Anyone successfully sell using Redfin? (property tax, most expensive, states, default)

[just_because]

Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman

Do you really believe that you have the most visited site? Copy and paste something honest please. I don't believe Redfin is even top 5 in hits. Can you post some data to support your claim? RE/MAX claims to be #1 with over 90,000,000 hits last year. What do you have for your count?

Secondly, it's a flat out lie that when you claim redfin reaches more customers for the reasons Mike already stated. I home consumers don't believe that deception. That lie certainly makes an already dubious claim to be the #1 most visted site claim appear even more dubious. Have you guys claimed a profitable quarter yet or still losing money by the way?

Top 15 Most Popular Real Estate Websites | July 2017

#5 and I don't believe any of 1-4 are brokers so it appears that you continue your nearly unbroken streak of your posts being:

-incorrect
or
-incoherent

This time it's incorrect that's the problem. Although I am being very generous as parts of your post are completely incoherent. Professionals don't write this this.

[GoPhils]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Well, this truly is hogwash.

IDX, VOW, and syndication give me, a one man show, internet listing exposure equivalent to exposure of a Redfin listing.
My listings appear on Redfin's IDX solutions.
I.e., https://www.redfin.com/NC/Raleigh/34.../home/41337153 At no cost to me, and with no Redfin agent cited.
Their listings appear on my IDX solution.
Both our listings appear on MLSs, and national and local IDX/VOW solutions of Coldwell Banker, Berkshire Hathaway's stable of brokerages, Keller Williams, C21, Local and Regional firms, and all the Mom and Pops.
Additionally, on pop sites like Zillow, Realtor.com, Estately, etc.
Exposure will matter for more than bragging rights when Redfin, or other large firms, convince the bulk of sellers that IDX/VOW and syndication are not to their benefit, and all listings are held in house.

Does Redfin traffic and exposure exceed the aggregate total exposure delivered by all those firms? If not, I may contend that being the most visited site doesn't really much matter.

I do appreciate the traffic level. My clients like the site, and it helps me serve them. Weekly, they shoot me listings from multiple firms, that they have seen on Redfin, and ask to see them.
So much for "Most Visited."

I don't think your post and tdking's are mutually exclusive.

I don't know the official numbers but I'd believe that Redfin is the most visited "brokerage" site. They weren't denying that non-Redfin listings are also shown on Redfin, just stating that Redfin listings are shown more prominently on the site. No clue how much that actually helps though.

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by GoPhils

I don't think your post and tdking's are mutually exclusive.

I don't know the official numbers but I'd believe that Redfin is the most visited "brokerage" site. They weren't denying that non-Redfin listings are also shown on Redfin, just stating that Redfin listings are shown more prominently on the site. No clue how much that actually helps though.

Bo said it well.

"Puffery."

The claims are nearly meaningless and Redfin traffic improves neither sales nor price nor true market exposure.
That is the crux of it.
There is no advantage.

Nice site, but overblown on the real impact.
Sans RDFN, listings will be easily found in countless other sites and feeds.

[kickingthebricks]

OP, we sold with Redfin when we lived in Los Angeles a few years ago. We would not hesitate to recommend them.

I had a one bedroom condo in a very desirable neighborhood. There was a "building agent" who pretty much everyone went to when they listed in our building. Older gentleman, very pleasant, but very old school. His network was almost entirely people in his age bracket and he wasn't marketing to the demographic for our place which was very much young professional singles and couples. In a hot market, we weren't getting a lot of notice. So we parted ways.

Interviewed three other agents. The first person tried to scare me that I needed to drop the price significantly, use his painter to repaint the entire place from one shade of gray to another very slightly different shade of gray for an additional $4K, and a bunch of other nonsense. Second person kept interrupting the meeting to take calls from her other clients and had not done her homework on the comps. Third person was Redfin. Blew everyone out of the water. Gave a great presentation, had a real understanding of our target market and the neighborhood and was just as professional as you could possibly be. I will also say that this person was someone who was about our age and did not talk down to us, try to scare us, or slack on the process. Our Redfin agent hustled to get the place marketed properly, had EXCELLENT pics and the virtual tour tool was great, and also labeled ours a "hot home" which drove 30 people to our open house. THIRTY people! After our place had languished with a traditional agent.

We had three offers after the open house, and a fourth which came in when we called for best and final. We sold above list and had a short close. And saved money.

I am not surprised to read the responses from some of these traditional agents. There is a new business model in the real estate market, and its about to impact their bottom line if they don't make some significant changes. But many of them won't believe that until it is too late for them.

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by kickingthebricks

....

I am not surprised to read the responses from some of these traditional agents. There is a new business model in the real estate market, and its about to impact their bottom line if they don't make some significant changes. But many of them won't believe that until it is too late for them.

Profitability is a universal business need.

It will be too late very quickly for any "traditional" agent who is not profitable.
Redfin has venture capital to burn, so they are burning it, like it doesn't matter.

I will list and sell properties that Redfin will not within their model.
That fact alone will help me survive their unprofitable approach to business.

