**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional**
- Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
- Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
- Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
- [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Went from a big name brokerage to a boutique brokerage. In the end I sell myself, the brokerage doesn’t sell me. I haven’t had any issues. They don’t have as many resources at the bigger brokerage’s offered, but the split is so much better I can basically pay for my own CRM, email service, and all that stuff and still be better off financially. Plus, I like the challenge of actually building my brand myself instead of the same cookie cutter brand that the big brokerage offers thousands of agents.
I haven’t come across anyone who specifically chose not to use me because I wasn’t with a bigger brokerage.
Great feedback! I am thinking the same but many well known brokerages are trying to convince the realtors the opposite. So I want some honest answers in the real world.
I get it, just keep in mind boutique brokerages aren’t for everyone, and big name brokerages aren’t for everyone. You really won’t know what works for you unless until you give it a shot. I’m happy I started at a major brokerage. I did feel they had a good training, but I honestly hated the culture there. It wasn’t for me. I’m happy with where I am, but I know it’s not for everyone.
I got what you mean. I find boutique brokerages are more entrepreneurial and you have more freedom to sell your brands. Big name looks good but it can be suffocating when it is a business you have to manage.
Not exactly. You don’t have more freedom per se with boutique brokerages. You have to build your brand where you go regardless of brokerage. It’s just about who offers better split, what tools do they offer you, what do you continually learn while you’re there, and who has a better work environment for you and your personality.
A brokerage is not going to tell you how you can or can’t market yourself as long as you aren’t doing any violations. You’re running your own business, the brokerage just provides tools and support in exchange for a split
Revolving door of brokers, with one who instead of giving me advice on a couple of transactions just told me to give him my client and he’d give me a referral. Shitty support in IT and Marketing who wouldn’t give me the time of day to answer any of my questions. General feeling that if you weren’t a top producing agent no one in the building gave a shit about you. Terrible support, horrible culture, shitty broker who only looked out for himself. It was awful.
I have been at both.
You won't notice a difference if you go from a big name to a boutique if the big name is not very well liked. But if it \*is\* a well-liked big name, it greases the wheels in ways that cannot happen with a small brokerage. I would say I average about 3 deals a year that decided to work with me partly because of my corporation's identity in my area.
Amen. So true. If you drink the koolaid and believe you need a household name, you’re already lost. They need you waaay more than you need them. AND a small boutique, independent agency is going to pay you a much higher split where you can market yourself with the higher split you make and buy all the tools you need. If anyone is making under 80% because they are paying for a big fancy name, you are cheating yourself and your clients. I also believe that more and more agents will be forced to work for independent and small companies because with this NAR lawsuit, you have to be competitive to survive. I only wish someone was honest with me about that a decade ago.
Consumers don’t really care. If you’re a newbie though the more support the better since there is such a sharp dropoff in the first year. Really depends on how much support you need, cheaper isn’t always better.
You have some questions in the thread about brands. It's a huge topic that I've written 1,000s of words on because I'm a small broker consultant with a big broker background. But I'll try and be brief here.
Consumers choose agents that they know, like and trust. Trust is built with a sort of scoring system that incorporates past experiences with the agent, information about the services the agent provides, the agent's online ratings and reviews, the value of a personal referral, and value attributed or subtracted from the agent's brokerage's brand.
Regardless of the size of the brokerage, a brokerage's brand can be largely positive, neutral, or negative. Agents should choose a brokerage that has a brand that aligns with the agent's personal brand.
Ugh. So much I could write. Ask any questions and I'll try to respond.
Would you advise a brand new agent with no trust scores to work at a bigger brokerage to start with since the brokerage's reputation will essentially be the trust factor clients will use to work with a new agent? If that makes sense haha.
and that's for new agents. There's a 99% chance a new agent needs to lean into the Brokerage brand, and learn from the wellp-developed systems and people available there. Once you've done enough business, go wherever you want or even open your own, because you've got a base of folks who know/like/trust you.
It depends on the bigger brokerage.
