It happened again this morning.  I was lining up to enter the gym right behind this lady who, like me, appeared to be struggling with pre-dawn mobility.  She got to the double doors at the 24 Hour Fitness Center in our community, pulled it open, stepped through -- and let it go. I was less than three steps behind her.  The door slammed right in my face.  Despite having seen me, she didn't even look back. Neither before, nor after.

So, topping my list of pet peeves this week:
#1  People who go through building entries and don't look behind them before they let the door slam shut.

Other pet peeves that come to mind due to their proximity to my experience in the past week (in no particular order):

• That guy who was talking loudly on his cell phone in the restaurant table next to me and my wife during dinner last weekend
  
• That kid in the movie theater who insisted on texting during the movie and all the while clueless about the distracting bright glow emanating from his seat.
  
• The punk who still finds flashing lasers at people and the theater screen funny.
  
• The self-centered automobile driver who did a dead stop on a busy 3-lane road and then proceeded to back up diagonally across two lanes causing me (on my motorcycle) and several other drivers to brake and swerve.  He did this to re-align himself with the parking lot entrance to a strip mall.
  
• Drivers who don't signal before they turn.
  
• Motorcycle riders who split lanes on the freeway.  (There's no need for it and it gives the rest of us a bad rep.)
  
• People who spit on the sidewalk.
  
• People who text while driving.
  
• That lady who was driving 10 MPH under the speed limit in the fast line while talking animatedly on her cell phone and waving her hands as she spoke.

Do any these strike a cord?

I came across a thread Stephan Swanepoel started in the Real Estate Trends group on Inman News. The subject of the thread and the title of this post were one in the same. While Stephan's article was insightful by itself, I was also intrigued by some of the comments.

In response to an underlying theme about leaving "virtual bread crumbs" as a way of establishing agent credentials, readers offered the following:

• The MLS has expanded to become a B2C ("Business-to-Consumer") medium...

• The internet hasn't really changed real estate in the sense that it remains a relationship-based business. However, what HAS changed is the nature of relationship building. That is, the internet has enabled a much faster, efficient and scalable process than previously achievable by any single marketer.

• The marginalization of the MLS will result in the marginalization of the listing agent...

• The emphasis for real estate marketing will shift from "who has the most data?" to those with more insight TO the data, expertise and local knowledge.

• "The advantage that Web 2.0 tools give is that they allow the agent or broker to establish and cultivate relationships, to create a customer experience that is positive before that customer even becomes a client."

I think that last one especially resonates with me because it relates to the "virtual bread crumb" Stephan alluded to, and the term "virtual footprints" I've used in other circles when describing the activities associated with blogging, posting comments, creating professional online profiles, establishing web sites, and so on. I've posted before on the insight gained about your virtual persona through the simple act of googling your name. The results of that search read like an online trail of footprints about where you've been/what you've done, how visible you and your business are online (or not!).

I don't necessarily agree with the comment that the emphasis will shift from who has the most data to who has more insight and local expertise. I say that not so much because I disagree with the statement, but rather that I think that shift has already happened. I also think it has always been about consumers migrating to professionals with insight and local knowledge. But that may just be due to personal biases I have about the importance of skills development, life long education and professional networking.

I wonder, though, is it really so much about online (technologies) changing traditional real estate marketing? Or can we just as well say technology, in its boader context, changes traditional real estate periodically. I mean, to the extent that the proverbial "MLS book" of old, though not an online technology was, in its own right, a technology innovation of its time; couldn't that be said to have changed "traditional real estate" as it was defined back then?

The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe that a unique aspect of online technologies (web sites, blogs, social networks, etc.) is in its enabling aspects. It enables users to be at once authors AND readers, consumers AND service providers, mentors AND mentees. It also enables the quantity and speed in which individuals touch other individuals. As for quality of touch point, I'm not so sure. Certainly I'd say online technologies enable the potential for quality touchpoints; but I think people only experience the realization of that quality at a personal/one-on-one level. To that extent I could agree it (online technologies) is efficient -- but not always -- or even "usually" -- effective.

For example, have I effectively convinced you to hire me by the simple act of posting this blog article? I'd say not. But, by virtue of the fact that (many of) you now know more about who I am than 10 minutes prior, if even marginally, makes this activity at least efficient. Especially since it didn't really cost me anything.

But, I'm just one guy who doesn't profess to have all the answers...

Thoughts?

