The problem with a label of any kind is it does not recognize individuality. Propagandists throughout history have recognized it is much easier to create a label to stick on folks who poses a threat to their ideology and then bash the "group" label. It prevents people from thinking on their own.

So you get labels thrown around like "mob" "vendor" "inmanosphere"– all meant to lump folks into an undesirable mass and remove their individuality. It creates divisiveness and group think. It's unfortunate that some folks buy into these labels. If they had a march, they'd probably goose step.

I also object to the implication that real estate professionals are somehow too dumb to know what's best for them and need someone to point out the bad evil "vendors". What elitist pomposity! A vendor that works for you, may not work for me, for any number of reasons. That does not make that vendor "good" or "bad". Ignore that man on the pedestal soap box & decide for yourself.

Vendors are tools, use the right ones.

1. those that use "good" vendors
2. those that use "bad" vendors
3. those that use NO vendors

I would think that those in number 1 would probably have the clear sales advantage.

Its the difference between having a quality alloy aluminum bat vs a cheap wood one that you made your self.
You may feel better with the hits you get from your own bat, but the guy with the metal is going to out hit you.

To me it's simple. When a vendor calls me and tells me that they are the best thing since the advent of the computer, then I ask them one thing. Show me how many transactions you have had last year following your program. That usually ends the conversation as they can't show any stats because most of these companies are not real estate people. If they persist, which usually they don't, I tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Simply let me use your service or try your product for 6 months. If it works and results in the claimed transactions, I will not only back pay you, but I will sign a contract for another year. Again, not takers.

In the end there are always going to be vendors and there are always going to be Realtors who let themselves get taken advantage of Vendors that have no merrit. I'm a big believer in our capitalist society and trying to get rid of vendors is against my principals. It's not different than picking a good insurance company, a good stock broker or a good anything else. If you don't do your homework, then you shouldn't be buying the products.

It's simple…if you like the service a 3rd party is providing, then by all means buy it. If you don't like it, then don't.

However to have some kind of "movement" to abolish 3rd party providers or to stop using them altogether is just plain "Bedrockish". (I love the way Davison themed this)

I for one am unsure for whom the movement is for. I did not notice the great clamor of the hordes. I did however read the musings of one.

IMO, there is no such movement. It's a PR stunt. An ineffective one at that.

Ryan Guess what? In your example above what would happen naturally is some of the agents who figure it out would start selling their consultancy services and start giving seminars and selling DVDS and Violla! the rebirth of Vendors!
Vendors are not going to go away.

All of this might have merit except for, well, a few things…

1st, it presumes that there would be no competition. Clearly this is not the case as agents are competing with each other for the same buyers and sellers all the time so it seems to me that on its face, the presupposition is false because there would still be competitive forces driving innovation to out compete other agents.

2nd, you have grouped all non-real estate professionals together and that is also not the best way to look at it. A company like Trulia who actually doesn't bring anything to the table being classified with something like a homegain who actually puts money in peoples pockets is not really the same thing.

It's simply a slap at the real estate industry trying to say that we are a bunch of neanderthals that would still be stuck in the stone ages without help from the outside.

I'm so tired of the mantra that the real estate industry is technologically behind the curve. It may not be on the leading edge, but, technological advances happen in the real estate space far more quickly than many other places.

Vendors play an important role and some are useful while others – not so much.

"Agents would be viewed as glorified delivery people. Gatherers. Order takers. Desk-bound."

You know, there was a time before vendors in real estate and this statement wasn't the case then. What point are you trying to make?

I've not heard anyone say that they should all go away. What many are saying is that it is more important than ever to figure out which ones are helpful and which ones are not. For consumers and for the real estate industry.

Agreed completely.

Yes there is room for all of us…but that should not come with an engraved invitation (IMO) to dine at our (REALTOR) expense. If one is truly NOT a competitor and PARTNERS with REALTORS, great.

That does not seem to me to be happening on the web right now except from a few…the rest seem to be intent on eating our lunch, no?

It basically states realtors would all be better off if they were "free". (In order to get that message across a realtor may have to pay to attend a "vendor" seminar exponding on that point in more detail)

I like your return to the stone age analogy. One sign of a sophisitcated cuture is the division of labor and increased specialization.

The idea that Realtors CAN do everything on their own from printing their own marketing materials, running google ad word campaigns, blogging, setting up their own technology, front end and backend,etc, doesn't mean that they SHOULD.

I am fond of saying that you can churn your own butter if you wish. But what does it prove? Other than you can do it.

Vendors, if chosen wisely, can take some of the burden off realtors that actually "FREES" them to spend more time being realtors.