Why Choosing the Wrong Agent Costs More Than Commission
Poor agent selection does not just cost commission - it costs time, price, and peace of mind. A property that sits on the market too long, a sale price below what the buyer pool would have supported, and a campaign that leaves the seller without clear information throughout are all consequences of the wrong choice.
An agent who overvalues a property to win the listing creates an immediate problem. Buyer inquiry is suppressed from day one. The property sits. The reduction comes. The extended time on market then signals to subsequent buyers that something is wrong.
Poor communication from an agent is another way the wrong choice compounds. Inspection feedback that does not reach the seller, negotiations that proceed without the seller being properly informed, and campaign decisions made without adequate context are all consequences of an agent who is not managing the relationship the way a seller should expect. Sellers who want to understand what questions to ask and what the evidence shows about agent behaviour and outcomes will find it useful to review what informed agent selection involves - agent track record questions before meeting with any agent.
Commission rate comparison is where most sellers start when evaluating agents. It is a relevant factor - but only one of several. An agent who charges less and delivers a lower result can cost a seller significantly more than an agent who charges more and produces a well-run campaign with a strong outcome.
The Questions That Separate Good Agents from the Rest
Good agents answer specific questions specifically. Asking the right questions before signing is how sellers distinguish the agents who can back their confidence with evidence from those who cannot.
What have you sold in this suburb in the past six months, and what were the results relative to the asking price? This question gets to the heart of local performance. An agent who can name specific properties, give specific results, and explain what drove those outcomes is working from evidence. An agent who responds with vague references to market conditions and general experience is not giving you anything you can evaluate.
How do you handle feedback from inspections, and how often will you be in contact during the campaign? Communication is one of the most consistent complaints sellers make about agents after the fact. Asking the question upfront establishes what the seller should expect and creates a reference point if the standard is not met.
What is your recommended method of sale and why does it suit this property specifically? The answer should be specific to the property and the current local market - not a default preference for one method over another. An agent who recommends auction for every property or private treaty for every property without tailoring the answer to the specific home and its likely buyer pool is not thinking carefully about strategy.
What is your commission rate, how is it structured, and what does it include? A direct question deserves a direct answer. If the structure is tiered or conditional, the details of how it works should be clear before signing - not discovered at settlement.
What Good Answers Look Like - and What Should Concern You
The appraisal figure an agent presents at the first meeting is one of the most important data points in the selection process - not because it tells you what the property is worth, but because it tells you how the agent thinks.
An appraisal that sits significantly above what comparable sales in the suburb support is a signal. It may reflect genuine analysis that identifies something the comparables missed. More often, it reflects an agent who knows that a higher number wins the listing even if the property cannot achieve it at market. The test is whether the agent can back the figure with specific comparable sales and a clear explanation of why this property justifies a premium over those sales.
An agent who resists disclosing their comparable sales basis - who deflects with confidence and general market statements rather than specific evidence - is presenting a number they cannot defend. That is the combination to walk away from.
Agents who criticise competitors in a first meeting are worth being cautious about. An agent who resorts to criticising others is showing you something about their professional character before the campaign has even started.
Sellers who are pressured into signing quickly, offered promises with no evidence behind them, or made to feel that hesitation costs them an opportunity are encountering tactics that serve the agent, not the seller. Taking the time to meet two or three agents, ask the questions that matter, and verify the answers before signing is not overcaution - it is the process that protects the result.
Local results, honest pricing, and a clear communication commitment - these are the three things that should be verifiable before any agency agreement is signed. An agent who delivers all three with specific evidence is worth trusting with the sale.