Your Agent’s Plan B Shouldn’t Be Another Agent

“Give us six weeks. If we haven't sold it by then, we'll palm it off to all the other agents.”

At first glance, that might sound reassuring.

It sounds like a safety net.  A promise that your property won't simply disappear into an agent's books if the first attempt doesn't work.  Give them six weeks, and if they haven't found a buyer, they'll bring in everyone else.

Maximum exposure.  More agents.  More buyers.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Quite a lot, actually.

Because there is a very simple question that any vendor should ask when an estate agent uses this as part of their pitch:

Why is an agent who wants your business already explaining what they will do when they fail to sell your property?

The “maximum exposure” illusion

The phrase "maximum exposure" sounds compelling.  Of course you want your property seen by as many potential buyers as possible.

But there is a fundamental mistake in assuming that more agents automatically means more buyers - or, more importantly, more effort.

It doesn't.

The Gibraltar property market isn't suddenly populated by a completely different group of buyers every time another estate agent receives the details of a property.  The same buyers are generally looking at the same properties, searching the same portals and speaking to several of the same agents.

So when one agent says, “Don't worry, we'll give it to everyone else,” what you may actually be getting isn't a huge new pool of buyers.

You may simply be giving more people access to the same property.

And those are two very different things.

Who is actually responsible for selling it?

This is where the arrangement becomes particularly interesting.

Imagine an agent takes your instruction and tells you that, after six weeks, they will start sub-instructing other agencies.

Those agencies now have your property on their books.  But it isn't their instruction.  Their 'client' is the original agent (not you), and only a share of the eventual fee will be for them.

At the same time, those agencies have their own clients - vendors who have directly instructed them to sell their properties.

So when an agent has limited time and several potential buyers to work with, where does your sub-instructed property sit in the queue?

That isn't an accusation that another agent won't do their job.  It is simply a matter of understanding commercial incentives.

When an agent has a client, they have a direct relationship, a reputation and a fee at stake.  There is an obvious reason for that property to receive attention.

If they are simply one of several agencies being asked to sell a property on behalf of another agent who hasn't managed to sell it, the dynamic can be rather different.

Having access to a property is not the same as taking responsibility for selling it.

The vendor gets the illusion of security

Perhaps the cleverest part of the six-week proposition is psychological.

It makes the vendor feel that there is very little risk in choosing that particular agent.  If they don't succeed, there is always a Plan B.

And Plan B is apparently everybody else.

It sounds safe.

But in reality, it can remove one of the most important things a vendor should expect from their estate agent: accountability.

When you appoint one agent specifically to sell your property, there is someone responsible for the strategy.  You can ask what they are doing, what buyers are saying, what feedback they are receiving and what they intend to change if the campaign isn't working.

There is one person responsible for getting the result.

Once the property is distributed around the market, that responsibility becomes much less clear.

The original agent can say the other agencies are working on it.  The other agencies can say they are only handling a sub-instruction.

And the vendor can eventually find themselves with a property being advertised by half the market without anybody being quite sure who is actually driving the sale.

That isn't necessarily more security.

It can be considerably less.

What does the market think?

There is another issue that vendors should consider before celebrating the fact that their property is suddenly everywhere.

What does that exposure actually look like to a buyer?

Imagine seeing the same apartment advertised by four different agencies.

Then five.

The photographs aren't identical.  The descriptions aren't identical.  Perhaps the price isn't even presented in exactly the same way.

The vendor might look at that and think:

"Fantastic.  Everyone is selling my property."

A buyer may look at exactly the same thing and think:

"Why is this property everywhere? Why hasn't it sold?"

And that second reaction is the one vendors need to think about.

Property buyers notice patterns.

When a property repeatedly appears across the market, it can begin to look less like a sought-after opportunity and more like something that has been sitting around waiting for somebody to take it.

Once buyers sense that a property isn't attracting offers, the balance of a negotiation can change.

They don't necessarily feel they need to compete.

They may feel they can wait.

They may feel they can negotiate harder.

They may even start wondering what is wrong with the property.

That is hardly the impression you want to create when trying to achieve the best possible price.

If you really want every agent, let them compete

There is, of course, another perfectly legitimate approach.

If a vendor genuinely believes that having several estate agents working on the property is the right strategy, they can simply instruct several agents independently.

At least then there is genuine competition.

Each agent has a direct relationship with the vendor. Each knows that another agency can sell the property.  Each has a direct incentive to find the buyer and secure the transaction.

There is no need for one agent to act as the gatekeeper between the vendor and the rest of the market.

And there is a certain logic to that.

If you genuinely believe five agents are better than one, why give the instruction to one agent and then rely on them to distribute it to their competitors when their own campaign hasn't worked?

Why should one agent get paid for FAILURE?

Your property deserves more than a contingency plan

Selling a property is too important to be reduced to a numbers game.

You don't necessarily need the most agents.

You don't necessarily need the most advertisements.

And you certainly don't need your property appearing in the greatest number of places simply for the sake of it.

What you need is an agent who understands the market, prices the property properly, presents it properly, reaches the right buyers, negotiates effectively and takes responsibility for getting the transaction completed.

So if an agent tells you:

“Give us six weeks. If we haven't sold it, we'll give it to everyone else.”

Don't automatically hear maximum exposure.

Hear the question sitting underneath it:

“Why should I choose you to sell my property if your own plan is to get someone else to sell it for you?”

That doesn't mean an agent should never cooperate.  It doesn't mean a vendor can never use several agents.

It simply means vendors should understand exactly what they are buying when they give an agent an instruction.

Because more agents do not automatically mean more commitment.

And when it comes to selling your property, commitment, accountability and a clear strategy are worth rather more than simply being everywhere.

Your property doesn't need an audience.

It needs a sale.