associates, we spend our dollars as follows:

Newspaper ______(37%)
Online ______(18%)
Home Magazine _______(17%)
Direct Mail _______(16%)


To me that indicates we spend money on advertising where our buyers are not listening. Is there another interpretation? Or, do you disagree with the data?

Most of the listing agents do it to pacify the seller.The seller is convinced more advertising sells there home.

I believe it's incorrect.Marketing let's people know the property is available but if the price isn't realistic and the house needs repairs or house demanding needs by the seller(can only show on Saturday at 1,call ahead first then the property won't move.

If it's priced right and it's advertised it WILL sell.

I need to inject one other discussion point: Does the public care about most real estate marketing?

Most real estate advertising falls into the following categories:

* Property marketing, mostly in print, of listings.

* Company marketing, mostly focused on the individual logo.

* Personal marketing, in a variety of forms, by agents. Most of it is the individual agent's name, photo (with pets, fishing gear, etc) and contact info.


Does much of this hit the mark?

Phrased another way, does any of this specify why the public should work with a specific agent or company?

Steve I think you are kinda baiting here (in a nice way), I believe you already know the answer. The truth is "we" advertise heavily because the sellers think we are the top marketing team in the area and this is why we sell our listings. While this is partially true it is also the best way to attract buyer's. If you follow any of the direct response/reverse prospecting guru's then you will get tons of buyer leads from the original ads. So this is how many find a realtor in the first place wich is a portion of the 34% you quoted from NAR. So if you use your marketing not just to advertise your listing but also to generate many leads then your dollars may not be waysted at all. One other way we use the newspaper to atttract clients is by promoting a non branded website wich is http://www.guelphhousevalues.ca and when we advertise free online home evaluations or buy with little or no money down we get plenty of leads. It is not where you put your money in advertising but how and why that count. Most realtor's do not understand this wich is fine by me......but I rather suspect you do, LOL. Have a great Christmas ...er...holiday.

Chad,

So your argument is that buyers use print to connect with an agent? I hadn't thought in that direction.

Any other thoughts?

I do not think that buyer's actually buy most homes via print, but I do believe that many still read it. Let me be very simplistic for speeds sake. Many 40 and over still like to relax and look at the rags if you will, those a little mor tech saavy will look online...but they still like to observe print due to 2 concerns. 1. they might not get all the info/ homes online in an orderly or quick fashion and want to reinforce their search with rags. 2. It is still a nice pastime when relaxing with a cup of java or whatever. Times are changing despite what ad reps will tell you......but not as fast as tech reps will sell you. We track every bit of our advertising and print still brings us 50% of our business, period. We get the listings more from referal and print and the buyers from print,online mostly with about a 50-50 split.

One more thing, most online buyer leads we get are a few months out from actually buying, many have never even talked to a bank. This is great to get in before anyone else but they require lots of nuturing and follow up. Most leads from print I find have at least talked to a bank and are only a few weeks and a little hand holding away from a purchase. Yes we get more leads from online but the print leads seem to be a higher quality lead by the time they call.

I don't think print advertising leads to many direct sales, but having many listings in print conveys the image that the realty is a going concern. My office prints all the agents' photos with the ads. I think that regular readers of the print publications see the realty name, and the names of the agents over and over and over. Repetition of the message enough times helps the reader develop an opinion of the firm, and it may be the subliminal message conveyed over time that leads to phone calls. Television and radio advertising works on the same principle. A single commercial aired once has little to no effect. It's the repetition that has the effect.

Well my question would be how do you know one way or the other. If you can't track your ads and the response rate of them then you are only guessing. I am not saying you are wrong....I am asking how do you know for sure.

I'm not sure there's a way to track it for sure. All ads have info about the MLS website, and the website is heavily used. I think the internet gets the most bang for the buck, but you have to get the buyer to the website. I haven't tried postcards or direct mail, as that seems to me the least effective. You can probably track results with those better though.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. I will explain ways to track your ads tommorrow. Until then you are on the right track with direct mail but CERTAIN websites and call capture are 2 great ways to track ads even if you don't follow up the leads. And no I am not selling or marketing anything, just someone who waysted alot of time and money listening to only half of the story.

The number and variety of listings one particular agent commands will be the biggest determinant of his ability to bring buyers, whether via print or internet; and ad repetition does not play a major factor.

The consistency in advertising/repetition factor applies best to the entire agency or brokerage; number of listings notwithstanding. The brokerage establishes credibility and attracts buyers/sellers by saying they are the best, their agents are the best, etc., and repeating that over and over again. Individual agents can draft off that credibility, but they must have listings in sufficient number to actually validate that derived credibility.

Think of it like a great big, flea market. It's the biggest and it's the best, and it's the prettiest. But, inside you will find many, many tables set up with goods, many of them similar, many of the identical. Some of the vendors will be smart, some lazy, some will be new, some will be old hands. However, whether new, old, smart, or stupid, the vendor's table with the most goods will get the most buyers. Those with the least will get passed by.

There is no doubt that all advertising work and can bring buyers, sometimes. However at the end of the day what really matters is the advertising that can bring in the most offers for a particular property.

I've compiled a list of 100+ ways to market a house but less than a handful are most effective at getting offers.

Numbers can be deceiving. Online advertising is the most inexpensive and the most productive.

3 months in the homes rag is more than a years worth of online advertising and 99% of my business comes from online.

Once again NAR is trying to lump all of the individual unique real estate markets across this vast country into one lump sum.

Small town America where people relocate 4 blocks away won't have the same internet results as markets that rely on out of town buyers. Print ads work in some locations and not in others.