Jason Massengale

• Manage |RSSReal Estate Info For Investors
• Manage |RSSReal Estate Marketing 2.0

You're right on the money Bernice. Ideally, an agent should have a separate website for every neighborhood they work in. The problem is that it's too darned expensive and it's too complicated for most agents to get going using the services currently available. As for marketing: old-school proven tactics like "providing value first then asking for the sale" still work - even if you don't make it about you personally. If agents take the time to figure out what the consumers really want, then help them get there (without commitment or obligation), they'll have a lot more success with their marketing. The beautiful thing about the marketing strategy you suggest is that they can fine tune the "what local consumers want" to very specific niche markets. This became such a big deal for the team I work with, we designed our own system for creating multiple quality websites focused on specific niches. It's really inexpensive and works great. If anyone wants to see how we're doing it, you can email me at jmassengale[at]kw[dot]com.

Great information and resources Bernice. I disagree with the 95-5 rule though - mostly based on the people I follow. It's different for everyone, but I really could care less about their personal lives. I choose people to follow based on how much useful information they share (a.k.a. business stuff). If I'm interested in buying or selling a house in an area, I'd follow the Realtor that tweets about stuff in the area. What are the market conditions like, what's the average sale price, what should I be concerned about with certain areas. The tweeter that only tweets his/her new listings is wasting time. That's where I say the 95% comes in. Make it 95% useful in your business & 5% self-promoting. That'll generate a much more relevant tweetbase.

I'm with you Barrett, saying print is dead, the internet is the only way to go was taking it a little far. Eventually though, the majority of print as we know it will die. I don't see today's hand-held devices replacing home computers ever. Don't get me wrong, I love iPhone. I love the fact that we don't need to plan before going somewhere - no checking email first - no getting directions - no finding favorite restaurants ahead of time - and the list goes on. When I'm at home though & I get to choose between 3200px of screen width vs the 480px from iPhone, it's the home computer that wins every time. Contrary to the author's opinion, I see things going to larger screens - eventually consuming entire walls in average households. Small screens are in natural opposition to our eyes and the way they scan everything we look at before resting and bouncing to the next object. The small screen requires conscious thought and action before our eyes are allowed to focus where they want. Our brains and eyes are never going to be happy having to wait for us to respond.