'Seems like it's almost an everyday thing nowadays to see one news spot or another that shows an anxious homeowner talking about the distress of the current market. Many of these spots include sound bites of the homeowner sharing testimonials about the confusion he/she experienced when they originally signed loan docs... 'seems many didn't understand the details back then.

Fast forward to today, after the rates have adjusted, the higher monthly payments have come home to roost and the prospect of a foreclosure hovering on the horizon, it's not too far a stretch to imagine there being homeowners today who are similarly confused -- and fearful -- of the consequences of decisions to be made when missed payments start cropping up. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of anxiety with many homeowners looking for someone to guide them through various options. One challenge for agents is to be able to explain that process with an even mix of practicality and compassion.

I recently had the pleasure of helping bring a short sale bootcamp conducted in California from the classroom to the web. (www.CertifiedShortSalePro.com) It was refreshing to see the instructor, Jacob Swodeck, conduct the seminar from a compassionate viewpoint and the need to address the anxieties experienced by homeowners who are under the threat of foreclosure.

It really brought home the point that, while there's definitely a logical process, technical finesse and mathematical awareness that's involved (all which Jacob addresses in his seminar), we can't lose sight of the fact that first, and foremost, there are people in the details. What do you think? Should the approach be "tough love" or velvet gloves?

[Your help needed. Survey input - click here.]

The American Society for Training and Development reports that the use of technology to deliver training has consistently increased since 2001.

In the most recent State of the Industry Report from ASTD, many organizations reported turning to technology to design, deliver and manage learning and performance functions. Of the average number of hours of learning content available, technology-based delivery methods climbed to 30% by the end of 2006 from about 11.5% in 2001. Even when you break out online delivered methods from other types of technology-delivery methods (like CD-ROM, dedicated-PC, etc.) that figure has increased consistently by nearly eight percentage points from about 16% in 2001.

Not surprisingly, some of the benefits cited include: increased efficiency gains, increased reuse of content, lower costs of delivery and one that I'll add - consistency of content delivery.

So, some of us were curious, how might some of this break down for real estate agents, in general? We decided to ask you.

We'd appreciate your help by taking a short online survey. In return, I'll compile the results and post them here and on RealBlogging.

The survey is anonymous and will ask no personal or company-specific information that will identify you.

To participate, please take about 5 minutes now to take the survey by clicking here or the link at the top of this post.

I remembered an article here last month along the lines of a "what if" scenario involving possible PR opportunities for NAR if a fund were established, in part, to offset homeowner commission costs on short-sale transactions if a Realtor had been used on both the buy-side, as well as on the sell-side. Admittedly, I wasn't quite onboard with the proposal, but I remember thinking the author was on to something with the idea of a Realtor-originated fund for the purpose of giving back to the community somehow.

Charity funds are great for that sort of thing. Many local boards have 'em. But sometimes the payouts feel a bit like the old dichotomy between giving people fish and enabling them to fish on their own. Don't get me wrong, I think giving is good; it's just that enablement feels better somehow.

So it was with pleasure when I happened across news of how the Pacific West Association of Realtors (PWR) did just that. Early this year PWR turned a charity fund, along with donations from corporate sponsors and C.A.R.'s Housing Affordability fund, into a community support program that helps low income first-time home buyers get into their first home. With median home prices in Orange County, California well-surpassing the conforming loan limit, it's almost a given that a first-timer would already be in jumbo loan territory even for a smallish condo. And, given the higher lending standards today, first-time buyers is a demographic that definitely could use some help. But not only that, it's also a program that ends up being a bridge that enables the Realtor to keep the deal together and their client in the game.

As for PR? Well, there is that. But it's refreshing to see that PR didn't seem to be the main driving force when this program was thought up. But, come to think of it, it does carry a tint of that warm fuzzy feeling for Realtors giving back to the community, doesn't it? And, it also carries a lesson, which is this: have you read your local board's e-newsletter lately? ;-)

I read some unexpected comments recently following the announcement of a Southern California brokerage's recruiting campaign.

Since having heard last month about a local brokerage in our area launching a Donald Trump "apprentice-style" recruiting competition, I've checked in periodically to find out the results. The winner: Paul Benec, a practicing agent from South Orange County, California. Mr. Benec won-out in a novel five-person recruiting competition launched by the McMonigle Group, a ten-agent Newport Beach, California-based brokerage specializing in luxury estates. It was co-sponsored by Coldwell Banker Previews International.

