The Calorie-free Purple Cow
Update: I originally wrote a much longer post, but cut a lot of it to make it more internet friendly. I unfortunately cut the part where I talked about how striking it was that only a small part of this conference was to straight marketing tricks, while a lot of it was nuts and bolts marketing that any agent really needs to succeed. What stood out is that The Purple Cow conversation was under an hour of the entire day, when it is often the substantial part of entire other conferences. I apologize if I made this sound like Ben was preaching all fluff: Ben is very much the anti-traditional real estate speaker, with a captivating, understated speaking style and real, useful tactics to help agents become better at their jobs.
Last Thursday I was a fish out of water on a Rain Camp panel hosted by Ben Kinney in Bellingham.
I left feeling exhausted and depressed. The afternoon was largely devoted to consumer-negative or neutral tactics for getting clients. Ben’s recommendations largely hinged on Seth Godin’s purple cow theory. In short, the popular understanding of the theory says that when you drive by pastures, you never remember individual cows, but if there were a purple cow in the pasture, you would not only remember it, but you would talk about it for the rest of your life. Specific purple cow marketing recommendations ranged from neon pink business cards (which reminded me of this guy) to wearing flip flops all the time. In short: be weird in your marketing.
This is not what Purple Cow marketing is supposed to be – it’s supposed to be about how you create a unique product (i.e. an unusually useful online home search product), not your marketing.
The original concept of making unusual products is good, but the Purple Cow is frankly a crappy allegory that is usually misinterpreted. Ultimately a purple cow is merely a trick. Purple cows aren’t useful and they (presumably) produce the same milk or hamburgers that black-and-white cows produce.
At the few-and-far-between real estate conferences I attend, the people on stage uniformly preach the shallowest Purple Cow interpretation possible: you must stand out physically and build a brand around being different in a functionally useless way. Do anything to be memorable as long as it doesn’t involve talking about what you actually do.
Purple Cow marketing is win-lose or win-neutral for consumers. Purple cow marketing does not help people buy the right home, avoid over-paying, get the offer in on time, or correctly answer the hundreds of questions consumers have about buying a home. This sort of gimmicky marketing is something capitalism is supposed to minimize: it is an unproductive waste of resources. It’s win-lose or win-neutral for consumers: there is nothing about their home buying experience it improves and it often obfuscates actual quality of service. Consumers would be much better off if agents spent their time and energy working on behalf of their clients.
Imagine what the real estate industry would be like if agents and brokers took half of time and money they devote to marketing – including the lectures and clubs – and spent that time and effort improving their actual service: knowing every nook and cranny of the inventory (on and off market), knowing home pricing, bringing in the best staging and photography pros for their clients, and being highly responsive.
My other beef with Purple Cow marketing is personal: as a consumer, it turns me off. Sales people who employ tricks make me feel gross. Here’s why: sales tricks indicate two things:
- You don’t believe your knowledge or skills are better in any way than your competition, so you have to resort to tricks to get clients.
- You don’t believe your knowledge or skills can be differentiated in any meaningful way, so you aren’t investing in them.
The original promise of the internet was to create a landscape where quality bubbled up. Free information was supposed to render marketing tricks useless. And it has lived up to the promise in many industries, but in the real estate industry the internet has actually rewarded fluff over substance and has actually undermined the historical importance of quality service and personal referrals for finding real estate agents. It’s a trend that we aim to reverse, starting by putting with our current search product which contains as much MLS data as we are allowed to show, all for free with no registration.
Less photos and bad photos mean real estate deals
If Jim Duncan sold real estate in the greater Seattle area, we would recruit him for Agent Match. He’s good.
Here’s one of his clients:
We overlooked this home because it only had a photo of the outside, but the home next door to it was for sale and I found a virtual tour through Trulia- it is beautiful. Depending on the shape this one is in, we could go in at $240-250 and have some cash left for renovations. The outside looks well-kept.
The realtor is doing his client a disservice by only having one photo, but the resultant lack of interest may work to our advantage.
And here is his response:
I like to show properties that have one or fewer photos – it usually means that the Seller will have had less traffic and will therefore be more willing to negotiate a lower offer.
If your Realtor has actually seen every property you clients might want, you can seriously leverage bad staging, no staging, bad photos and inept marketing to find gems in the rough. If you’re selling, take a look at your Realtor’s past and current listings and ask yourself “would I want to check out that house?”
