Live data from Hacker News

What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

buildzoom.com

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just listed all the reasons Redfin ( https://www.redfin.com ) is killing it. Their value proposition is that their agents aren't paid on commission, they're paid on your satisfaction. Their website is also very data-intensive compared to MLS sites (which create information asymmetry between buyers, sellers, and brokers due to how they're setup).

Otoh, are the very best agents going to work for rf and make less money? Redfin looks like modern KW to me. Most great agents don't want to undersell their own industry. And while there are many markets where a mediocre agent will do, I wouldn't take that chance in sf, la, Nyc, Miami, etc

[deleted]

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redfin is a brokerage and thus has full access to the MLS. I'm not sure anyone can shut off Redfin's access so easily because of this?

Which is also why they have very spotty coverage; if they're not a licensed broker in your area, they have zero listings.

To be precise on this: Redfin covers 75+ metro markets and the vast majority of the United States by population. "Spotty" is fairly inaccurate if your intent is to describe the % of the population that can use Redfin to find a home.

(I work at Redfin).

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#164
..aand it's gone.

I just got:

"–This post has been temporarily removed at the request of Zillow. We are collaborating with them to write a more complete version of the story, and will have an updated version posted on October 7th.–"

Nothing creepy about that. Certainly doesn't leave me feeling that whatever it is the article said about Zillow apparently hit them pretty close to home.

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#165

..aand it's gone. I just got: "–This post has been temporarily removed at the request of Zillow. We are collaborating with them to write a more complete version of the story, and will have an updated version posted on October 7th.–" Nothing creepy about that. Certainly doesn't leave me feeling that whatever it is the article said about Zillow apparently hit them pretty close to home.

Yeah this has made me MUCH more interested in what the article said.

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just listed all the reasons Redfin ( https://www.redfin.com ) is killing it. Their value proposition is that their agents aren't paid on commission, they're paid on your satisfaction. Their website is also very data-intensive compared to MLS sites (which create information asymmetry between buyers, sellers, and brokers due to how they're setup).

Otoh, are the very best agents going to work for rf and make less money? Redfin looks like modern KW to me. Most great agents don't want to undersell their own industry. And while there are many markets where a mediocre agent will do, I wouldn't take that chance in sf, la, Nyc, Miami, etc

I would just contest the notion that "most great agents don't want to undersell their own industry." Not only does that kind of thinking assumes that compensation and customer service are tightly coupled -- even though "getting more for less" is one of the best working definitions of innovation -- it does a real disservice to the folks who have enough vision to work at a place like Redfin.

What is your definition of "great?" If you're referring to actual outcomes, check out Redfin's agent reviews -- the overall NPS rating blows any other brokerage out of the water, and is comparable to some of the best known consumer brands in the world. Equity compensation, automation of mundane tasks, a real team mentality when the agent next to you is a fellow employed colleague, not an independent contractor who happens to share a split with the same franchise -- these are all reasons a "great" agent might want to work at a place like Redfin.

Finally, many agents realize that the status quo (6% fees and asymmetric information) won't exist forever; it's all the NAR can talk about these days. The most far-sighted among them would rather work at an institution that is embracing and driving change, not resisting it.

All of this also assumes your axiom that Redfin agents are compensated less than traditional agents. Without going into too many details, I can say the opposite is true in most cases.

Disclosure: I work at Redfin.

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#167

..aand it's gone. I just got: "–This post has been temporarily removed at the request of Zillow. We are collaborating with them to write a more complete version of the story, and will have an updated version posted on October 7th.–" Nothing creepy about that. Certainly doesn't leave me feeling that whatever it is the article said about Zillow apparently hit them pretty close to home.

Archive.org has the original (for the time being) - https://web.archive.org/web/20151006173818/https://www.build...

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#168
post #158
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congrats on the sale! You could argue that "Zillow is going about this all wrong" if their goal was trying to improve the process of buying and selling homes or if they were trying to make it more affordable to buy a home. What you have to realize is that they have a business that's working very well within the real estate status quo: agents pay them money for ads to get leads, agents who are able to convert leads ma…

You make excellent points. I guess what I meant was that Zillow's model _should be_ to improve the process and to make it cheaper. Maybe 6%-7% commission is still appropriate for high-end properties that only have a limited pool of potential buyers (that's not my world, I don't really know) but for average homes in 2015, it is an anachronism left over from a time when buyers and sellers couldn't do a lot of the legwo…

Is 6-7% really the norm in the USA its 1 or 2 % in the UK if so damm that is a market that needs disrupting.

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is also why they have very spotty coverage; if they're not a licensed broker in your area, they have zero listings.

To be precise on this: Redfin covers 75+ metro markets and the vast majority of the United States by population. "Spotty" is fairly inaccurate if your intent is to describe the % of the population that can use Redfin to find a home. (I work at Redfin).

I know that vast majority by population will cover a lot of where people are buying in the US. But when you're looking at areas outside of those population centers, then sparse could apply

Sparse coverage in sparsly populated locations.

For example, Redfin does not cover my home town, nor any of the Eastern CT cities I put in the search box, so for my parents selling their house, or anyone looking to buy in that area, it's not useful.

Maybe I was searching it wrong?

Re: What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but so does a Redfin agent I don't see how - and anyway, a buyer's agent can be a big waste of money in a lot of markets. Traditional single-family housing transactions aren't that complicated, and a great many buyers could handle one on their own just fine. I applaud _any_ effort to undermine the NAR.

> I don't see how redfin gets more money with a higher price. And there are some homes redfin will not show you at all because the price is too low (and a middle range where they use "partner agents" rather than their own). And I'm not talking your 5-figure houses in suburbia, I'm talking condos in the city of boston. I have a rooftop pool, fitness center, and concierge in my building, but the price I bought my condo…

That's an interesting data point, for sure. I've never had a Redfin agent turn down a showing because of price, but there are too many variables involved to read too much into it.
Post reply on HN