The competition started in October with an initial pool of about 10-15 candidates. Candidates were ideally to have had agent licenses already (don't know how else they could've gotten around that and still be legally compliant with California real estate practices) but they didn't need to be seasoned agents. Candidates received training from the group and faced-off in competitions including lead gen., open houses, listing presentations, and so on. The winner would receive the "you're hired!" announcement in association with a position with the McMonigle Group.

So all that's well and good. Congratulations to Mr. Benec. But, interesting to me was that following the announcement in local media, it was soundly panned in reader comments on at least one local media blog.

I don't get that. I mean, here was a creative approach to recruitment that blended a laudable candidate selection process, mentoring and competency development (candidates received training from the brokerage as part of the competition), community job placement program (the runner-ups were to receive positions in Coldwell Banker Previews International), and PR and marketing (what a great way to publicize the competency of your staff to your clients and prospects).

But even with all that, some comments panned the announcement as a "deplorable" practice or engaged in ad hominem attacks by devaluing the broker/owner's contributions as nothing more than having married into a rich family. For my part, I think such comments fall somewhere between sour grapes and "jelly beans" (a phrase coined by a friend meaning jealousy.)

I've always been an advocate for higher/more selective professional recruiting standards for our industry. Especially when you think about agents representing assets that amounts to the biggest investment many consumers will make in their lifetime.

I applaud Mr. McMonigle and Coldwell Banker for this creative approach to a candidate selection process that rises well above the common practice of "mirror testing." (Uh, that is, place a mirror under a candidate's nose to see if fog forms indicating a living/breathing body.)

Congratulations, Mr. Benec! And to Mr. McMonigle, keep at it, keep raising that bar!

I've conducted webinars, meetings and presentations -- including listing presentations -- online before.

So my interest piqued when I saw Google's rollout of the Presentations feature set for Google Docs. It was announced back in April but it was bantered about much earlier than that.

In case you're just tuning in to this, Google Docs is the new and improved version of what was previously "Google Docs & Spreadsheets." The addition of the Presentation feature allows users to collaborate on the creation of a PowerPoint-type presentations, pick themes, upload existing presentations, create new ones, and so on.

My interest in it was in the Publishing feature and how it might enhance presentations to/with more technology savvy prospects and clients. (An increased number of my customers today are accustomed to the use of online tools like Webex, GoToMeeting and corporate versions of NetMeeting as they use these tools themselves in meetings at companies they work for. Besides, who wants to be subjected to the abuse of airline customer service anyways?)

Having seen it, I don't think it would be my presentation tool of choice for conducting live online presentations with a client. (So called, synchronous presentations.) But, I can see some rich applicability for agents and staging professionals, say, to publish (asynchronous) presentations to which they can provide links that can easily be placed on a web site, blog, e-mails, signature lines, etc.

In an earlier post, I talked about SlideShare.net as a medium for getting presentations online and then placing a smaller view of the presentation itself as an embedded object on a web site or blog. I haven't yet seen a similar feature on Google Doc's Presentation feature. (If any of you have, please post a comment and let us know where or how.) But, as mentioned above, it does have the ability publish a link back to the presentation.

To be sure I'm still big on GoToMeeting for the richness of the control I can have in a live online presentation. But, I can see practical applications for Google Doc's Presentation feature as another way of getting the word out about our products, services, testimonials.

I'd love to hear comments from you about your experience with online presentations and some of the tools you find effective.

In the meantime, if you're new to GoogleDocs, here's a video overview.

That sentence doesn't make sense. But it's apparently grammatically correct. Go figure.

I came across it while reading Gwyneth Dwyer's post about "Junk-mail gems." Somehow I never considered "junk mail" and "gems" to jibe in the same sentence. But she makes an interesting case for using junk as a source of inspiration. (!)

You probably remember these spam headlines. If even just vaguely registering in your subconscious just before you pressed the delete key.

• Got a second
• Still working on it
• Grand message, you must read

Now, before you jump all over me for condoning junk mail. (Whaaat?!)  I'm not.  It's a sort of non sequitur, I suppose.  But when you think about it, inspiration can hit from places we didn't think to look.  Am I right? So, I guess, why not junk mail.

And to think, I've apparently had this automatically-generating, self-updating ideas database all along and I've just been deleting it.  Huh. Go figure.

- Mel

I woke up on the morning of August 22nd, 2007.

I looked through the window.

What was that...?! It was just a glimpse but unmistakable.

I saw it.  The word, "Kill".

I'm normally loathe to follow the crowd into a scene. But I was compelled. I had to see what the commotion was about.

My god! It had just happened! Already there were 36 people milling about. They were all talking and commenting about what was in front of them.