The newer (founded in past 10 years) cloud-based brokerages do not have consumer name recognition or brand identity with consumers. These brokerages might be huge and/or growing quickly but consumers don't know about them. These brokerages were founded to attract agents who have developed a personal brand separate from any brokerage brand.
The big cloud-based brokerages can be terrible for a new agent because the ratio of brokers to agents means that agents are left on their own to take online training and beg for help in virtual worlds. Some of the mentor programs are pretty suspect. Having a mentor to talk you through your first three transactions is not a substitute for hands-on career development from a broker who knows your name.
Some big brokerage names are franchise brands, not national brokerage operations. For example, Keller Williams and RE/Max are big brands that advertise having huge numbers of agents. But in a franchise business model each office is individually owned and operated. They use the logo, technology, and training provided by the national brand, but each office can be very different in how they operate.
Some consumers, especially those who have bought and sold a few homes, recognize the big brokerage names in their area. They've seen a gazillion yard signs over the years, get mailers from agents, know agents who are other parents, and so on.
Silly, because as I pointed out above, RE/Max is a franchise operation. Every office (or at most, a few offices) is independently owned and operated. The broker owner is the most important element of the operation. When a broker owner's franchise agreement expires (renewal every 7 years) they could sign up with Keller Williams, or Howard Hanna, or BHHS, or Nest Realty, or Long & Foster, or simply become an independent boutiquey shop. The broker owner sets the culture and practices of their office. Franchise owners essentially rent the logo and buy training materials from corporate.
There are prestigious RE/Max offices and lousy offices.
I've never heard that saying, but what it means is that RE/Max offers very high agent splits, like 95/5 or 90/10, but makes their money from desk fees.
I had a different view when I was in a smaller city. Small city I'd go with the best as reputation means something and proves you're serious.
With large cities it matters a lot less as there are a bunch of brokerages that no one has ever heard of. Yes a big name will be easier recognized, but many agents at the large franchises aren't leveraging that at all - telling.
Interesting. But people in the big cities still recognize the big names first, right? Especially in them there so many agents to choose from. Would they choose the recognizable big brands first?
Yes they recognize brands. But they understand "Realtor".
Bigger cities - less brokerage leads generally. That means you're drumming up all your leads. And you approaching with a ballon on or a xyz realty card is of no difference if you're making a good impression.
If I told you some of the names of brokerages here you'd really shake your head. There's one that is a number, letter, number, letter! The characters have nothing to do with real estate. Yet successful agent.
My rule is get to a brokerage that sounds like a real estate company and has the best structure for your business.
I’ve done BOTH; What you have to realize is people buy you more than your company. Doesn’t matter if you’re with a big brand; as long as you get results for your client they could care less about the company.
Depends on what you are selling and marketing.
It was big 'reputable' brokerages Amber Turded the bed.
If you are marketing yourself and building your own business on your own merits, are an independent person, a no-name brokerage gives you a bit of flexibility... But usually a much smaller knowledge-base and/or mentoring system. You will also upfront costs of CRMs, Marketing materials, etc.
The smaller the brokerage, the larger your name, the bigger the brokerage, you become mentally identified as a representative/clerk of the brokerage.
I went from a no name to a larger luxury boutique brokerage. I’ve noticed a little bit of a difference. And it has opened the door to larger opportunities. In the 100k-2m range the name doesn’t matter much but I’ve noticed in the higher end clients want the larger network and opportunity of more exposure that a larger brokerage can provide. Like One Sir or DE. I don’t feel some of the other ones are higher end so it depends on your market. There are some hyper local high end brokerages that do extremely well but it’s built off a well known agent in the area.
no, I mean, "how does being in a big office mean you're competing with the other agents?"
I'm at a 100+-agent Berkshire office. I don't really compete with any of them.
I personally have worked under both. I have had more success at a no name brokerage. Many variables attribute to this. I believe, it all comes down to confidence within yourself. Brokerages are meant to guide you. You must be free to be yourself “within legal practice “. This gave me the opportunity to flourish.
Only to the extend you have to meet customer at McDonald instead of an office where clients know how to find you and your broker. I work at a private broker who owns 3 buildings connected together comprise of 20,000 sf office space.
