Roberts S sent me this Fairfax email this morning, although, I did also receive 15 of them in my email inbox, so here it is! Domain is number one in NSW!
Didn’t I just receive an email from realestate.com.au claiming the same? It seems we now have a split as to what research firms each are taking their results from.
To me it is just a lot of big companies thumping their chests as each of you agents know who you get your enquiries from and the quality of these enquiries.
If Domain are number one in NSW then realestate.com.au must be giving them an absolute beating in all other states. 108,000 more visitors, it will be interesting to know what the girls and boys at realestate.com.au say about this.
Domain is also claiming to be an innovator, maybe there are just too many agents that don’t believe this guff!
I would prefer to see these sites actually concentrate on improving their sites for users and agents rather than going for this one-up-manship all the time.
Your thoughts?
15 Comments
Dave Platter
(I work at realestate.com.au)
Peter, nice post.
It seems Domain is trying to muddy the waters to hide how much ground they are losing to realestate.com.au.
Their latest trick when the rankings look bad is to simply change the rankings system. They might do better if they followed your advice instead, and made their site more useful for users and agents.
Case in point: in January this year, Domain claimed 850,000 site visitors in NSW alone (in an advertisement, which I believe ran in the REI NSW Journal). They used Neilsen//NetRatings figures because it suited them at the time.
Yet, in the email you’ve quoted, Domain claims 450,000 visitors in NSW in September. This time they used Roy Morgan figures because it suits them.
What happened to the other 400,000 visitors?
Truth is, they have switched benchmark. They don’t want to reveal that the Sept. Neilsen//NetRatings figures are probably ugly for them.
It is about time everyone quotes one set of figures
Dave Platter
I hope the folks at Nielsen//NetRatings will accept my apologies for spelling their name wrong.
Dave Platter
Peter, the evidence keeps piling on that the numbers Domain cited in its email to hide its loss of traffic are not credible.
Today’s Australian Financial Review (an excellent paper that happens to be owned by Fairfax, which also owns Domain), trusts the Nielsen//NetRatings numbers enough to write about them:
“…realestate.com.au has happily circulated some new numbers about its website.
“The company, which is 58 per cent owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd, said the number of ‘unique browsers’ it attracted during November was 4.6 per cent higher than in October.
“realestate.com.au’s site pulled 3.3 million browsers, compared with 1.6 million for domain.com.au, the property site run by John fairfax Holdings, the publisher of The Australian Financial Review. Domain.com.au’s number was downs 5.1 per cent on October.”
Peter
Yes Dave, throw up some stats for us
Robert Simeon
Same same – but different !!
REA and Domain are certainly not the only companies out there that claim to be number one in their specific fields. We tell clients that we are #2 as nobody claims that – it means very little in the big picture to us as we look at the exact specifics each month.
From our perspective we closely examine what each portal generates for our business by way of individual visits per property and individual generated online enquiries. If one portal produces 144 online enquiries and the other 53 yet – the purchaser was one of those in the 53 then size is obviously not a concern.
It is about bringing the right person(s) to the right property at the right time. All would agree that real estate is not an exact science.
I agree with Peter, in that all we are concerned about is delivering our clients who use their portal the fastest and easiest tracking functionality.
What I don’t like is when property portals adopt the clothes line mentality where they hang every possible income generated advertiser to then increase their revenues at the paying agents demise. The non specific advertisers always appear before the properties and then remain marinated in the pages as the search continues.
Personally, I would ban all flash as it drives people crazy as it diverts attention. If you are going to have this advertising please trial static – flash went out with chiko rolls.
If PBL launch a smarter alternative watch the quick turn arounds which then resonates that they weren’t listening to their paying clients in the first place. It is very easy when the agents fill out the monthly cheque all they do is change the name of the company. PBL already run slick online businesses with Seek and Carsales – so they have knowledge and expertise.
Property portals need to decide whether or not they are here to support financial institutions or properties ?
Dave Platter
(I work for realestate.com.au)
Hear Hear, Robert! I’m just wiping the grease off my hands from my Chiko roll and VB dinner so I can respond to you. I think just about everyone is in agreement that the site that works best for agents and consumers is ipso facto the best site.
We try hard to be that site, and we’re gratified when independent auditors like Nielsen//NetRatings tell us we’re succeeding.
Robert Simeon
Thanks Dave,
I think that you may have failed to check the use – by date on that Chiko roll !!
Yes, pun intended 😉
David Slattery
I recieved both faxes from the portals, and you know what….?
They both want my business!
Happy that they are being aggressive in their marketing, this is what we want
Can’t recall when the print were that way – but then I am a small independent so I am not as lucrative.
I looked at both sources, but I agree with Robert I go by my monthly reports. Last month domain were better for my vendors for the first time in several months – every month it will change, so I will base my advertising recommendations on that.
Robert Simeon
David,
The monthly figures that both deliver to agents is crucial criteria. Nielsen//NetRatings may be their form guide – however, this data is how we “keep the buggers honest.”
