News

Main article content

I’m working on an interesting consulting assignment for a high-end real estate company that is struggling to figure out what the brand stands for.  This company has a strong presence at the top end of its market and the owners have split into two distinct camps.  Camp one feels that the brand’s association with the top-end is a liability for the majority of the market.  They cite numerous cases where clients have not called in this company because it was perceived as being too expensive.   By their logic, the company needs to grow market share at the lower end of the market to build volume and support new sales staff. The upper end is profitable on a per listing basis, but it doesn’t have the volume to support a growing firm.

Camp two sees the world very different.  Camp two sees the strength of the brand at the top end as an asset.  By their logic, the prestige of the brand may lose some listings, but these lost opportunities will be more than made up for by higher prices on won listings and consistent opportunities based on consumers being attracted to the power of the brand.  They see the prestigious nature of the high-end listings as a drawcard for the rest of the market.

So who’s right?  It’s a problem that I’m working through for a presentation at the end of February.  I’ve got analogies to other luxury brands flying everywhere from both sides and while I’m not ready to present my findings, it’s going to be a contentious issue no matter what the decision is.