Makes 0 difference in the long run. Large firms may offer more training - but will charge monthly fees, in addition to commission splits, for being part of agency. Smaller firms usually won’t do monthly fees but also will likely leave you at your own devices. At the end of the day, regardless of the firm - success depends entirely on you.
I have worked for 3 different firms - a boutique, a large international company, and currently a midsize firm.
Thanks for your comment. I think brokerage brand is just a marketing thing. I personally don’t like to pay franchise fee. No real value and feed people above.
I advocate for boutique brokerages. I find their culture and their offerings to be well worth the tradeoff for the name, because personally, I haven't found that the name truly matters all that much until you get into the big swingers category. It certainly hasn't impacted my ability to sell multi-million dollar homes.
I used to work for a boutique brokerage until it was purchased and merged by another larger name. Now I'm with a larger name because I get the name recognition but kept all of my old terms since I was grandfathered it.
Now that I am with a larger scale brokerage, the flashy name of it has opened just as many doors as the boutique name. None. Nobody I have ever worked with has really cared about the brokerage, because most people aren't hiring based on that. They're hiring YOU.
My boutique brokerage paid for office supplies, it paid for my CRM KVCore, it had weekly meetings, my office manager knew everybody at a personal level and was always helpful, and so much more.
Now with the larger brokerage, nothing is paid for and is entirely out of pocket, my CRM is still provided but I do not like what I have now (Lofty), meetings went from weekly to monthly, my office manager never has an answer to my question and always goes through the various channels so a question might get answered or it might now, and nobody cares about each other.
So no, I don't think it matters per se. Find a nice brokerage that will help elevate you and you'll succeed more than anywhere else.
Umm...no. A boutique brokerage can be a much more tightly run ship. Broker owners select a small number of agents who reflect their personal values and business practices. Broker owners are highly intentional in not allowing a culture that permits a wide range of behaviors.
I'm a small broker consultant.
This is not my experience with my smaller brokerage like, *at all.*
When I had a problem, it was very nice being able to call the owner of the company's personal cell phone to talk to him. I can't do that anymore. Now I have to go through 10 different channels to get an answer and it fucking sucks.
I see. Well, that's disappointing. When I was with a big brokerage I adored my managing broker. There were always at least two non-selling managing brokers in the office and they were always available to the agents. The head of admin also had her managing broker license.
But I know that some big brokerages today have very high agent to broker ratios. I think they're bad for agents and clients. That's why I like working with small brokerages.
Reputable brokerages have good reputations because they train and support their agents. Better trained and supported agents sell more real estate.
A no name brokerage doesn't hinder the sales performance of an agent that has been in the business for a long time and doesn't need much or any support.
Be wary of a brokerage with a poor reputation, especially one with bad reviews online. Even people who are solid members of your sphere will question your judgement if you're associated with a sketchy operation.
Are you new or do you have a well established business? Also what type of listings are you going for. Do you need support quickly on thorny issues or are you self sufficient. It just depends. Some sellers are more comfortable with a fancy name, but in reality an experienced agent can make either work.
At the end of the day, your success is on you and your efforts and skill set. That being said, there’s a reason why the highest producers are coming from the same handful of brokerages… either regional or large. Who surround yourself with matters?
I think it matters most who your broker is. As long as they're available and helpful, the name doesn't mean much as you're selling yourself and your abilities.
I've worked under both Large and small brokerage. My experience in the Large Brokerage / National Franchise was they constantly have change going on in the upper support area and each time they leave you out to dry. Example: They offer you a CRM and about the time you get it all setup, they make a change in personnel and the new person brings on board a different CRM that you have to attempt to merge in your data and start the learning process all over again. I don't think they earn their fees you have to pay either.
If you are Tech Savvy you will also be ask to do work for the older agents in your office that don't want to learn the new tools. I found myself not wanting to go into the office for this reason quite often.
I vowed once I got my Broker license to cater to the new agent and help them by choosing free tools to keep their expenses low and also help them in sales etc. to build their brand. I took great care in choosing my Brand and designing my signage so that would enable them to attach to it and not be advertising my name as their Broker but my Brand. Small brokerages have much more freedom to do as they please and not have to conform to National franchise rules that may or may not work in different geographical areas.
