A common discussion these days amongst Realtors and consumers alike is full-service vs. limited-service brokerages. There's no shortage of such discussions here on Active Rain either. I recently read an article in Realtor Magazine and on their website, stating some interesting stats on this subject and thought I'd share them.

According to a 2006 NAR survey, 83 percent of sellers use full-service brokerages and 9 percent use limited-service brokerages. The remaining are selling FSBO. The article went on to say that 71 percent of sellers were "very satisfied" with their full-service experience and another 24 percent were "somewhat satisfied." The limited-service brokers also scored high rankings, with 76 percent being "generally satisfied." The other statistic noted is that 50 percent of sellers using minimal-service brokerages were "dissatisfied" with their experience.

This is a very small part of the overall article's statistics but what I found interesting is that much of what's been discussed here on Active Rain is validated by these particular statistics. It's clear that the full-service brokerages are still capturing the majority of the business but aren't necessarily doing as much as they should to keep that trend alive. With only 71% of sellers being very satisfied, and 24% being somewhat satisfied, there is obviously room for improvement. Whereas, it could be argued that the limited-service brokers are doing a little better job of pleasing the client.

When reading the amazing posts we see here on Active Rain, it's clear that the majority of this community is made up of like-minded professionals who truly believe in going that extra mile to make the sellers' experience stellar. However, I personally know more "full-service" agents who fall far short of that mark on a regular basis than I'd like to admit. The real question in my mind is, if there really is a difference in the amount of effort being exerted by the full-service agents, versus the amount exerted by the limited-service agents, why? Is it due to the training that those agents receive? Is it caused by the "little brother" complex; driving the limited-service agents to do more to prove themselves?

I see many full-service agents complaining about the limited-service agents, yet not doing anything extra to prove themselves to their clients. Shouldn't they be working harder to prove their worth?