Need to sell it like its hot, then stick with a sole mandate

It is often debated by sellers whether they should go with a sole mandate and pick a specific agent/agency or if they should broaden the field and allow multiple agencies to market their home.

From an agent’s perspective, bar the odd rare exception, there is only one winner and that is to go for the sole mandate.

This might sound obvious but there are a few good reasons why a seller should choose this type of mandate. 

The first is professional photography.

Most agencies will pay for a professional shoot which can include drone footage and low light images.

When looking at the hundreds of properties online it is essential to stand out from the rest and top quality advertising is vital. 

The second – and probably even more vital – is the relationship the seller wants to form with the agent.

From personal experience I can attest to the fact that the best relationships, and thus best results, are when I am working in partnership with a seller.

This is because we are on the same “team” and we have taken time to strategize correctly to achieve the desired outcome. 

The third is regular feedback. With a sole mandate a seller should receive feedback after every appointment and have weekly discussions on the best way forward.

None of these services are guaranteed or expected with an open mandate.

The main argument against a sole mandate is lack of competition, or that an agent might not work that hard.

At first glance this seems like a fair argument, but in reality a quality agent looks at this completely differently.

A good agent will know that she/he is totally accountable for the sale of this property and will be pulling out all the stops to get it sold, putting in the extra hours and giving the very best advice.

If the same agent has a property that is shared with 10 other agencies, there is certainly no accountability and no reason to concentrate more on that property compared with the sole mandates that that agent holds where she/he has a better chance of selling.

Of course, no one can force anyone to buy a property.

But if a sole mandate is always on the agent’s mind, they will just end up conducting more viewings and thinking more outside the box on those properties. 

Finally, a seller also has more control with a sole mandate.

The rationale?

You know who is coming into the property, there is one line of communication, fewer logistic issues and when an offer does arrive, the seller should benefit from a consistent and unbiased opinion from that agent which goes back to the better relationship that is formed with a sole mandate.

With the current Covid-19 crisis, having fewer agents to work with and fewer people physically through the door, should also enhance the appeal of a sole mandate.

Saying all this is all well and good, but do the numbers prove that there is more success with sole mandates compared to open mandates?

On average, at Seeff North Coast over the last 18 months, a sole mandate has taken 48 days for an agreement to be signed compared with 192 days for an open mandate.