3 ms·

In their minds, if they do not have contact info they do not own the relationship. If the broker has that, the broker owns the relationship. Making an offer thr

by Kalium 4y ago

In their minds, if they do not have contact info they do not own the relationship. If the broker has that, the broker owns the relationship. Making an offer through a broker means making an offer where they do not own the relationship. In short - you are defining control differently than they do and coming to a different conclusion. You can do that, but expect vendors to be unmoved by it.

klyrs 4y ago
I think 6510 was proposing that the broker would present the smorgasbord of offers to the client, and after the client selects an offer, the lender would get the client's contact information. The lender would own their relationship after the client consents to that solitary relationship.
- Kalium 4y ago
  I understood what 6510 was proposing. My point is that the lenders consider this to be them not owning the relationship and it requires the broker to do all the CRM work. Neither sees the smorgasbord approach as good for them. Could it be done that way? Sure! This just comes with the caveat that finding lenders willing to do it might be harder and they would likely pay less per-lead. So a higher volume would be required to make financial ends meet for the broker, who also is now developing and deploying more sophisticated software in addition to the whole sales funnel and marketing operation. You may be thinking "Gee, this is great for everyone except the customer". Yes, it is. It sucks for the customer who gets spammed by a dozen lenders.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Right. Lenders and brokers want to exploit the customer for maximum profits. They do not want to respect customers, because they might make a little less money and it might take a bit more effort. The customer does not like that behavior, but an unregulated market rewards the worst actors so the customer cannot find what they would really want and is forced to settle. The FCC is supposed to protect the customer and regulate the market in this situation.
  - 6510 4y ago
    It would filter down the leads to a much smaller number of much greater quality (as people showed an interest in their specific product and access to their info is more exclusive) The budget would stay the same as would the number of customers. I think they should welcome the money saved on competitive harassment. You kinda had to do it because everyone else was doing it.
JohnFen 4y ago
> expect vendors to be unmoved by it. There's a large part of me that doesn't care what the vendors think. Their attitude toward potential customers is a not insignificant part of the problem.

by Kalium 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

I think 6510 was proposing that the broker would present the smorgasbord of offers to the client, and after the client selects an offer, the lender would get the client's contact information. The lender would own their relationship after the client consents to that solitary relationship.

Kalium 4y ago
I understood what 6510 was proposing. My point is that the lenders consider this to be them not owning the relationship and it requires the broker to do all the CRM work. Neither sees the smorgasbord approach as good for them. Could it be done that way? Sure! This just comes with the caveat that finding lenders willing to do it might be harder and they would likely pay less per-lead. So a higher volume would be required to make financial ends meet for the broker, who also is now developing and deploying more sophisticated software in addition to the whole sales funnel and marketing operation. You may be thinking "Gee, this is great for everyone except the customer". Yes, it is. It sucks for the customer who gets spammed by a dozen lenders.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Right. Lenders and brokers want to exploit the customer for maximum profits. They do not want to respect customers, because they might make a little less money and it might take a bit more effort. The customer does not like that behavior, but an unregulated market rewards the worst actors so the customer cannot find what they would really want and is forced to settle. The FCC is supposed to protect the customer and regulate the market in this situation.
- 6510 4y ago
  It would filter down the leads to a much smaller number of much greater quality (as people showed an interest in their specific product and access to their info is more exclusive) The budget would stay the same as would the number of customers. I think they should welcome the money saved on competitive harassment. You kinda had to do it because everyone else was doing it.

JohnFen 4y ago

> expect vendors to be unmoved by it. There's a large part of me that doesn't care what the vendors think. Their attitude toward potential customers is a not insignificant part of the problem.