Talk:RE/MAX/Archives/2014

Untitled

One topic worth researching is how remax became as successful as it did. I suspect this is because they were one of the first '100% houses', if not THE first. This means the remax office charges a flat monthly desk fee to its agents instead of taking a % cut of the commission (as was the norm for real estate brokerages at the time remax was founded). This in turn encouraged top producing realtors to to join remax since the net commissions they would have at year end would be many times higher since a % cut wasn't being taken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.249.7 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are quite correct, except that RE/MAX was not the first to go 100%. Realty Executives, an Arizona-based company did that. However, RE/MAX' expansion was predicated on the 100% concept. In spite of monthly "desk fees" and shared expenses (the "pure" RE/MAX concept would have everything shared), an agent selling over $3million of real estate a year and receiving 3% of that in income less fees to the office (which include an "ad fund" for generic RE/MAX ads on TV and elsewhere) will earn more than a typical agent in a brokerage where starting agents receive 45% and move up to about 80% - but over quite a long period, and only if you're doing way more than $3 million.....

Vivaverdi, a RE/MAX agent for 13 years

Inclusion of links to all RE/MAX regions

As with many other real estate realted sites, (e.g. Flat fee MLS; Real estate broker, etc) there is a tendancy to include a number of links to purely regional RE/MAX sites which are self-promoting, commercial links.

I PROPOSE THAT ALL OF THESE BE DELETED. Comments please.

Vivaverdi 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully as usual Vivaverdi. It is a joke. and I am doing so right now if noone else objects.Steroid Expert 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag

When adding a tag, please explain yourself here. --Masterpedia 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite Sources

Added an Unreferenced tag to this page because there are no citations given for any of the content of this article. As you probably know, Wikipedia is not a web site for first hand content, all statements must be sourced from outside articles. An example of why this is important can be found in this article where the number of worldwide audiences is listed as both 6,000 and 7,000. There is no way to easily verify which claim is accurate without properly cited sources. Need help? Try the Wikipedia citing sources help page. Stoick (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed it - there are three reference in a very short article. I assume these were added after your tag. AshleyMorton (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like advertising to me

More than 100,000 agents, more than 82 countries, more than 7,000 offices, over 6,000 offices worldwide... doesn't the "more than" and the "over" bit sound a bit too much like a way of advertising the company?

If it isn't, we could easily rephrase it as less than 200,000 agents, less than 84 countries, less than 8,000 offices. However, I suspect that in this case we would be accused of biasing the article against corporate interests by means of understating the relevance of this company.

My conclusion is that we don't need to overstate or understate anything. In fact, the "more than 82 countries" bit sounds like an advertising joke. You're already giving two significant figures, why not say the exact number anyway? Sabbut (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)