Talking and commenting...

Then I smiled.

They were commenting... and posting.

That Jeff. He did it again. A compelling topic with lively debate.

Jeff Turner's recent post "Will Video Kill the Virtual Tour?" is generating some great dialog. Realtors, stagers, video tour vendors, virtual tour vendors, are weighing in on the merits of video and virtual tours. Jeff's hypothesis: Video will not kill good virtual tours. And he poses three key reasons: Quality; Cost; Ease and Flexibility. (Okay, wasn't that technically four key reasons? 'Doesn't matter, he's on a roll.)

And before you start thinking so, let me dispel any thought about me being Jeff's secret publicist. I'm not.

The topic's relevance to my line of work as an instructional and content designer using web video to make my points is what pulled me in.  That and my interest in great dialog. To me, that means well-reasoned and even-keeled debate with minimal finger-pointing and no burning agendas. I didn't say "no agendas." Just not the burning kinds that exclude all others in championing one position. You know the type. It's refreshing not to see that with so many comments. (Ninety-four at last count. And in the first day.)

Some of my favorites:

For the record: My take on it? As I commented in the thread,

"...I personally prefer video for the flexibility I think it gives me to control pace and range of emotion... I think videos, virtual tours, and still photos are all different tools... (But,) Like real estate, each has value when used for a particular purpose.... the highest and best use for each media is its most profitable (ROI), physically possible (skill; equipment; ability), and legally permissible use. Using each tool with these principles in mind can make a pretty compelling value proposition to a client...."

I'm looking forward to "part 2," as Jeff has promised there would be one.  I'm hoping to see more discussion about whether or not others see where we might sometimes confuse the technology with the purpose.  What I mean is, often I see video technology being used in video tours where the content isn't too far removed from panning/narrated still shots.  If that were the case, why not just use a virtual tour?  A better story can be told with Stills using a good VT tool.  But, now tell a dynamic, rolling story about the property, its neighborhood, its history, the community...

I'd be interested in seeing more examples where video is used to tell more of a compelling back story of both the property and its community, rather than panning/narrative "static videos" of the property, square footage, bathrooms, bedrooms...  The power of the video is in the flexibility it has in telling a story (or multiple stories) with a wider range of emotive content in the same space. (Thoughts...?)

Mel

Sis and I were shootin’ the breeze the other evening.  She’s the Operations lead for a small company.  They’re growing fast.  They’ve got a pretty impressive online model for training aspiring animators.  If you think: “Toy Story,” “Nemo,” “Monsters, Inc.,” you’d be in the ballpark about what animators do. 

Anyway, so our chat turns to all the stuff that’s going on in each of our businesses.  Specifically, when you’re growing a business with so many seemingly promising opportunities, how do you know which ones to go after?  I mean, with limited time and resources, right?  Which do you give serious consideration of your time to invest your precious few bucks?

It was a great chat.  I was able to share some things about my current gig, as well as others I’ve worked in the past during my “corporate tours.”  But I also remember, thinking, gosh, this is also kinda like, y’know, when I was running my real estate business.  Geez, a week wouldn’t go by when I wasn’t bombarded with some new service, or other:  web sites, cold calling services, lead generation sites, FSBO scripts, marketing lists, SEO services, power books and yes, even services from my company touting online training and designation courses.

My take on it was that this was the kind of stuff that gives importance to having an articulated vision.  That is, what statement could you write that describes what your business will look like in, say, 3-7 years?

But, not only that.  It’s important, too, to take time to draft a similarly written statement about what is it that your business does today.  What are you about?

We talked about the difference between a vision statement and a mission statement.  And, how these two play together to define a direction for  growth.  Armed with that picture of “what my business does today” and another of “my business tomorrow,” day-to-day decisions, while still difficult, will at least have some additional context.  One investment may or may not make sense depending on whether or not it fits with the picture of “my business in the future."  My point to her being, if we only have a vague picture of what we want to be when we “grow up,” we  risk wasting precious time and resources on decisions made today.

Then I was just curious:  I know the big corporate guys often puff-on about their “vision” and what their “mission” is.  Leave alone for a moment the idea of “core values” and whether or not they actually include these things in their strategic decisions.  Some do it better than others. 

But outside of the corporate world, I was wondering what the take is from some of us in smaller businesses.  Is the mission-, vision-thing a tool for decision making in smaller businesses?  Or is it just a tired ‘ol mantra that corporations use to puff up their annual reports and shareholder brochures?

Just curious.