Meet the buyers and agent at the door. Give a small backstory on the sellers, point out a few key unique features that would be missed and then let them have their space. Answer questions when they are done
Rob, great solo pod. I just read through all the comments, and it doesn’t seem too far-fetched that a listing agent might be present at the property and available for questions while buyers and their agents tour the home. Were you expecting that response? I know agents who take this approach, too.
Here are two thoughts that came to mind after watching your video:
1. Sure, a house can often sell itself. The positive features are usually obvious. But my compliance brain can't help but think: What about the negatives? It’s what’s lurking beneath the surface that buyers—and their agents—might miss. That’s where listing agents play a critical role. (See point 2.)
2. Sellers hire listing agents not just to market their homes, but also to provide full representation throughout the listing process, contract negotiations, and beyond—including sound guidance at every step. For instance, listing agents are the ones who should be advising sellers on their disclosure obligations. I’ve heard stories where sellers tried to conceal negative inspection reports or even mold, confiding in their agents. And it’s the ethical, fiduciary-minded listing agent who steps in and says, “No, Mr. Seller, you can’t do that—you must disclose all material facts to the buyer.” In this way, listing agents act as guardrails, helping clients avoid serious legal trouble.
This may not have been the main point of your video—but hey, compliance brain here, just sharing my unfiltered thoughts.
I think sellers never hire listing agents to serve as guardrails; I think they hire them to sell the house. But like any professional, the listing agent should absolutely serve as guardrails to make sure the client is in compliance with laws and regulations. Not only because of the .GOV coming down on them, but failure to disclose or some other serious failure could lead to lawsuits, rescission, damages, etc.
Clients don't hire lawyers to be guardrails, but they nonetheless have to advise the client that what they want to do is illegal or exposes them to liability.
But it is an interesting observation that as a seller, I can't hire someone to SELL my house the way I can hire someone to SELL a car or a widget.
Here in NYC it's expected the listing agent will be at the showing and we sell the house like you describe. The good buyer's agents sell their client the house, but we are expected to sell it also. The buyer then discusses with their agent after the showing.
What's interesting about this is we see how common it is for the buyer's agent to be meeting their client for the first time. It becomes painfully obvious their "client" is a Zillow/StreetEasy lead when the buyer has to ask who represents who. This is why agents are frustrated with the current model. When buyer's agents don't do their job, the seller and the listing suffers.
I have done this in the past for sellers who insisted I be present. My process was to meet them at the door and hand the AGENT a house profile sheet (not engage directly with the buyer) and let them know I would be sitting on the front porch (or out of the way) in case they had questions. It can be done respectfully and without threatening the buyer's agent. I do think the house sells itself. You either walk in and love it or don't. Me pointing out the great acoustic system won't make a buyer buy. And a good buyer's agent is there to point out potential problems / future issues not convince someone to buy a particular house.
I think we do more than just marketing. I'd take a flat fee to market a house (I actually have done this in the past). But we also manage the showings, handle the offers that come in, negotiate the offers, and then navigate the process to closing (negotiating and re-negotiating after inspections, appraisals, etc). Sometimes we help with clean outs, help choose and hire contractors and fix issues that come up as we move to closing. So I'd be okay being paid to market it and put it on the MLS - if there was then another menu of services that included or waived the rest. Now that sounds like a limited service entry model - Pay me $3000 to hire a professional photographer and get it on the MLS and handle social media posts. You can handle showings and offers and get yourself to closing. That's the MLS entry + a little marketing model. I am open to charging a menu of prices for services. I'd do that. And a professional/experienced seller could handle it. But when you get a FSBO who wants MLS entry but also advice, negotiating and help after the deal goes wonky, will they understand those are add ons and then be willing to pay more?
The decades-old argument that makes no sense LOL. To me, it doesn't matter WHERE the listing shows up - my IDX, third parties, etc - a buyers broker isn't going to know about any house until they either see it or talk to the listing broker about it.
