Showing Management Software


Our company just signed on with Showing Solutions
(www.showingsolutions.com). I don't know if they work in your area, but our
fees are $25 per listing unless the MLS # changes. (They have another plan
that's $25/agent/mo. for bigger offices.) For this we publish their number
in the MLS. Agents call SS to request showings. SS calls the seller for ok
of showing. SS calls the buyers agent back to confirm/decline the showing.

This is followed by an automated e-mail request for feedback sent to the
buyer's agent which when returned can be previewed by the listing agent and
then forwarded to the seller or sent directly to the seller. All for a one
time fee of $25. That's the best deal in town. We no longer have to check
voicemail every 15 minutes. It's all done for us. Plus they have an online
area to record your activities for marketing or other communications which
the seller can log into for info. If it's available in your area, it's
worth researching.

Bonnie Erickson

Staging Quotes

>It works because many Buyers...cannot visualize what it could be - they
only see what it is now - and they don't like it. Surely you've had a Buyer
say - I don't like this carpet!! <

Corny but true famous sayings of Barb Schwarz:

"If you can SMELL it...you can't SELL IT!"
"Start packing, because you ARE moving!"
"The investment in staging is less than your first price reduction."
"Detail your house like you detail your CAR!"
"Clutter EATS Equity!"
"You can't SELL it if you can't SEE it." (house hidden inside the
"landscaping"
"Buyers (and appraisers) only know what they SEE...NOT what it is GOING TO
BE!"

One of the weirdest things she said in the class was "We are not selling
HOLES!" She was talking about open toilets. But I swear I hear her saying
that every time I see the open hole of a toilet in an mls photo, and she's
right. Close that toilet before taking the picture.

Staging Befuddlement
From: "Alice Newman" <aliceanewman@cs.com>

Okay, think of this. You go into three different homes and they all look
similar. What is going to stand out to someone? I give the house some
personality if it needs a lift. I have staged houses and have had great
results. When I get a new listing, I walk through the house and look to see
what I have to work with. I ask permission to move furniture, add touches
and stage their house to sell. I've always had success when I've done this.

I am going to list a home with blue carpet everywhere. I sold the house a
few years ago to the people who will be selling it. When I first sold them
the house, the listing agent said she had a few problems selling the house
because of the blue carpet.

Have any of you out there seen a general
adverse reaction from buyers to the color of blue, especially in
wall-to-wall carpet? The seller is trying to decide whether to re-carpet or
not. It's a big house and will be expensive. They want to get top dollar
for the house.

Thank you one and all

This weblog contains resources and discussions focusing on seller representation and the key role played by those real estate professionals who have earned the prestigious SRS designation. COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. To submit a post, simply send an eMail to SRS@RealTownBlogs.com. To post a comment, simply click on the "Post A Comment" at the bottom of the post.  

Feb. 10, 2006 - Case #3-8: REALTOR® Obligation to Disclose Dual Commission Arrangements (Deleted Case #9-25 May, 1988. Revised and reinstated November, 1988 and subsequently revised May, 1989. Reaffirmed April, 1991. Transferred to Article 3 November, 1994. Revised November, 2001.)   REALTORS® A and B were members of the same Board and Participants in the Multiple Listing Service. REALTOR® A, cooperating with REALTOR® B on REALTOR® Bs listing, presented an offer to purchase signed by buyers offering the listed price, and a check for earnest money. The only contingency was a mortgage contingency, and REALTOR® A shared with REALTOR® B qualifying information about the buyers indicating there should be no problem securing a mortgage. The following day, REALTOR® B returned the offer to REALTOR® A with REJECTED written on it and initialed by the seller, and explained that the seller had accepted another offer secured by one of REALTOR® Bs sales associates. REALTOR® A inquired about the sellers reason for rejecting the full price offer with only a mortgage contingency, and what had caused the seller to accept the other offer. REALTOR® B responded that he did not know, but with equal offers, he supposed the seller would favor the offer secured by the listing broker. Later, REALTOR® A met the seller at a social event. The seller thanked him for his efforts in connection with the recent sale of the sellers home. The seller hoped REALTOR® A understood there was nothing personal in his decision, adding that the money he saved through his special agreement with REALTOR® B had been the deciding factor. When REALTOR® A asked about the special agreement, the seller explained he had signed a listing agreement for the sale of his property which authorized the submission of the listing to the Multiple Listing Service and specified a certain amount of compensation. However, the seller stated that he had also signed an addendum to the listing agreement specifying that if REALTOR® B sold the listing through his own office, a percentage of the agreed compensation would be discounted to the sellers credit, resulting in a lower commission payable by the seller. REALTOR® A filed a written complaint with the Board of REALTORS® against REALTOR® B, alleging a violation of Article 3. After its review of the complaint, the Grievance Committee requested that an ethics hearing be arranged. REALTOR® A, in restating his complaint to the Hearing Panel, said that REALTOR® Bs failure to disclose the actual terms and conditions of the compensation offered through the Board MLS resulted in concealment and misrepresentation of pertinent facts to REALTOR® A and to the prospective buyers served by REALTOR® A who had, in good faith, offered to purchase the property at the listed price with only a mortgage contingency. REALTOR® A told the Hearing Panel that if he had known the facts which were not disclosed by REALTOR® B, he could have fully and accurately informed the buyers who could have taken those facts into consideration when making their offer. As it was, said REALTOR® A, the buyers acting in good faith were deceived by facts unknown to them because they were unknown to REALTOR® A. Further, REALTOR® A said that REALTOR® Bs failure to fully disclose the true terms and conditions relating to compensation made it impossible to have a responsible relationship with REALTOR® B and make proper value judgments as to accepting the offer of compensation. REALTOR® B stated that it was his business what he charged and the Board or MLS could not regulate his charges for his services. If he wished to establish a dual commission charge by agreement with his client, that was his right, and there was no need or right of the Board or MLS to interfere. The Hearing Panel agreed that it was REALTOR® Bs right to establish his fees and charges as he saw fit, and that the Board or MLS could not and would not interfere. However, the Hearing Panel noted that his complete freedom to establish charges for his services did not relieve him of his obligation to fully disclose the real terms and conditions of the compensation offered to the other Participants of the Multiple Listing Service, and did not justify his failure to disclose the dual commission arrangement. In the case of a dual commission arrangement, the listing broker must disclose not only the existence of the special arrangement but also must disclose, in response to an inquiry from a potential cooperating broker, the differential that would result in the total commission in a cooperative transaction. The Hearing Panel concluded that by submitting a listing to the MLS indicating that he was offering a certain amount of compensation to cooperating brokers while other relevant terms and conditions were not disclosed to the other MLS Participants, he had concealed and misrepresented real facts and was in violation of Article 3 of the Code of Ethics.