Ron Nixon writes about how [real estate classified advertising is moving to the web from traditional media [The Walk-Through]](http://walkthrough.nytimes.com/?p=436) creating more problems in a situation that can already be characterized as a _slow bleed_. He cites how a traditional realtor is doing just that in Minnesota.
[Real estate advertising will become more critical [NYP]](http://www.nypost.com/business/63159.htm) as selling times expand and sellers are forced to do more marketing. Developers and real estate brokers will likely be spending more in order to move product.I think that it is essential for sellers of properties continue to look for effective mediums. Some work, some don’t. Traditional media can be very effective but its going to be a continual struggle to be cost efficient with more and more pressure expected on marketing budgets in the coming year. This environment will favor larger real estate brokers and developers with deeper pockets. But what about the consumer?
I constantly get feedback from real estate brokers that traditional print ads are only placed in the quantities they are placed because the sellers expect it. I can speak honestly and say I did the same thing when I sold my last house a year and a half ago. The broker ran the ads only so I felt I got something for the 5% I was paying. I knew that the market was so hot that it wasn’t necessary, but I wanted it anyway.
Perhaps, with so much on the line, it was an added comfort? With all the alternatives, what causes sellers like me to demand traditional advertising? Because its proven and effective? Or because its safe?
One Comment
Comments are closed.
Brokers, like sellers & buyers, are creatures of habit.
Traditional real estate advertising in print media (e.g The New York Times)is comforting and safe because it has existed for so long that brokers accept it as a proven means to reach the eyeballs (and it probably is). But it’s only because the brokers continue to advertise there that consumers look there. Brokers gave the power to the Times by placing the ads there. Now sellers expect to see their property ads running as often as possible in this pricey venue. And brokers curse the high cost of the habit (addiction)they created and foster. Oh, the comfort of tradition.
But consider the scenario if the major brokerages just decided to STOP advertising in the NYT in favor of another, less expensive, venue. (Granted it’s a hard habit to break but it is possible to create a “new” venue for the ads- Craigslist showed the way). The consumer would open the classifieds and say “Hey, where did all the real estate ads go?” In their place would be the logos of all the major firms that read “Due to the high cost of advertising, we have moved our ads to “X”. Soon, the smaller firms would follow the larger ones and also move to X. My quess is that the consumer eyeballs would soon skip the NYT and look in X. Soon X will become the norm and sellers will rail if their broker does not list in X. But brokers would then rejoice they had the wisdom to create a cheaper habit.
So much for Tradition.
Perhaps the traditional fossil fuel burning 100+ year old internal combustion engine will be next.
Economic necessity is the mother of invention.