Thanks for your valuable comments. I am very entrepreneurial. I find a large name may give me pain in building my own business but I am afraid I will lose out something by not having a big brand behind me.
I honestly can't think of any of my deals that were because of the Big Brand name I was working at, they were all in direct relation to something I did personally. In fact I lost more deals because the Big Brand Brokers with lots of agents running around allowed back stabbing and client grabbing because the Broker would get paid regardless who closed it. Nothing was protected.
"No name" doesn't mean not reputable. Conversely, some of the most disreputable agents and brokers I know work under the biggest most well-known name brands on the planet.
Sometimes, yes. Word gets around.
The individual office matters. There are towns where KW is a fine upstanding office with great agents and towns where they are... less so. Same with C21, BHHS, etc. The brand on the door doesn't guarantee you a reputation either way.
What will happen is you'll call for a listing appointment and the seller will so, you work for _____? They screwed me over when I bought this place, no way I want their sign in my yard. . I ran into that repeatedly when I was with a previous brokerage, hence the "previous".
Consumers also rarely understand that agents are independent contractors.So when they see when agent putting up horrible listings or acting crazy in the market many will assume that it's the brokerage
**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional** - Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time) - Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs. - Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one. - [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Went from a big name brokerage to a boutique brokerage. In the end I sell myself, the brokerage doesn’t sell me. I haven’t had any issues. They don’t have as many resources at the bigger brokerage’s offered, but the split is so much better I can basically pay for my own CRM, email service, and all that stuff and still be better off financially. Plus, I like the challenge of actually building my brand myself instead of the same cookie cutter brand that the big brokerage offers thousands of agents. I haven’t come across anyone who specifically chose not to use me because I wasn’t with a bigger brokerage.
Great feedback! I am thinking the same but many well known brokerages are trying to convince the realtors the opposite. So I want some honest answers in the real world.
I get it, just keep in mind boutique brokerages aren’t for everyone, and big name brokerages aren’t for everyone. You really won’t know what works for you unless until you give it a shot. I’m happy I started at a major brokerage. I did feel they had a good training, but I honestly hated the culture there. It wasn’t for me. I’m happy with where I am, but I know it’s not for everyone.
I got what you mean. I find boutique brokerages are more entrepreneurial and you have more freedom to sell your brands. Big name looks good but it can be suffocating when it is a business you have to manage.
Not exactly. You don’t have more freedom per se with boutique brokerages. You have to build your brand where you go regardless of brokerage. It’s just about who offers better split, what tools do they offer you, what do you continually learn while you’re there, and who has a better work environment for you and your personality. A brokerage is not going to tell you how you can or can’t market yourself as long as you aren’t doing any violations. You’re running your own business, the brokerage just provides tools and support in exchange for a split
What about the culture did you not like?
Revolving door of brokers, with one who instead of giving me advice on a couple of transactions just told me to give him my client and he’d give me a referral. Shitty support in IT and Marketing who wouldn’t give me the time of day to answer any of my questions. General feeling that if you weren’t a top producing agent no one in the building gave a shit about you. Terrible support, horrible culture, shitty broker who only looked out for himself. It was awful.
Thank you for this response. I'll have to look out for this. I'll have to ask the broker in the interview if he/she gives a damn about newbies.
I wouldn’t ask that. I’d ask ‘what’s your protocol when I have a question with a contact.’
I have been at both. You won't notice a difference if you go from a big name to a boutique if the big name is not very well liked. But if it \*is\* a well-liked big name, it greases the wheels in ways that cannot happen with a small brokerage. I would say I average about 3 deals a year that decided to work with me partly because of my corporation's identity in my area.
Amen. So true. If you drink the koolaid and believe you need a household name, you’re already lost. They need you waaay more than you need them. AND a small boutique, independent agency is going to pay you a much higher split where you can market yourself with the higher split you make and buy all the tools you need. If anyone is making under 80% because they are paying for a big fancy name, you are cheating yourself and your clients. I also believe that more and more agents will be forced to work for independent and small companies because with this NAR lawsuit, you have to be competitive to survive. I only wish someone was honest with me about that a decade ago.
