Showmanship Sells but Substance has Staying Power
We humans love a good show. A great concert. A show on Broadway. A magic show in Vegas. A professional sporting event. A moving backstory on a hero. Anything or anyone who takes us away from the everyday humdrum of our lives to excite, inspire, or entertain us.
I heard someone say one time, “People don’t follow people who have character; they like people who are characters.” I’ve got to agree. Often the loudest buffoon in the room gets attention just for the entertainment value.
The fact is—showmanship sells. And that tends to be a problem for those people who are more of a stagehand than the main act. They operate in a supporting role to get things done. Sometimes, if a person tells people what they want to hear with enough confidence, followers actually believe what they say, no matter how ridiculous or unproven.
Avoid the bad actors.
As the NAR Settlement deadline approaches, some bad actors will emerge. I mean bad in the sense that they will not have the best interest of the clients in mind. I learned this term when my daughter was getting her degree in Criminal Justice. Here is the definition of ‘bad actors’ when used as a noun: ‘A person, group, country, etc., who purposely and usually repeatedly engages in very bad behavior (such as committing crimes or causing harm to others).’ They will prey upon the confusion and misinformation in the market and the media. People can get desperate when the approved processes are unclear, and consumer behavior is untested. The good news is that, over time, many of the bad actors will get out of the business or be pushed out.
For the clients or sources of business we're trying to reach, it's crucial to remember that substance always triumphs over showmanship in the long run. They might be tempted to hire someone who's better at appealing to their fears than at delivering results and doing the right thing. However, we know that flashy materials or fear-based pitches with wild promises can only go so far. Our strength lies in our substance, and that's what truly matters.
In the upcoming months or maybe even years, we will face the challenge of the shifting consumer behavior being molded by a variety of influences. This may vary by market, region, and state. We can’t control what clients and sources of business will be exposed to and how trends will emerge. If certain agents and companies are effective at influencing consumer behavior, they will control the narrative. The loudest voice often gets the attention, and sometimes, they also get the business. We will start to hear about ‘free this’ and ‘complimentary that’ to capture the attention of the consumer.
Reality sucks sometimes.
We need to accept reality. And the reality is simple. We, as ethical professionals, prioritize what's best for our clients over what's best marketed and sold. Our commitment to substance and ethical practices sets us apart from those who rely on flashy marketing or fear-based tactics. It will be hard to discern what is ignorance versus intentional behavior among the bad actors until certain practices are tested. But consumers may treat every message as reality if we don’t speak the truth in a way that resonates with them.
There was a real estate agent ad in one of our little local magazines that came in the mail that said, “You set the sales price, why shouldn’t you set the commission you’ll pay?” OK, as we know, the commission is negotiable, so that was already happening. But this is the line that got me, “You tell me what you feel is a fair commission to pay in order to sell your home. We come to an agreement, and you save thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands in commission.” Then, they go on to list the basic services that every agent offers, acting as if it is something magical. Showmanship created an illusion of services and pricing options that were already there.
The risks are in the gray areas.
One of the challenges right now is that some of the laws, recommendations, codes, regulations, policies, etc., that have emerged or drawn attention because of the Settlement Agreement are open to interpretation. Worse, people are reading between the lines and acting upon what is not said. I have heard, “Well, they didn’t say we couldn’t do that.” Let the workarounds begin. Those will be tested over time as the Department of Justice, attorneys, or even clients begin to challenge them.
Picture this: A buyer asks an agent to only show them properties where the seller pays the buyer’s agent’s commission. Let’s say the agent thinks that no one will know they did that but their client. Until the client has buyer’s remorse when they realize they could have had a preferable home that they didn’t get shown because there was no commission for their agent. Even though it was at the client's directive, it is a violation of the Settlement Agreement. So, the client may decide to sue their agent. The client isn’t going to lose their license, get fined, or be sued by asking an agent to violate those terms. The client may not even know it is not ok unless the agent tells them. Agents, relocation professionals, and brokerages are the ones at risk. In the Settlement Agreement, ‘NAR reaffirms its commitment to requiring that MLS Participants must not limit the listings their clients see because of broker compensation.’ That’s pretty clear. That’s steering.
Consequences matter.
People are easily swayed by cost savings, the impression of scarcity, or the desire to be a part of something. No one wants to miss out. I could give a million examples but think Beany Babies and, more recently, Stanly cups. Wants drive people, but needs compel them to act. The need to be a part of whatever the thing is at the moment. Social media influencers are masters at this game. They are performers who adeptly convince people to listen to them or buy the products they are pushing, whether there is any substance behind it or not.
In this new era, we have to authentically convince buyers or those paying their commission to embrace the cost versus the risk of not paying it without resorting to overly dramatic tactics. We need to help them understand the risks and the benefits to us, them, and our industry.
Do they have a clear understanding of risk if they try to complete their transaction without an agent?
What is important to them, and what is that worth?
Are we effectively using our platforms to garner respect and pass on helpful information?
How are we going to become an authoritative voice among the noise?
Have we effectively conveyed not just the features of what we offer but the benefits?
Have we given them compelling reasons to work with us?
Have we surrounded ourselves with a team that knows how to establish trust in an authentic way?
Are we prepared to combat what the bad actors might put out there?
Can we handle objections in a caring way that resonates and is not argumentative?
Are we prepared to negotiate in a way that is fair throughout the transaction and protects all stakeholders?
Is everyone in your company using the same approved playbook for the Settlement guidelines?
Have we worked with our agents to effectively write language into an offer regarding compensation or concessions?
Is their objection reasonable, or is it a condition? “I don’t want to pay the money because I don’t have to” versus “I don’t have the money.”
Are we using consumer-friendly terms and agreements?
People want to save money, but the need for professional guidance should far outweigh what the bad actors are going to be out there pushing. So we have to give them a show worth paying for.
"Communication is about what is received, not what is intended. If there is a gap between what you are saying and what they are hearing, you have to find a new way to say it." ~James Clear, author, speaker