[kickingthebricks]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Profitability is a universal business need.

It will be too late very quickly for any "traditional" agent who is not profitable.
Redfin has venture capital to burn, so they are burning it, like it doesn't matter.

I will list and sell properties that Redfin will not within their model.
That fact alone will help me survive their unprofitable approach to business.

Their model still involves commission. Just not such an inflated commission So perhaps the traditional realtor maybe kinda sorta isn't worth ALL of that money? Just sayin.

Commission has always been negotiable. If you can get a traditional agent to take your listing for less, so be it. Agents make deals with other agents to offer commission incentives so that they will steer clients toward their listing vice another, sometimes to the client's disadvantage. And the more a house sells for, the more commission a traditional agent stands to gain. So on the seller side, the agent has incentive to get the best price. But on the buyer? Heck no. Games are played all the time with the "there might be another offer" to get a buyer to up their bid. I have had it happen to me and I am sure others have too. And who does it benefit? I will give you a hint-- its not the buyer.

I think its refreshing to see companies like Redfin putting some energy behind better real estate practices. I hope it is a wake up call to some of these brokerages.

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by kickingthebricks

Their model still involves commission. Just not such an inflated commission So perhaps the traditional realtor maybe kinda sorta isn't worth ALL of that money? Just sayin.

Commission has always been negotiable. If you can get a traditional agent to take your listing for less, so be it. Agents make deals with other agents to offer commission incentives so that they will steer clients toward their listing vice another, sometimes to the client's disadvantage. And the more a house sells for, the more commission a traditional agent stands to gain. So on the seller side, the agent has incentive to get the best price. But on the buyer? Heck no. Games are played all the time with the "there might be another offer" to get a buyer to up their bid. I have had it happen to me and I am sure others have too. And who does it benefit? I will give you a hint-- its not the buyer.

I think its refreshing to see companies like Redfin putting some energy behind better real estate practices. I hope it is a wake up call to some of these brokerages.

How is their commission not inflated?
How is my commission inflated?

There is actually no such thing as "a traditional agent," FWIW.
There is enough variety in models, that a consumer can find what they want.
Redfin is just a choice among choices.

A true business model includes a pricing structure that yields a profit.
Any business may have a shakedown cruise period, but 10 years in, should be regularly earning money with sustainable pricing for services, and not burning capital like a sailor on shore leave.
That is just a ruinous model.

[kickingthebricks]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

How is their commission not inflated?
How is my commission inflated?

There is actually no such thing as "a traditional agent," FWIW.
There is enough variety in models, that a consumer can find what they want.
Redfin is just a choice among choices.

A true business model includes a pricing structure that yields a profit.
Any business may have a shakedown cruise period, but 10 years in, should be regularly earning money with sustainable pricing for services, and not burning capital like a sailor on shore leave.
That is just a ruinous model.

Its not worth arguing as you have clearly come down on a specific side of the fence, and I on the other. The OP got a lot of great information in this thread from real live buyers who have used Redfin (like me) who have used traditional brokerages as well and can compare the two models. We also heard from traditional agents who have done their best to undermine that information, Redfin's reputation, call Redfin agents inexperienced, and defend their own right to keep on keepin' on in a way that benefits them.

Sometimes, a speaker's effort to cut down another says more about the speaker than the object of their retort.

[jm1982]

Kickingthebricks, that’s weird the listing would languish with the first realtor as the L.A market was still pretty hot even a few years ago .

Was the list price the same price with the first agent as it was when you listed with the Redfin agent ?

How long was it on the market for with the first agent ?

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by kickingthebricks

Its not worth arguing as you have clearly come down on a specific side of the fence, and I on the other. The OP got a lot of great information in this thread from real live buyers who have used Redfin (like me) who have used traditional brokerages as well and can compare the two models. We also heard from traditional agents who have done their best to undermine that information, Redfin's reputation, call Redfin agents inexperienced, and defend their own right to keep on keepin' on in a way that benefits them.

Sometimes, a speaker's effort to cut down another says more about the speaker than the object of their retort.

I am not sure what is confusing you on the topic.

What is "The Fence?" Is it that "Profits don't matter?"
If you believe that, yes, we are surely on opposite sides. I am OK with that.
How many years would you suggest that RDFN can burn cash, and how many rounds of stock issue can they offer, before they need to be reliably profitable?

Is "The Fence" that the commission model is prevalent in brokerage?
I don't disagree with you.

If you believe that the thread has been heavily trolled, I surely agree.
We have been. Too many agents feed the troll, I would certainly agree.

We even had a once and done by a purported Redfin employee, full of crap.
My post in response was nearly perfect, of course.

But, I don't see how my posts put me in opposition to you, or any regular contributor here, for that matter.

I don't give a damn about anyone else's commission rate.
But, I do think a firm should be profitable after years of operation to be sustainable and not ruinous.
I don't particularly respect a ruinous pricing model, a la Uber.

I think profits do matter unless one is a not-for-profit and/or charity.