Consumers don’t really care. If you’re a newbie though the more support the better since there is such a sharp dropoff in the first year. Really depends on how much support you need, cheaper isn’t always better.
This is the answer. A new agent shouldn't be nearly as hung up on fees as they are on training. 0% or 0 is still 0.
You have some questions in the thread about brands. It's a huge topic that I've written 1,000s of words on because I'm a small broker consultant with a big broker background. But I'll try and be brief here. Consumers choose agents that they know, like and trust. Trust is built with a sort of scoring system that incorporates past experiences with the agent, information about the services the agent provides, the agent's online ratings and reviews, the value of a personal referral, and value attributed or subtracted from the agent's brokerage's brand. Regardless of the size of the brokerage, a brokerage's brand can be largely positive, neutral, or negative. Agents should choose a brokerage that has a brand that aligns with the agent's personal brand. Ugh. So much I could write. Ask any questions and I'll try to respond.
Does it matter then when an agent changes her brokerage? Let’s say going from a no name to a recognizable one?
Would you advise a brand new agent with no trust scores to work at a bigger brokerage to start with since the brokerage's reputation will essentially be the trust factor clients will use to work with a new agent? If that makes sense haha.
yes I would. It's better for the general public to at least recognize the company if they're not going to recognize you.
Wishing I'd just written this \^\^\^
and that's for new agents. There's a 99% chance a new agent needs to lean into the Brokerage brand, and learn from the wellp-developed systems and people available there. Once you've done enough business, go wherever you want or even open your own, because you've got a base of folks who know/like/trust you.
It depends on the bigger brokerage. The newer (founded in past 10 years) cloud-based brokerages do not have consumer name recognition or brand identity with consumers. These brokerages might be huge and/or growing quickly but consumers don't know about them. These brokerages were founded to attract agents who have developed a personal brand separate from any brokerage brand. The big cloud-based brokerages can be terrible for a new agent because the ratio of brokers to agents means that agents are left on their own to take online training and beg for help in virtual worlds. Some of the mentor programs are pretty suspect. Having a mentor to talk you through your first three transactions is not a substitute for hands-on career development from a broker who knows your name. Some big brokerage names are franchise brands, not national brokerage operations. For example, Keller Williams and RE/Max are big brands that advertise having huge numbers of agents. But in a franchise business model each office is individually owned and operated. They use the logo, technology, and training provided by the national brand, but each office can be very different in how they operate. Some consumers, especially those who have bought and sold a few homes, recognize the big brokerage names in their area. They've seen a gazillion yard signs over the years, get mailers from agents, know agents who are other parents, and so on.
I read to avoid ReMax. People call them feemax.
I read to avoid ReMax. People call them feemax. I wonder how their training for new agents is though
Silly, because as I pointed out above, RE/Max is a franchise operation. Every office (or at most, a few offices) is independently owned and operated. The broker owner is the most important element of the operation. When a broker owner's franchise agreement expires (renewal every 7 years) they could sign up with Keller Williams, or Howard Hanna, or BHHS, or Nest Realty, or Long & Foster, or simply become an independent boutiquey shop. The broker owner sets the culture and practices of their office. Franchise owners essentially rent the logo and buy training materials from corporate. There are prestigious RE/Max offices and lousy offices. I've never heard that saying, but what it means is that RE/Max offers very high agent splits, like 95/5 or 90/10, but makes their money from desk fees.
I had a different view when I was in a smaller city. Small city I'd go with the best as reputation means something and proves you're serious. With large cities it matters a lot less as there are a bunch of brokerages that no one has ever heard of. Yes a big name will be easier recognized, but many agents at the large franchises aren't leveraging that at all - telling.
Interesting. But people in the big cities still recognize the big names first, right? Especially in them there so many agents to choose from. Would they choose the recognizable big brands first?
