LETTERS: From The Readers
Keep opinions to yourself
‘Approval’ ratings need work
Magazine should spotlight rule, not exception
Find the balance
List recognition doesn’t pay bills
Correction
Keep opinions to yourself
I found “Reveal buyers’ real motives" /> ” (November 2002,page 32) practical and informative. The techniques suggested will assist practitioners in eliciting the information they need to better serve their buyer clients.
However, I’m concerned about a suggested response to a buyer objection, which makes a claim about the market. It reads: “I can find you a home with nicer carpet, but it won’t be the bargain this one is.”
A more appropriate response would be: “Based on my [experience/past sales/current inventory], another house is likely to be priced much higher.”
Since real estate is market-driven, we can’t predict with certainty what the market will do. We lose credibility when we express our opinions of value as facts.
Cynthia Comer-Clark, GRI, Keyes Gateway Inc., Dayton, Ohio
‘Approval’ ratings need work
It fascinates me that NAR would boast of the fact that 43 percent of consumers surveyed about the Public Awareness Campaign believe “REALTORS® work hard for their clients” (“5 years on the air ,” November 2002, page 20). To me, that’s not much of an approval rating. If a public company, retail outlet, or service provider had a 43 percent approval rating, it would be out of business.
The 2003 campaign should give salespeople a wake-up call, requiring that brokers hire and fire associates responsibly. In my community, you can fire associates and the company across the street will not only hire them but also give them an increased commission split, regardless of their production.
The enforcement must start with us. Brokers must call for references and ask why a salesperson is no longer with a brokerage. Get rid of hobbyist associates and those looking to make a quick buck.
Then survey results will rise to truly acceptable levels. Plus we’ll be more profitable, our fees will be more acceptable to consumers, and we’ll see less litigation.
Ida Centoni-Montgomery, Tucker Centoni Real Estate, Danville, Calif.
Editor’s Note: The 43 percent number that Ms. Centoni-Montgomery points to represents a 20 percentage point jump between 1998 and 2001 and is just one measure of how consumers rated REALTOR®. In 2001, 55 percent called a REALTOR® a “professional” compared with 43 percent in 1998, and 63 percent said they’d rather work with a REALTOR® than a licensee who isn’t a REALTOR®.
Magazine should spotlight rule, not exception
Too many of the practitioners featured in the magazine operate outside the realm of a typical salesperson’s budget. In “ The Web Master ” (November 2002, page 68), for example, you devoted a page to a person who spent $20,000 to develop her Web site and spends $200 per month to maintain it. You would better serve readers by featuring salespeople who’ve created good Web sites for $500 to $1,000.
As real estate professionals, our goal is to serve the public, not to compete with each other to see who can have the best—and most expensive—Web site.
Ronny Geenen, Southland Properties/GMAC, Glendora, Calif.
Find the balance
I read many articles in your magazine about practitioners who work long hours—as much as 70 hours a week. I won’t be able to work 70 hours a week until after my children are grown. I’d like to read about practitioners who successfully balance busy work and home lives.
Lee Ann Yartz, Reece & Nichols, REALTOR®, Overland Park, Kan.
List recognition doesn’t pay bills
Although it’s interesting to see practitioners ranked by transactions and sales volume in the “Top 100 Salespeople” list (September 2002, page 27), the bottom line—and what’s most relevant—is: What did the salesperson net in commissions after co-broker and in-house brokerage splits and paying assistants?
Just being listed in the Top 100 doesn’t justify the long hours it takes to be considered for recognition, pay the mortgage, or ensure survival in this business.
Gary Pond, CCIM, Commercial Associates, Corvallis, Ore.
Correction
In the REALTOR® Magazine Show Daily, Nov. 11 issue, a story about virtual tour company Tour Now Network of Ann Arbor, Mich., listed the wrong telephone number and Web address. The correct toll-free number is 877/868-7435, and the Web site is www.tournow.net. We regret the error.
Letters are edited for space and clarity. Publication of a letter doesn’t constitute an endorsement of the writer’s views by the National Association of REALTOR® or REALTOR® Magazine.
Mail: REALTOR® Magazine, 430 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL. 60611-4087
E-mail: narpubs@realtors.org
Fax: 312/329-5978
Phone: 800/944-9930
