SubscribeHow Come Redfin’s P&L Looks Distinctly Unlike That Of A Traditional Real Estate Brokerage? Because Redfin Is Actually A Brokerage, Not A Landlord!
October 1, 2007
Tipped off by another insightful Greg Swann piece (Greg — do you ever sleep?) I just read through Glenn Kelman’s fascinating soul-baring finances-revealing post over on Guy Kawasaki’s blog. As a serial entrepreneur — and quite a successful one at that — Glenn has certainly done more than his fair share of financial modeling, and his post is rich in advice for the prospective entrepreneur.
What is particularly fascinating is how Redfin’s financial modeling is thoroughly and utterly unlike that of a traditional broker. That makes sense, of course, since Redfin is, well, not a traditional broker. In particular, unlike traditional brokers, Redfin makes its money through the act of – wait for it — brokerage — that is, representing buyers and sellers of homes.
Traditional brokerages — Coldwell Banker, Prudential, ReMax, Keller Williams, Alain Pinel — on the other hand, most emphatically do not make money through brokerage activities — they leave that work to their agent work force, usually a collection of independent contractors. Traditional brokerages, you see, make their money through landlording.
They provide agents with office space, training, mentoring, branding, open house opportunities, telephone lines, etc. and then charge these agents twofold: first, a portion of their commissions (starting at 50% or more for new agents, going down to perhaps 5% or 10% for the top agents, averaging perhaps around 25%) and secondly, a rather long laundry list of fees, including tech fees, desk fees, legal fees, and a myriad of others.
Much of what remains in the agent’s pocket after the broker’s share is divvied up among countless vendors, including the local MLS, newspapers, cell phone carriers, web site vendors, and Lexus dealers.
Here’s a picture of the money trail:
…and here’s one of them new-fangled Sketchcasts…
Further commentary from others:
- Ardell summarizes her take on the article: Sounds like the practical people are the ones asking for money, and the impractical ones are the people giving the money.
- Joel wonders if the downturn in the market will do a Foxton’s to Redfin.
Zillow’s advertisers reaching lucrative segment
October 25, 2006
David G. from Zillow — rumored to have implanted a chip in his brain that notifies him whenever a Technorati Zillow-tagged blog entry gets posted 
— noted in comments to my previous post that 86% of Zillow users own their own home, compared to the 69% nationwide average home ownership rate.
First, it makes good sense that the large majority of Zillow users are homeowners. I wouldn’t be surprised if the remaining 14% intend to become homeowners.
Secondly, since homeowners are on the whole more wealthy than renters, David G. points out that Zillow’s audience probably skews towards the higher end income bracket.
What does this mean for us real estate professionals? Quite simple: If Zillow is frequented by relatively wealth homeowners with a strong interest in real estate and by non-homeowners who for some reason also have a strong interest in real estate…then why the heck aren’t more of us advertising on there?
The usual real estate brokerage suspects are there — ZipRealty as well as everybody’s favorite punching bag Redfin, whose CEO Glenn Kelman was recently nominated by none other than Greg Swann as “the maverick of greatest contemporary influence on the real estate industry”.
Where are the others, the large, more traditional brokers? Where’s Coldwell Banker and its Cendant/Realogy Brethren Century 21, ERA, and Sotheby’s? What about Prudential and ReMax? What about my broker, Alain Pinel Realtors, a local powerhouse?
If your advertising dollars are worth spending on ads in print publications like Gentry and the Wall Street Journal, why not on Zillow?