Join the discussion »Estately agents versus normal agents
I keep meaning to post an update to Estately Agent Match, but I’m going to put it off for another day.
People often ask us how we differentiate between great agents and the rest (and let me tell you, there are a lot of “the rest”). I usually say something about client recommendations and a certain feeling we get with respect to how they talk about clients and their work. Some talk about clients like they’re cattle to be herded and some talk about them like frat boys talk about the sorority girls from their last party. But some agents talk about clients as though they actually like them; they talk about the joys of finding the right house and bringing the knowledge from hundreds of prior experiences buying and selling to help their clients avoid common and not-so-common pitfalls. They often end up describing themselves more like coaches and less like sales people.
But Jeff Kempe actually puts better words to it than I can (emphasis mine):
“Selling isn’t about glib one liners, happy hour entertaining or pat answers to pre-conceived objections. It’s considerably less about form than substance. It’s about having the knowledge and developing the trust in order to fill the real needs of your customers, better than anyone else.†LOVE parental mode.”
…
Learn the difference between ACTING like you care about your customers and ACTUALLY caring. That one thing changes everything. Actually caring means thoroughly knowing customer needs and adapting to them, not expecting them to adapt to yours.
Michael Cook been hitting on this too (emphasis mine):
Great sales firms engender consumer loyalty because they are a consultant first and a salesperson second. While working for Procter & Gamble in sales, I learned early on that no one likes sales people, but everyone likes free, knowledgable consultants. When I learned to be both, I started setting sells records and my customers loved me.
Know a real estate agent who fits this description? Send us an email to agent_match (at) estately.com telling us why they were the best for you and we’ll consider recommending them to our clients. We already have a team of great agents working with clients, but we could always make it better.
Join the discussion »Galen on Inman TV today
I was interviewed by Joel (Inman News / Future of Real Estate Marketing) for Inman TV a little while back they just posted the video this morning. It’s a quick overview of what we’re about and how Agent Match is different (and better) than other ways of finding good real estate agents on the internet. So without further ado:
Join the discussion »- July 17th, 2007
- by Galen
- Agents, Uncategorized
Does the pope condone Divorcing Commissions?

There is an ongoing debate over divorcing commissions in the real estate blog world that hasn’t yet jumped into the mainstream media. Divorced commissions doesn’t refer to the consumer divorcing the agent of their pay and it will certainly need a better name to get any traction (pay for representation?). In a word, it means you as a consumer pay your agent for representing you as a buyer or as a seller.
As it stands, sellers pay both their own agent and the buyer’s agent. They typically pay 2-3% to the agent who helps them put their house on the market, advertises it, advises them on offers, and negotiates on their behalf at closing. They then offer 2.5+% to the agent of the person who wants to buy the property. That’s to pay the “buyer’s agent†for dragging you to a bunch of properties, helping you figure out what’s right for you, advising you about each property, helping you put together an offer, and negotiating on your behalf through closing.
I’ve been racking my brain trying to find an appropriate analogy for this. Maybe it’s like bringing your lawyer to a divorce hearing (real divorce, not commission divorce) and having your soon-to-be ex-spouse pay your lawyer’s bill.
But it’s not really like that, because you as a buyer end up paying the commission. Say you just paid your agent yourself: The seller would probably pocket some of that 2.5+% they were offering your agent, but they’d probably also reduce the price of the house somewhat, leaving you with a choice about how much service you wanted from your agent and how much you wanted to pay for that service.
So when will commission divorce be just as common as the marital variety? Probably no time soon: banks are not used to it, so they would be wary of paying your agent from your end. Additionally, no one is going to go first: if you’re selling your your house, you don’t want to be the cheapo who offers $0 commission to buyers agents (because some of them will discriminate against you).
Jeff Kempe cogently argues that the perception of free buyers commissions makes consumers lazy about finding a good agent. Since divorced commissions are really an academic discussion in the short term, buyers should focus on finding good agents who will work on their behalf regardless of who is paying. Like in any industry, there are good real estate agents who focus on the long-term business and there are not-so-great agents who focus on the best buck today.
Interview a couple of great agents who can meet your needs and really know their stuff, describing what you need from them and what you’re looking for in a property, ask to talk to previous clients, and figure out if they are someone you would want to work with. Ask questions and ask more questions.
Join the discussion »



