Bedford Hills NY Real Estate Weekly Report June 2011 RobReportBlog
29 homes available
$749,000 median price
$17,900,000 high price
$350,000 low price
4427 average size
$435 average price per foot
126 average dom
Bedford Hills NY Homes for sale
Bedford Hills NY Real Estate Weekly Report June 2011 RobReportBlog
29 homes available
$749,000 median price
$17,900,000 high price
$350,000 low price
4427 average size
$435 average price per foot
126 average dom
Bedford Hills NY Homes for sale
Bedford NY Real Estate Weekly Report RobReportBlog June 2011
103 homes available
$1,349,500 median price
$14,000,000 high price
$419,000 low price
4217 average size
$388 average price per foot
118 average dom
Bedford Corners Homes for sale RobReportBlog June 2011
128 homes available
$899,000 median price
$30,000,000 high price
$345,000 low price
3308 average size
$326 average price per foot
105 average dom
Unemployment falls in 80% of U.S. metros
Markets in Indiana and Michigan see biggest drops
Jobless rates fell year-over-year in the vast majority of U.S. metro areas in April, according to the latest figures released today from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Of 372 metro areas covered by the bureau, 80 percent posted drops in unemployment compared to April 2010, while the rate rose in about 15 percent and remained the same in some 6 percent of metros. By contrast, nearly half of metros saw their rate rise in November.
Nationally, the unemployment rate fell to a non-seasonally-adjusted 8.7 percent from 9.2 percent in March and 9.5 percent in April 2010.
Indiana and Michigan saw the biggest drops in unemployment, accounting for nine out of 12 metro areas to see percentage-point declines of 3 percent or more.
Over-the-Year Change in Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas Not Seasonally Adjusted Apr. 2010 Apr. 2011p Rank Metropolitan Area Rate Rate Change United States 9.5 8.7 -0.8 1 Elkhart-Goshen, Ind. 14.1 10.1 -4 2 Muskegon-Norton Shores, Mich. 14 10.1 -3.9 3 Rockford, Ill. 15.7 11.9 -3.8 4 Kokomo, Ind. 12.8 9.3 -3.5 5 Jackson, Mich. 13 9.7 -3.3 6 Flint, Mich. 14 10.8 -3.2 6 Holland-Grand Haven, Mich. 11.3 8.1 -3.2 8 Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev. 15.1 12.1 -3 8 Michigan City-La Porte, Ind. 12.5 9.5 -3 8 Monroe, Mich. 12.5 9.5 -3 8 Niles-Benton Harbor, Mich. 12.7 9.7 -3 8 Sandusky, Ohio 11 8 -3 Source: BLS
California metros continue to post the highest unemployment rates in the nation, accounting for 9 out of the 10 markets with unemployment rates higher than 16 percent.
Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas Not Seasonally Adjusted Apr. 2011p Rank Metropolitan Area Rate United States 8.7 372 El Centro, Calif. 27.9 371 Yuma, Ariz. 25.3 370 Yuba City, Calif. 20.2 369 Merced, Calif. 19.5 368 Modesto, Calif. 17.5 367 Stockton, Calif. 17.3 366 Fresno, Calif. 17 365 Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. 16.6 364 Visalia-Porterville, Calif. 16.4 363 Madera-Chowchilla, Calif. 16.3 Source: BLS
North Dakota, Iowa and New Hampshire metros had the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, accounting for seven of the 11 markets with rates of 4.5 percent or lower.
Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas Not Seasonally Adjusted Apr. 2011p Rank Metropolitan Area Rate United States 8.7 1 Bismarck, N.D. 2.9 2 Fargo, N.D.-Minn. 3.7 3 Lincoln, Neb. 3.8 4 Portsmouth, N.H.-Maine 4.2 5 Grand Forks, N.D.-Minn. 4.3 5 Iowa City, Iowa 4.3 7 Midland, Texas 4.4 8 Ames, Iowa 4.5 8 Burlington-South Burlington, Vt. 4.5 8 Manchester, N.H. 4.5 8 Oklahoma City, Okla. 4.5 Source: BLS
Nevada had the highest unemployment rate among the states in April (12.5 percent), followed by California (11.9 percent), Rhode Island (10.9 percent), Florida (10.8 percent), and Mississippi (10.4 percent).