Yes, as a listing broker, I'm more marketer than a sales broker. For me to be there to "sell" the house oversteps a bit. As a buyer's broker, it's my job to learn what I can about the house beyond photos and let the buyer know, point out the pros and cons of a home based on what they see and what the buyer has told me they are looking for in a home. I've had discussions on wants and needs with my buyer.
I've worked in 2 vastly different markets - Tucson, AZ and Las Cruces, NM. Sellers staying at home aren't the norm in either, and, quite honestly, having the seller there is awkward...weird even. I always felt like we were invading their home if they were there.
I've had the listing brokers at the showing, and it was always intrusive. Let me walk around and have open discussions with my buyer. I don't need the listing broker pointing out the obvious features. If I have questions, I'll call but let me be the advocate for my buyer. They're what they hired me to do. A good marketer will include features in the description and photos.
Yes, I can see this on high-end luxury listings, but not the everyday home.
As far as CCP goes, and I've said it many places, including a NAR conference within earshot of the LT, it was a big market issue. Us mid markets and below got sucked into the issue when it wasn't a problem for us. As it's a self-reporting violation, no one is reporting it in the markets I'm familiar with. We're calling and saying, "Uhm...hey...have you heard about CCP" or we're not even bothering with it. (Am I gonna get lawyer calls now?)
Hubs and I have gone back and forth on our seller model for years. (He's in the commercial world). We could very easily go with a flat fee model but we don't and probably won't until we have our own shop. I think the current compensation mode is very much outdated for sellers. If I could, I'd try to figure out an hourly rate for buyers, flat fee for sellers.
My team is at every showing on our listings. Since we started doing that it has been extremely successful and very few angry buyer agents
What's your process for the pitch, the sale, then giving buyers and buyer agents time to confer without you listening in?
Meet the buyers and agent at the door. Give a small backstory on the sellers, point out a few key unique features that would be missed and then let them have their space. Answer questions when they are done
Rob, great solo pod. I just read through all the comments, and it doesn’t seem too far-fetched that a listing agent might be present at the property and available for questions while buyers and their agents tour the home. Were you expecting that response? I know agents who take this approach, too.
Here are two thoughts that came to mind after watching your video:
1. Sure, a house can often sell itself. The positive features are usually obvious. But my compliance brain can't help but think: What about the negatives? It’s what’s lurking beneath the surface that buyers—and their agents—might miss. That’s where listing agents play a critical role. (See point 2.)
2. Sellers hire listing agents not just to market their homes, but also to provide full representation throughout the listing process, contract negotiations, and beyond—including sound guidance at every step. For instance, listing agents are the ones who should be advising sellers on their disclosure obligations. I’ve heard stories where sellers tried to conceal negative inspection reports or even mold, confiding in their agents. And it’s the ethical, fiduciary-minded listing agent who steps in and says, “No, Mr. Seller, you can’t do that—you must disclose all material facts to the buyer.” In this way, listing agents act as guardrails, helping clients avoid serious legal trouble.
This may not have been the main point of your video—but hey, compliance brain here, just sharing my unfiltered thoughts.
Thanks for the comments, Summer.
I think sellers never hire listing agents to serve as guardrails; I think they hire them to sell the house. But like any professional, the listing agent should absolutely serve as guardrails to make sure the client is in compliance with laws and regulations. Not only because of the .GOV coming down on them, but failure to disclose or some other serious failure could lead to lawsuits, rescission, damages, etc.
Clients don't hire lawyers to be guardrails, but they nonetheless have to advise the client that what they want to do is illegal or exposes them to liability.
But it is an interesting observation that as a seller, I can't hire someone to SELL my house the way I can hire someone to SELL a car or a widget.
From most to least influence, this is what determines if a house actually sells:
1: The house itself (condition amenities etc)
2: The location of the house
3: The buyer
4: The buyer's agent
5: The seller
6: The listing agent
Do listing agents get paid if they market it and they don’t sell it? or do they get paid once the deed transfers and the seller gets money?
