Redfin to publish consumer reviews of agents
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The online real estate brokerage Redfin has antagonized realty associations in the past by posting information on its website that brokers wanted to remain private -- such as the record of listing price changes of homes for sale.
Now the company says it will post consumer reviews of real estate agents. The firm has gotten 35 agents -- 18 of them in California -- to agree to have their performance reviewed and revealed on Redfin’s website.
The company pulled Multiple Listing Service records since December 2007 for the agents and surveyed the agents’ clients by e-mail. Redfin will post all the agents’ transactions along with client reviews on its site. The agents will not be able to edit or reject reviews but will be able to post brief replies.
While agents risk being panned by their clients, they also hope the publicity will lead to referrals. Redfin would benefit if the agent gets a client through the site. If a deal closes, Redfin gets a referral fee of 30% of the agent’s commission, but the company says it will rebate half its share to the client.
Many of the agents who’ve agreed to the Redfin reviews work for the big traditional, name-brand brokerages, the very firms Redfin has criticized in the past as anti-competitive.
The partnership is a marriage of necessity. Redfin’s agent base is small -- it has agents in seven U.S. cities, and only 20 agents in all of California. The free website draws plenty of hits but does not charge for its content. The company’s revenue comes from transactions by its agents. ‘Right now the big asymmetry is between our traffic,’ Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman said, citing a total of over 1 million unique visitors per month, ‘’and our ability to cover a large areas with a small pool of agents.’
He said the company was selective in joining forces with outside agents. ‘We personally interviewed every partner agent to try to make sure the program was 100% slime-ball free,’ he said.
-- Peter Y. Hong