Developers holding mid-January sale?

It’s the EAs job to match buyers to sellers. The vendor’s solicitor gets involved after this.

When I bought a house in '95, I was even able to kick the arse of the EA selling the next house in the chain. That’s just how it is in a slow market. I called the shots and it felt good. :wink:

You calling the shots doesnt necessarily mean the EA is supposed to be working in your interest.
IMHO, few EAs are good at their job.
Many just dont have a clue.

The Vendor is a client/customer of the EA.

The EA has been hired by the Vendor to represent them in the sale, like a salesman working for a car company.

If I walked onto a car lot looking to buy a car, the salesman himself does not own the car, but I would be rightly viewed as a customer.

The difference with EA’s is some seem to think buyers are scum and the enemy.

I personally think that if I was a vendor and I learned that an EA was representing me with rudeness to my customers I would fire their ass so fast it would make their hair gel fly off.

I think you are making a critical error and a very commonly held misunderstanding on behalf of EAs …

The way I see it, the vendor is your supplier/wholesaler.

You are a retailer who takes their product and you make your living by charging a commssion when you manage to flog it to Joe or Josephine Public.

Joe & Josephine Public puts food on your table.
Let me repeat that
Joe & Josephine Public puts food on your table.

So don’t be rude to them :slight_smile:

I keep making the point that my thread is not about rudeness, but about buyers misconception about being the customer. I am not disagreeing with comments on rudeness.

Its the vendor who pays my commission.
It is the vendor who puts food on my table.
It is the vendor on whose behalf I work.
It is the vendor who is my customer.

Buyers are the other half of the deal - but that is not to say I work for them.

The money you get from the vendor comes directly from Joe & Josephine Public, as you well know.

The fact that it is funnelled through the vendor is irrelevant, no Joe Public, no sale, no money for you.

But you could say the Vendor is your boss and the Buyer is your customer (being your boss’s customer)?

You’re a sales rep, employed by someone to sell their wares. They are your employer:

the pay you your commission, they decide what your acceptable behaviour is, they decide the parameters of the work you do for them, they decide what to charge etc. etc.

And the Buyer is their (and therefore your) customer.

The same as any other sales rep.

Grifter = conman
Mark = victim of a con
Butter up = behave obsequiously towards

I presume you’re OK with the rest?

And the Buyer is their (and therefore your) customer.

I disagree with this conclusion.

You could say exactly the same about the relationship between the vendor and their solicitor :

Yet at no point would you suggest that either the buyers solicitor or the buyers themselves are ever clients/customers of the vendors solicitor.

On the contrary, it is **extremely **relevant.

That’s because the vendors solicitor is not representing them to the customer, or trying to sell anything to the customer.

It’s all a matter of semantics, if you feel that the person who pays your bills is your ‘customer’ then the shareholders of the company I work for are my ‘customer’ and the people they sell products to aren’t - effectively your position.

I respectfully disagree :slight_smile:

True.
I think thats probably where we are all disagreeing.

It maybe considered a bit of a bullshit phrase - but all this debate (and similar in other industries) was why the concept of a **stakeholder **was created

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_analysis

Perhaps Mr Anderson you would agree that if the “rude estate agent” had any business ability at all then they would have realised that the buyer (or potential buyer) is a key stakeholder and is deserving of appropriate stakeholder management.

To the buyer this would most likely make them feel like they were a customer. Then we’d all be happy!

Let me put it to you this way …

Im very nice to buyers because, when they decide to sell, I want them to contact me.
But that doesnt distract me from the fact that I must act in the interests of the vendor.
Being nice to the buyer acts in the interest of the vendor. :wink:

The issue probably raises its head when it comes to money.
The vendor wants to get the most possible,
The buyer wants to pay the least possible.

I do not sit in the middle.
My job is to sell the property at the most possible.

Many buyers (especially in a downturn) think my job is to sell property, and ignore, or are oblivious to, the highest possible price aspect of it.
My purpose in outlining that buyers are not my customers/clients has nothing to do with rudeness, but simply to educate them as to where my obligations lie, thus avoiding any misconceptions.

I was looking to buy a house back in 1990 and one particular house I was looking at was listed with two local agents. The first one told me the asking price was X but straight off told me it could be bought for X minus 10% the second told me that the price was X and that was what it would make. I said to myself that if I was ever selling a property I would use No.2. 17 years later I did just that. Buyers (and sellers) have long memories of how they are treated by EA’s!