Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Key Takeaways
Real estate is still one of the last fully bundled services left in a major industry, but the NAR settlement this spring is changing that, whether anyone intended that or not. The industry keeps fighting over whether agents will survive technology, but that’s the wrong question to ask. The real question is what level of service each consumer needs for their specific deal. For about two decades, the real estate industry has talked about itself like it’s in the middle of a war. Agents vs.
technology. Full commission vs. flat fee. For-sale-by-owner (FSBO) vs. full service. Every few years, a new headline declares that agents are about to go extinct, technology is about to make the profession obsolete and the old model is finally cracking. None of that has actually happened, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
Consumers were never asking the question the industry kept arguing about. Nobody wakes up wondering whether real estate agents should exist as a category. They wake up wondering how much help they actually need for the specific situation in front of them. That’s a completely different question, and it’s the one the industry has mostly ignored while it kept refighting the same fight.
Here’s the part that should embarrass everyone still arguing about FSBO. It’s at an all time low. Last year, 5% of home sales had no agent involved at all, down from over 20% in the ’80s, and 91% of sellers used an agent.
More Read
If the future of real estate were really about consumers ditching agents entirely, the data would show some version of that happening. It shows the opposite. People are not rejecting professional help.
What’s actually shifting is something quieter and more interesting: how much help, and which parts of it, people want to pay for. Real estate is finally catching up to everyone else
Real estate is still one of the last fully bundled services left in a major industry.
More Read
When you hire an agent, you’re typically buying a pricing strategy, MLS access, negotiation, marketing, paperwork and advice as one inseparable package, whether you need all of it or not. Most other industries went through this exact transition years ago. Travel agents used to be the only way to book a trip.
Now you can do everything yourself, hire someone for the complicated parts or use a hybrid service depending on what the trip requires. Investing went the same direction. You can manage your own portfolio, pay a flat fee for specific advice or hand the whole thing to a full-service advisor. Tax prep splits the same way. Real estate has been one of the slowest industries to unbundle, mostly because the transaction itself has stayed so structurally complicated that full service felt like the only safe option for most people. That’s actually changing, and the National Association of Realtors settlement accelerated it, whether anyone intended that or not. Buyer-agent commissions are now negotiated individually instead of baked silently into the deal, and sellers are no longer required to cover them automatically.
Flat fee MLS listings, hourly consultations and à la carte services are becoming real options rather than fringe ones. None of this is eliminating the agent relationship; it’s just giving people more entry points into how much of it they actually want. Good agents win when consumers get more options
Here’s where the conversation gets a little uncomfortable for some agents and a little exciting for others. The agents who are nervous about unbundling are usually the ones whose value was tied up in tasks that technology was always going to make easier: scheduling showings, generating comps, formatting paperwork, etc. Those things were never really the reason a good agent was worth the money. The agents who thrive when consumers get more options are the ones whose actual value was always negotiation, judgment under pressure, local market knowledge that doesn’t show up in an algorithm and the ability to walk a stressed-out buyer or seller through a decision that’s bigger than almost anything else they’ll do financially. Unbundling doesn’t threaten that kind of expertise — it clarifies it.
When a consumer can choose exactly which services they’re paying for, the services that are genuinely hard to replicate become more obviously valuable, not less. This is where I’d point to something like Ownli, the flat-fee real estate platform built around the idea that consumers shouldn’t have to choose between affordability and real representation. The traditional model ties commission to home price, so two nearly identical transactions can cost wildly different amounts for the same basic work. And it’s not about stripping services down to a menu; it’s about making the cost of good representation transparent and predictable instead of opaque and percentage-based. Consumers don’t actually want less help. They want to know what they’re paying for and why, and they want that price to reflect the actual work involved rather than an arbitrary cut of their home’s value. That’s not anti-agent.
It’s pro-consumer in a way that, if anything, makes good agents more valuable by forcing the market to compete on transparency and real service instead of legacy pricing nobody questions. The industry keeps fighting over whether agents will survive technology. That’s the wrong question, and the data already answered it. The real question — the one actually shaping where this market is headed — is what level of service each consumer needs for their specific deal.
Real estate spent decades as one of the only major service industries that hadn’t figured out how to answer that question flexibly. It’s starting to now. The agents and platforms that understand the difference are going to be in a much stronger position than the ones still arguing about a war that consumer behavior already settled. Key Takeaways
Real estate is still one of the last fully bundled services left in a major industry, but the NAR settlement this spring is changing that, whether anyone intended that or not.
The industry keeps fighting over whether agents will survive technology, but that’s the wrong question to ask. The real question is what level of service each consumer needs for their specific deal. For about two decades, the real estate industry has talked about itself like it’s in the middle of a war.
Agents vs. technology. Full commission vs. flat fee.
For-sale-by-owner (FSBO) vs. full service. Every few years, a new headline declares that agents are about to go extinct, technology is about to make the profession obsolete and the old model is finally cracking. None of that has actually happened, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
Consumers were never asking the question the industry kept arguing about. Nobody wakes up wondering whether real estate agents should exist as a category. They wake up wondering how much help they actually need for the specific situation in front of them. That’s a completely different question, and it’s the one the industry has mostly ignored while it kept refighting the same fight. Here’s the part that should embarrass everyone still arguing about FSBO. It’s at an all time low.
