EP
To get back to your points its not RDFN but rather the whole industry.
6% at least in this market and to my knowledge most has not been the rule for about 15 years. I wish people would stop using that as it hasnt existed for a very long time as the standard. Most total commissions fall between 4 and 5% which has been supported by higher prices as you surmise.
The technology they have we all have access to. They have a wonderful sticky consumer facing app but other than that have no technology we all dont have ready access to.
Technology provided buyers and sellers far more information that was previously available only to brokers but it was Zillow more than anyone who was responsible for that and it too happened well over a decade ago.
The description you posted of what they offer sounds like it was written by some RDFN marketing guy. Its a sales pitch not reality.
Virtual tours have helped increase exposure but it happened a decade ago and is being refined by independent tech companies. Why would the developer of a great technology license it solely to a single market participant with under 10% market share at a enterprise price when they can sell it to the entire market at higher prices?
What virtual tours help most with is ruling out buyers the home would not work for. In the end there is no substitute for walking in and around a home. Viewing a home in person creates visceral reactions, you feel the home when you are there. You can see how the home was cared for, you can feel whether there is a breeze or not out back, how the sun hits your yard, the activity or noise in the neighborhood and so much more. For this reason buying online will never be a perfect substitute for seeing a home in person.
Comparisons to travel, newspapers, autos, movies, books and stocks fall short because those are all essentially homogenous goods. Everyone who buys one of those gets the same thing. In your language they are perfect subsitutes for each other. Homes are all unique. Everyone is different. Two homes with the same floorplan in the same community across the street from each other can be dramatically different. Your experience with a newspaper or movie lasts a couple hours. A book a couple days and a car a few years. A house can be your home for decades. They just arent the same and the purchase decision is far more complex with the legal aspects of real estate ownership and lending.
RDFN has created an assembly line doing what everyone else does but in an inferior manner with hopes of achieving economies of scale on their side. The experience always comes down to the individual agent (as Svelte pointed out above in his negative experiences) whether it is with them or someone else.
ZG is another story. They actually changed the process giving consumers access to information but they are not primarily in the business of buying/selling real estate. That has changed slightly and could in the future but presently their business is building an audience with information that allows them to sell advertising to realtors and lenders.
The process has and will continue evolving but it is not RDFN leading that change. The business of selling real estate is also nowhere near as profitable as the general public perceives it to be and participants are paid on a contingency basis. Consumers are not willing to pay upfront for our time which could lower total costs. The only true way to lower costs would be single agency which means buying directly from the seller or the listing agent. Having expereince with the morality of people in general when selling their homes and realtors specifically this would be fraught with risk for buyers and would not be a better system IMO