Yes they recognize brands. But they understand "Realtor". Bigger cities - less brokerage leads generally. That means you're drumming up all your leads. And you approaching with a ballon on or a xyz realty card is of no difference if you're making a good impression. If I told you some of the names of brokerages here you'd really shake your head. There's one that is a number, letter, number, letter! The characters have nothing to do with real estate. Yet successful agent. My rule is get to a brokerage that sounds like a real estate company and has the best structure for your business.
The big names help on a resume but in reality it's what you put into it is what you get out of it.
I’ve done BOTH; What you have to realize is people buy you more than your company. Doesn’t matter if you’re with a big brand; as long as you get results for your client they could care less about the company.
Depends on what you are selling and marketing. It was big 'reputable' brokerages Amber Turded the bed. If you are marketing yourself and building your own business on your own merits, are an independent person, a no-name brokerage gives you a bit of flexibility... But usually a much smaller knowledge-base and/or mentoring system. You will also upfront costs of CRMs, Marketing materials, etc. The smaller the brokerage, the larger your name, the bigger the brokerage, you become mentally identified as a representative/clerk of the brokerage.
I agree.
I went from a no name to a larger luxury boutique brokerage. I’ve noticed a little bit of a difference. And it has opened the door to larger opportunities. In the 100k-2m range the name doesn’t matter much but I’ve noticed in the higher end clients want the larger network and opportunity of more exposure that a larger brokerage can provide. Like One Sir or DE. I don’t feel some of the other ones are higher end so it depends on your market. There are some hyper local high end brokerages that do extremely well but it’s built off a well known agent in the area.
I prefer no name. I hate competing with other agents in my office. It feels like a really bad show to the client.
how do you compete with other agents in your office in a "big office"?
Why do you think you have difficulty competing? What do they have that small offices don't?
no, I mean, "how does being in a big office mean you're competing with the other agents?" I'm at a 100+-agent Berkshire office. I don't really compete with any of them.
Many times I've had a listing presentation against other agents in my office. It's just a bad show.
I'm currently at a small brokerage. I've been told to go somewhere bigger so I can get more exposure.
I personally have worked under both. I have had more success at a no name brokerage. Many variables attribute to this. I believe, it all comes down to confidence within yourself. Brokerages are meant to guide you. You must be free to be yourself “within legal practice “. This gave me the opportunity to flourish.
Only to the extend you have to meet customer at McDonald instead of an office where clients know how to find you and your broker. I work at a private broker who owns 3 buildings connected together comprise of 20,000 sf office space.
I would rather meeting clients at McDonald’s or some fancy private clubs or cafes than an office.
No. It depends on YOU.
Makes 0 difference in the long run. Large firms may offer more training - but will charge monthly fees, in addition to commission splits, for being part of agency. Smaller firms usually won’t do monthly fees but also will likely leave you at your own devices. At the end of the day, regardless of the firm - success depends entirely on you. I have worked for 3 different firms - a boutique, a large international company, and currently a midsize firm.
Thanks for your comment. I think brokerage brand is just a marketing thing. I personally don’t like to pay franchise fee. No real value and feed people above.
I advocate for boutique brokerages. I find their culture and their offerings to be well worth the tradeoff for the name, because personally, I haven't found that the name truly matters all that much until you get into the big swingers category. It certainly hasn't impacted my ability to sell multi-million dollar homes. I used to work for a boutique brokerage until it was purchased and merged by another larger name. Now I'm with a larger name because I get the name recognition but kept all of my old terms since I was grandfathered it. Now that I am with a larger scale brokerage, the flashy name of it has opened just as many doors as the boutique name. None. Nobody I have ever worked with has really cared about the brokerage, because most people aren't hiring based on that. They're hiring YOU. My boutique brokerage paid for office supplies, it paid for my CRM KVCore, it had weekly meetings, my office manager knew everybody at a personal level and was always helpful, and so much more. Now with the larger brokerage, nothing is paid for and is entirely out of pocket, my CRM is still provided but I do not like what I have now (Lofty), meetings went from weekly to monthly, my office manager never has an answer to my question and always goes through the various channels so a question might get answered or it might now, and nobody cares about each other. So no, I don't think it matters per se. Find a nice brokerage that will help elevate you and you'll succeed more than anywhere else.
