To both Jeff and Daniel — I’m sorry, but to say the series wasn’t built around the premise that agents are making more money than deserved on a commission model is a bit disingenuous. (Please don’t try and tell a 20-year journalist that stories and series don’t begin with a hook. I know better.)

Are you trying to co-opt the commission discussion because you think agents make too little? Hardly.

What you did was give voice to those folks trying to push their alternative model as the necessary evolution when it’s anything but. Which is cool. Let them have their day if you so choose. Doesn’t impact me or my business.

There’s no more need to “discuss different compensation models” than there is to discuss the salaries of Inman employees.

> How can an industry participate in an open dialogue when it’s happening behind closed doors. It’s not open, collaborative or transparent. It’s something else.

What I earn is NOT a public debate. No open dialogue is needed because there is no set commission rate. The public has a voice in that they either can hire me or they won’t. It’s their call.

What I earn on any given transaction is between my clients and I. I need to be transparent to them. I don’t need to be transparent to you any more than you’re required to disclosure what Inman pays you.

If you can’t see that, if you can’t see the double standard in play in attempting to make others’ earnings a public issue when it shouldn’t be, there’s not much more to discuss.

Ditto for you, my friend. I wish we could have spent more time together in SF last year. That is a problem will must rectify in August.

Perhaps we can share a drink, and we can have a talk about the death of the subscription news model, a demise I feel has been greatly exaggerated. And who knows, we might even talk about real estate. . .

Amen, back to earning my dough-ray-me-and-you-and-us.

I’ve attended Connect and I’ve followed the blog for years. I’m looking forward to attending this year as well. True, the networking, bright ideas and varied perspectives all add to the value proposition. I’m a buyer.

The Truth About Real Estate Compensation rings hollow and I’m not a buyer – here’s why.

Everyone has right to start and join a conversation about compensation. I believe the tone of the conversation is set by the angle of the questions asked. Inman focus is not on why agents/brokers should make more, it’s on why consumers should pay less. It’s a hot topic, controversial and creates buzz and hopefully sell subscriptions. Clearly the implication isn’t that the industry is underpaid. I’m half joking, but how about an expose, Letters To The Editor on the death of subscription news models?

I can defend what our brokerage charges and the value we deliver….we do it every day in the field, with the people who employ and pay us. If we couldn’t, we’d be out of business. We’re not.

Additionally, if the information/contributions/letters to the editor was set free for all to see and comment on it would appear more sincere. As far as I can see, to read the material requires a subscription.

How can an industry participate in an open dialogue when it’s happening behind closed doors. It’s not open, collaborative or transparent. It’s something else.

I’m not hating, I simply disagree with the approach and the proposition.

Inman isn’t trying to advocate for one compensation model or another. Inman is merely trying to provide a forum in which the profession can have an open, honest discussion about different compensation models with the idea that we all have something we can learn from the each other.

We all know that the real estate industry isn’t exactly in the best shape. While everyone else is talking about reducing costs, now is the perfect time to talk about adding value. The “revamping real estate commissions” series is a way for real estate professionals to come together and discuss different compensation models and how they can best showcase the value of real estate professionals to the consumer.

Sure, everyone isn’t going to agree on what works and what doesn’t; but the hope is that by coming together as an industry and discussing differing viewpoints, techniques, and strategies, everyone will walk away with increased knowledge and greater value. I think that the value of open discussion and crowdsourcing of difficult subjects is something that we can all benefit from, a benefit that the crew here at AG knows firsthand.

I can’t ever think of a time that Brad, personally, or the Inman organization, have ever taken the position that real estate professionals are overcompensated.

One of the purposes of the “revamping real estate commissions” series is to have an open discussion about the compensation model in the profession. Articles have featured professionals and compensation models of all different stripes. If the outcome of the discussion is that the prevailing compensation model is the best possible solution, that’s great.

That does not mean, however, that we should avoid having the conversation just because there are those who would take it as a personal affront to their income earning ability.

I’m a real estate professional, too. A debate about the commission compensation model is an opportunity for me to defend my value and the way in which I do business. If I can’t defend it to the point that it is a viable business strategy, then it is obviously time for me to find a better way forward.

As we all know, there are times when our industry needs some prodding towards innovation and discovery of new models/strategies/tactics that are beneficial not only to the professionals, but to the consumers as well. I see no reason why compensation should be looked at any differently than subjects such as agency or technology.

I’ve got a proposition for you…

Judging by the comments you frequently post about the content of our conferences, it seems it may have been a while since you’ve actually attended one.

So, I’m willing to give you a free pass to the Connect SF event in August.

My only condition is that you have to try to find ANY of our speakers or panelists that say ANYTHING even remotely close to the things you say they do. For example in your last comment “…explaining why the world is ending and why we, the folks who paid, aren’t worth what we earn.”

Find something along those lines, remember who said it, and what session it was (We’re recording the sessions now, so I will be able to verify it) and you’ll have your proof to continue saying whatever you want.

But, if you can’t find something along those lines, you’ll do a blog post with a full public apology to Inman News retracting your comments about how we’re so “anti Realtor”.

Sound fair?