The Listing Campaign That Broke the Template

There aren't too many agents who enjoy losing a listing to a competitor, particularly when they've spent three months working with an owner, conducting open homes, following up buyers and presenting offers that the vendor simply wasn't prepared to accept.

But that's exactly the situation one of our agents, Mark, found himself in recently.

After three months on the market, the owner decided to try a different agency, believing that a fresh approach and a different agent might achieve the price he was hoping for.

It's a situation most experienced agents will have encountered at some point in their careers. When a property has been sitting on the market for an extended period, it's not uncommon for competing agents to approach the owner with an alternative strategy and the suggestion that they may be able to achieve a better result.

And when an owner has spent months being told by their agent that the market isn't prepared to pay what they're hoping for, the prospect of someone offering a different opinion can be pretty appealing.

What I find particularly interesting about this story, though, isn't that Mark eventually got the listing back and sold it. It's how he responded when the owner initially decided to leave.

Mark didn't argue, become defensive or attempt to undermine the competing agent. His position was simple. He genuinely wanted the best outcome for the owner, and if another agent could achieve a higher price than he could, then he wished them every success.

I think there's an important lesson in that.

As agents, we invest an enormous amount of time and energy into our listings. When an owner decides to go elsewhere, particularly after we've done everything we believe we could have done, it's easy to take that decision personally.

But the reality is that the owner doesn't owe us their loyalty. They're making what they believe is the best decision for themselves, based on the information and circumstances in front of them.

Our job is to respect that.

In this particular case, the owner remained in contact with Mark after appointing the new agency. The property continued to sit on the market, and despite the change of agent, the result the owner was hoping for didn't materialise.

After a month, the owner contacted Mark and asked whether he would consider taking over the campaign again.

Mark agreed.

This time, however, the circumstances were different.

The owner had now experienced the market through two agencies. The feedback and buyer sentiment Mark had been communicating throughout the original campaign had been reinforced by the experience of trying a different approach.

The market conditions had now changed since the first campaign with Mark. The budget had been announced and there had been 3 interest rate rises during this time to go with it.

The property was relaunched with a new price guide that reflected where the market was actually sitting, rather than where the owner had originally hoped it would be.

Within four weeks, the property was sold.

Unfortunately, the final selling price was lower than offers Mark had presented during the first campaign.

And there's another important lesson in that.

One of the things I've learned throughout my career is that vendors don't always know what they're prepared to accept until they're actually faced with making a decision. They may have a price in mind, and they may be absolutely convinced they won't sell for anything less, but those expectations can change as circumstances and market conditions change.

That's why I believe presenting genuine offers, regardless of whether we think the owner will accept them, is such a critical part of our role.

An offer represents an opportunity at a particular point in time. It isn't a guarantee of what another buyer will be prepared to pay next week, next month or three months down the track.

Particularly in a market where buyer sentiment is softening, time can work against a vendor. The decision to reject an offer and wait for something better is still a decision, and like any decision, it carries some risk.

This isn't about suggesting owners should accept the first offer that comes along. Far from it. It's about making sure they understand the market, the opportunities available to them and the potential consequences of waiting.

It's also worth remembering that changing agents doesn't necessarily change the market.

A new agent might bring a different strategy, fresh energy or a new approach to marketing. Sometimes that makes all the difference. But ultimately, the value of a property is determined by what buyers are prepared to pay, not what an agent promises they might achieve.

When I reflect on this particular campaign, there are several lessons that stand out. The importance of accurate pricing, the value of genuine offers and the need to help owners make informed decisions in changing market conditions.

But perhaps the most important lesson has nothing to do with the eventual sale price.

It's the way Mark conducted himself when the owner decided to leave.

He didn't damage the relationship trying to prove he was right. He didn't criticise the other agent or make the owner feel uncomfortable about their decision. He simply respected their choice and continued to wish them well.

And when the owner decided to return, Mark welcomed the opportunity to help.

We spend a considerable amount of time in this industry teaching agents how to win listings, build relationships and convince owners to choose them over their competitors.

Perhaps we should spend a little more time teaching them how to lose one.

Because sometimes the true measure of an agent's professionalism isn't how they behave when they win the business.

It's how they behave when they don't.