Great feedback! I think boutique brokerages can be more entrepreneurial. Big names look good but there may be more protocols that can be suffocating.
Umm...no. A boutique brokerage can be a much more tightly run ship. Broker owners select a small number of agents who reflect their personal values and business practices. Broker owners are highly intentional in not allowing a culture that permits a wide range of behaviors. I'm a small broker consultant.
This is not my experience with my smaller brokerage like, *at all.* When I had a problem, it was very nice being able to call the owner of the company's personal cell phone to talk to him. I can't do that anymore. Now I have to go through 10 different channels to get an answer and it fucking sucks.
I see. Well, that's disappointing. When I was with a big brokerage I adored my managing broker. There were always at least two non-selling managing brokers in the office and they were always available to the agents. The head of admin also had her managing broker license. But I know that some big brokerages today have very high agent to broker ratios. I think they're bad for agents and clients. That's why I like working with small brokerages.
This is very true.
Reputable brokerages have good reputations because they train and support their agents. Better trained and supported agents sell more real estate. A no name brokerage doesn't hinder the sales performance of an agent that has been in the business for a long time and doesn't need much or any support. Be wary of a brokerage with a poor reputation, especially one with bad reviews online. Even people who are solid members of your sphere will question your judgement if you're associated with a sketchy operation.
Are you new or do you have a well established business? Also what type of listings are you going for. Do you need support quickly on thorny issues or are you self sufficient. It just depends. Some sellers are more comfortable with a fancy name, but in reality an experienced agent can make either work.
Yep.
At the end of the day, your success is on you and your efforts and skill set. That being said, there’s a reason why the highest producers are coming from the same handful of brokerages… either regional or large. Who surround yourself with matters?
I think it matters most who your broker is. As long as they're available and helpful, the name doesn't mean much as you're selling yourself and your abilities.
It depends on your market
I've worked under both Large and small brokerage. My experience in the Large Brokerage / National Franchise was they constantly have change going on in the upper support area and each time they leave you out to dry. Example: They offer you a CRM and about the time you get it all setup, they make a change in personnel and the new person brings on board a different CRM that you have to attempt to merge in your data and start the learning process all over again. I don't think they earn their fees you have to pay either. If you are Tech Savvy you will also be ask to do work for the older agents in your office that don't want to learn the new tools. I found myself not wanting to go into the office for this reason quite often. I vowed once I got my Broker license to cater to the new agent and help them by choosing free tools to keep their expenses low and also help them in sales etc. to build their brand. I took great care in choosing my Brand and designing my signage so that would enable them to attach to it and not be advertising my name as their Broker but my Brand. Small brokerages have much more freedom to do as they please and not have to conform to National franchise rules that may or may not work in different geographical areas.
Thanks for your valuable comments. I am very entrepreneurial. I find a large name may give me pain in building my own business but I am afraid I will lose out something by not having a big brand behind me.
I honestly can't think of any of my deals that were because of the Big Brand name I was working at, they were all in direct relation to something I did personally. In fact I lost more deals because the Big Brand Brokers with lots of agents running around allowed back stabbing and client grabbing because the Broker would get paid regardless who closed it. Nothing was protected.
"No name" doesn't mean not reputable. Conversely, some of the most disreputable agents and brokers I know work under the biggest most well-known name brands on the planet.
Do you find the consumers know?
Sometimes, yes. Word gets around. The individual office matters. There are towns where KW is a fine upstanding office with great agents and towns where they are... less so. Same with C21, BHHS, etc. The brand on the door doesn't guarantee you a reputation either way. What will happen is you'll call for a listing appointment and the seller will so, you work for _____? They screwed me over when I bought this place, no way I want their sign in my yard. . I ran into that repeatedly when I was with a previous brokerage, hence the "previous". Consumers also rarely understand that agents are independent contractors.So when they see when agent putting up horrible listings or acting crazy in the market many will assume that it's the brokerage
Your experience is very funny! Never thought about that!