I’d be a fan of paid whether it sells or not. Pay for time and expertise.
by the way, I really enjoyed the pod. very interesting convo
Here in NYC it's expected the listing agent will be at the showing and we sell the house like you describe. The good buyer's agents sell their client the house, but we are expected to sell it also. The buyer then discusses with their agent after the showing.
What's interesting about this is we see how common it is for the buyer's agent to be meeting their client for the first time. It becomes painfully obvious their "client" is a Zillow/StreetEasy lead when the buyer has to ask who represents who. This is why agents are frustrated with the current model. When buyer's agents don't do their job, the seller and the listing suffers.
I have done this in the past for sellers who insisted I be present. My process was to meet them at the door and hand the AGENT a house profile sheet (not engage directly with the buyer) and let them know I would be sitting on the front porch (or out of the way) in case they had questions. It can be done respectfully and without threatening the buyer's agent. I do think the house sells itself. You either walk in and love it or don't. Me pointing out the great acoustic system won't make a buyer buy. And a good buyer's agent is there to point out potential problems / future issues not convince someone to buy a particular house.
If listing agents don't actually sell the house, do you think they should get a commission?
Or should it be a flat marketing fee to market the house?
I think we do more than just marketing. I'd take a flat fee to market a house (I actually have done this in the past). But we also manage the showings, handle the offers that come in, negotiate the offers, and then navigate the process to closing (negotiating and re-negotiating after inspections, appraisals, etc). Sometimes we help with clean outs, help choose and hire contractors and fix issues that come up as we move to closing. So I'd be okay being paid to market it and put it on the MLS - if there was then another menu of services that included or waived the rest. Now that sounds like a limited service entry model - Pay me $3000 to hire a professional photographer and get it on the MLS and handle social media posts. You can handle showings and offers and get yourself to closing. That's the MLS entry + a little marketing model. I am open to charging a menu of prices for services. I'd do that. And a professional/experienced seller could handle it. But when you get a FSBO who wants MLS entry but also advice, negotiating and help after the deal goes wonky, will they understand those are add ons and then be willing to pay more?
The decades-old argument that makes no sense LOL. To me, it doesn't matter WHERE the listing shows up - my IDX, third parties, etc - a buyers broker isn't going to know about any house until they either see it or talk to the listing broker about it.
Yes, as a listing broker, I'm more marketer than a sales broker. For me to be there to "sell" the house oversteps a bit. As a buyer's broker, it's my job to learn what I can about the house beyond photos and let the buyer know, point out the pros and cons of a home based on what they see and what the buyer has told me they are looking for in a home. I've had discussions on wants and needs with my buyer.
I've worked in 2 vastly different markets - Tucson, AZ and Las Cruces, NM. Sellers staying at home aren't the norm in either, and, quite honestly, having the seller there is awkward...weird even. I always felt like we were invading their home if they were there.
I've had the listing brokers at the showing, and it was always intrusive. Let me walk around and have open discussions with my buyer. I don't need the listing broker pointing out the obvious features. If I have questions, I'll call but let me be the advocate for my buyer. They're what they hired me to do. A good marketer will include features in the description and photos.
Yes, I can see this on high-end luxury listings, but not the everyday home.
As far as CCP goes, and I've said it many places, including a NAR conference within earshot of the LT, it was a big market issue. Us mid markets and below got sucked into the issue when it wasn't a problem for us. As it's a self-reporting violation, no one is reporting it in the markets I'm familiar with. We're calling and saying, "Uhm...hey...have you heard about CCP" or we're not even bothering with it. (Am I gonna get lawyer calls now?)
If listing agents don't actually sell the house, do you think they should get a commission?
Or should it be a flat marketing fee to market the house?
Hubs and I have gone back and forth on our seller model for years. (He's in the commercial world). We could very easily go with a flat fee model but we don't and probably won't until we have our own shop. I think the current compensation mode is very much outdated for sellers. If I could, I'd try to figure out an hourly rate for buyers, flat fee for sellers.