We are user specific and Domain smash REA in Mosman, however, if they deliver the buyer our argument is then well and truely watered down.
The achilles heel for property portals (interestingly that they keep evading this topic) is are they are there to promote agents/vendors who pay and promote properties which is why they are called a property portal. As against the movement to flood online pages with finance which contradicts itself, in that they should then be called a finance portal, with real estate properties, also on offer !!
I extend an invitation to Simon Baker (REA) and Sam Plowman (Domain) to join this discussion.
Now this would be a great read (not that is not now), this is a fantastic insight into our industry.
Bring it on, bosses of property portals – your respected thoughts would be cherished by the readership 🙂
Simon Baker
Peter (and Robert)
It is always fun to read the entries on this site.
So i have a couple of observations.
I think the true measure of success for any site is not the number of visitors to the site but the number of quality leads generated for the advertisers of the site. Leads can be measured as either email, phone or walk in leads.
However, the issue the industry faces is that many agents probably dont track the source of the leads.
How do we know this, well from time to time we do phantom shopping of agents on the site to see if they ask the question “where did you see the advertisement?” Only 15% of the agents we called or attended an open for inspection actually asked that question.
It would be interesting to then see this data broken further into where the actual buyers and sellers (rather than just interest) came from.
It would be great to move from speculation that around 60% of inquiry comes from the internet to specifics of which channel (internet site / newspaper / signboard) really delivers the value compared to the amount spent on that channel.
In the mean time, we can just measure the inputs – ie eyeballs – and communicate this to the advertisers. This is no different to newspaper quoting circulation and readership.
Peter – keep the great work up.
Peter Ricci
Very true Simon. It will take some time, but one day we will see some big changes in the minds of the many of the agents!
However the ones that lead and understand will be around for a long time.
Just yesterday I had a conversation with a client and he said that the Internet just creates more work for him (he is about 60 odd).
He wishes it returned to the old way. I told him to find another career or get with the program. Harsh yes, but I cannot keep holding his hand.
Over the past 12 months I have ‘sacked’ 4 agencies, because I want companies that want to engage technology to be my clients, I have too many great clients and the ones that cause me trouble (very few) take up 50% of my time.
My rant has ended!
Robert Simeon
Thanks Simon,
I agree totally with your comments. I too, believe that traffic measurements can distort the truth as they apply for the total market that you operate with which is not specific to our niche market. The same can be said with the constant clearance rate debate with auctions which is a joke as the Bankstown market is totally diferent to mine yet they are all thrown in and delivered as one.
I think that this forum is excellent when participants in our industry can share knowledge and this in my opinion, provides property portals with invaluable market knowledge and research (well done Peter).
I look forward to seeing your future releases of new innovations. 2006, has produced more relevant releases than the previous three years combined (my opinion).
As for the phantom shopping, we prefer to do this on follow – up calls after they inspected the property. We don’t do it as much as I would like – however in many instances these phone calls can be long, although more often they are short depending on their mood when we call them.
I still remain of the opinion that it is imperative that leads that are developed from online portal enquiries are best served to an agency, when we database their email address and direct feed them with email alerts with new properties.
This is our point of difference.
Dave Platter
(I work at realestate.com.au)
I know it’s the topic of this post, but since this forum is so plugged into agents’ thoughts, I thought I’d ask.
What does everyone think of microsoft buying into myhome?
When I heard the news, I couldn’t help but remember the plight of the travel agents in the US who saw their business evaporate almost overnight when Microsoft entered the online travel business in 1995.
Does anyone think Microsoft hopes to edge agents out of the profitable end of the real estate business altogether, with myhome as the edge of the sword?
I wonder if the franchise groups are writing their own eulogy by shacking up in an internet business with PBL and Microsoft.
Peter Ricci
I have the same concerns as Microsoft as I have with News Ltd and any other major players clamouring for the almighty agent dollar. News Ltd, Fairfax, PBL, Microsoft etc only do it because it is a lucrative industry.
Can you explain more on what you mean Dave – because to me it smacks of alarmism! (which is not a word)
Because Jobs Cars and Housing has always been the bedrock of traditional newspapers revenues (classifieds) the online world is no different to their ideas of dominating the market.
The travel industry in my opinion was not ruined because of Microsoft, it was ruined because technology allowed companies to bypass agencies and deal directly with the airlines as with any industry in this day and age, consumers have a choice and when companies rise and fall by the choice of the consumer it makes them more susceptible to better offerings.
If you have noticed, many companies have since thrived….
Think,…when was the last time we booked a domestic flight through an agent?
mmmm
Robert Simeon
The only parallel between the two businesses is that they are connected to electricity.
We don’t need to fear anything about that alliance, rather I would think that if they prove to be a smarter option the pressure will then be on the property portals to survive.
I can’t see agents paying for three portals – one will have to miss the cut !!