Talk:OnTheMarket

Conflict of Interest

It ill behoves you, HarkenMotet, to remove content you dislike from this article. You very clearly have a conflict of interest. One of the hazards of trying to use wikipedia to promote your product is that others will add information you do not like.

Please go and read WP:COI and henceforth please DO NOT EDIT THIS ARTICLE. Please make any suggestions for change on the talk page. Such suggestions may or may not be adopted by neutral editors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and previous contributions to this article Tagishsimon. Your previous updates have all remained within the article, it was only the ‘lead summary’ that I removed as it was no longer relevant given the more recent numbers I had researched and referenced. I had also found and referenced the .Gov website article directly for the CMA content you added, however this has subsequently been relegated to the External Link section, which feels wrong in the context of the article - surely a more authoritative source? My last revision was not written as promotional content, I had used your research and updates (thanks) in what I felt was a more balanced and neutral way. The article now infers a direct issue between the CMA and onthemarket, although as you rightly say, that is not the case. I would like to suggest that this article be rolled-back to the previous revision (747445896) and would welcome a review by a neutral editor. --HarkenMotet (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HarkenMotet.

I think the sentences in the lead are still relevant ... even with the updated view figures, OTM is still an order of magnitude down on its largest competitor.

I said in the edit summary that the CMA had not warned OTM, but reference 5 does make a connection between OTMs business model and the behaviour of client estate agents - see the section "So, what's the deal with the portals?" in [1]. Leads summarise the article; I thought it reasonable to say in the lead "OnTheMarket's business model has led to a Competition and Markets Authority warning" as a summary of the later "All estate and lettings agents joining OnTheMarket.com commit to list all their properties at OnTheMarket.com and a maximum of one other competing property website. This feature of the site had led to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warning estate agents against colluding to damage the business of other property portals."

Per WP:PSTS we have a preference for secondary over primary sources, which is why I relegated the CMA press release to an external link, and used ref 5 - The Telegraph article which I think you removed entirely - to underpin the CMA section.

It may be that Graeme Bartlett might be kind enough to consider the current state of the article and advise? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did have an editing accident where I put back some material that you removed, and then accidentally edited an earlier version and reverted my change. But I will have a look as it was actually putting some balance to point of view. We don't have to include every published criticism as that will make it non-neutral in the opposite way to promotion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Lead Changes

Remove the following sentence from the current lead section:

OnTheMarket's business model has led to a Competition and Markets Authority warning, and to legal wranglings with client companies; the number of visitors to the portal lags behind its leading competitor by an order of magnitude.

As mentioned by Tagishsimon and outlined in the open letter to estate agents - the CMA had not warned Onthemarket, rendering this statement incorrect and misleading. It is better represented in full within the Operations section of the current article. Likewise, the latest visit figures (referenced) would no longer mean OnTheMarket is 'behind by an order of magnitude.' This is a redundant phrase and unnecessary because the traffic metrics are mentioned in a much fuller description lower down.

If traffic metrics are useful to the article, it might also be worth mentioning the relative growth over time? Rightmove has been in operation 16 years, Zoopla for eight and Onthemarket less than 2 years. --HarkenMotet (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "behind" does not belong to lede regardless lagging now or not. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "CMA had not warned Onthemarket <...> misleading" - I may see how you see it is misleading, but I fail to see it incorrect. The warning was a consequence of OnTheMarket practice, which created a "lucky opportunity" to dig the competitors in. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your updates and additions Staszek Lem, much appreciated. Can I suggest adopting the following alternative final sentence to introduce the 'one other portal rule’ in the lead, using this Wall Street Journal article as a reference:

OnTheMarket.com’s ‘one other portal rule’ was established to disrupt the UK property portal market which is dominated by two players.

--HarkenMotet (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"was established to", i.e., the intentions, must be phrased with attribution, either to site owners as a statement of fact about their intentions, or to the commenters, as a statement of opinion. I don't think this singular fact belongs to the lede, the latter being article summary. Of course almost any startup aims at something disruptive: either to grab a chunk of existing market or to create a new market. But in order to disrupt a market you must offer something really attractive. the described trick alone would not "disrupt" anything, if the product is lousy. Therefore the suggested statement does not describe the state of the affairs properly. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about intentions with my previous revision, thanks Staszek Lem. I do still think their entry to market is valid though and found this report on Rightmove by investment bank Morgan Stanley outlining that Onthemarket would be a “non-issue” if it weren’t for the exclusivity clause. Accordingly, here's a recommended revision to the lead statement:

OnTheMarket members signed up to a 'one other portal' rule as a measure they saw as necessary for the portal to enter the UK market, which is overwhelmingly dominated by two players.

--HarkenMotet (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you cited from Morgan Stanley does not speak about Onthemarket. Wrong link? Regardless, you missed the major point: the lede in wikipedia is a summary of the article text, not of what's there in the internets. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,sorry Staszek Lem. That was the wrong link here is the correct story from Morgan Stanley. --HarkenMotet (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operations Section

The CMA does not mention anything about making it harder for sellers to sell their homes, so the second part of this sentence is incorrect.

This feature of the site had led to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warning estate agents against colluding to damage the business of other property portals, as well as to make it harder for sellers to sell their home, since the majority of buyers still visit the earlier established portals.

Remove final statements to complete sentence as follows:

This feature of the site had led to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warning estate agents against colluding to damage the business of other property portals. --HarkenMotet (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel right to be referencing a direct competitor head of PR for a neutral perspective here, can this be removed?

Zoopla PR head commented that this model creates a conflict of interest between sellers and their agents, since it essentially restricts what sellers want: maximum exposure of the property.--HarkenMotet (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "harder to sell" - My bad; improper merge of statements. Split.

re: :conflict interest" - (1) Zoopla pR was cited by BBC, who considered it to be a valid remark. (2) I see it reasonable as well, because it is not just saying their rival is bad, it presents an argument, which is valid regardless who uttered it. (3) With respect to opinions about market, Zoopla has the same say as OnTheMarket. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OnTheMarket shill alert! NilBill (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]