North Dakota had the lowest rate (3.3 percent), followed by Nebraska (4.2 percent), New Hampshire (4.9 percent), South Dakota (4.9 percent), and Vermont (5.3 percent).
Unemployment Rates for States Seasonally Adjusted Apr. 2011p Rank State Rate 1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.3 2 NEBRASKA 4.2 3 NEW HAMPSHIRE 4.9 3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.9 5 VERMONT 5.3 6 OKLAHOMA 5.6 7 IOWA 6 7 WYOMING 6 9 HAWAII 6.1 9 VIRGINIA 6.1 11 MINNESOTA 6.5 12 KANSAS 6.7 13 MARYLAND 6.8 14 ALASKA 7.3 14 MONTANA 7.3 14 WISCONSIN 7.3 17 UTAH 7.4 18 PENNSYLVANIA 7.5 19 MAINE 7.6 19 NEW MEXICO 7.6 21 ARKANSAS 7.7 22 MASSACHUSETTS 7.8 23 NEW YORK 7.9 24 TEXAS 8 25 LOUISIANA 8.1 26 DELAWARE 8.2 26 INDIANA 8.2 28 OHIO 8.6 29 ILLINOIS 8.7 30 COLORADO 8.8 30 WEST VIRGINIA 8.8 32 MISSOURI 8.9 33 CONNECTICUT 9.1 33 WASHINGTON 9.1 35 ALABAMA 9.3 35 ARIZONA 9.3 35 NEW JERSEY 9.3 38 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9.6 38 IDAHO 9.6 38 OREGON 9.6 38 TENNESSEE 9.6 42 NORTH CAROLINA 9.7 43 SOUTH CAROLINA 9.8 44 GEORGIA 9.9 45 KENTUCKY 10 46 MICHIGAN 10.2 47 MISSISSIPPI 10.4 48 FLORIDA 10.8 49 RHODE ISLAND 10.9 50 CALIFORNIA 11.9 51 NEVADA 12.5 Source: B
Facebook referrals require deft touch
Real estate pros turned off by automated requests
Most highly successful agents have a strong referral database. Good old-fashioned referral strategies still work today, but the strategies that utilize traditional marketing can bomb when applied on social media sites. The question is, what does work?
For years, trainers such as Brian Buffini and Joe Stumpf have emphasized the importance of asking for referrals from past customers and from your sphere of influence. Agents using this approach normally ask for referrals as a postscript at the end of each of their marketing pieces and their email:
“If you know someone who may be thinking about buying or selling a home, I’m never too busy for your referrals.”
This approach is based upon the traditional advertising model, which is sometimes called “outbound” marketing. Outbound marketing strategies attempt to create awareness about the services you offer.
The challenge is that outbound marketing strategies fail miserably on social media. Case in point: Can you imagine ending every one of your Facebook posts with a request for referrals?
In contrast, “inbound” or “word of mouth” marketing is about having others make recommendations about your services. In fact, one of the easiest ways to build your business is to provide value to your friends and followers on social media. When they “Like” or “Retweet” what you post, you have a third party who is recommending you voluntarily. The voluntary nature of the recommendation is what makes this so valuable.
Enter BranchOut and Stik
BranchOut and Stik are both Facebook applications that work much the same way that LinkedIn works, except they use Facebook as their database. You can post your resume, connect with friends, and determine who among your friends are the most influential.
I recently interviewed Stik co-founder Jay Kierak as well as Rob Runyon and Philip Kiracofe about their vision for Stik. According to the Stik website:
“When you need to make a big purchase — whether it’s a new house, a mortgage refinance, an insurance policy, or a retirement investment — it’s critical to find a professional you can trust. Unfortunately, many people still work with unknown salespeople, who may not have their customers’ best interests at heart. This can cause big, painful problems — ask anyone who has ever taken out an interest-only mortgage or bought a used car that’s a lemon!
“By helping you find professionals that your friends already know and trust, Stik.com takes the worry out of important purchases. As we say at Stik.com, Stik to who you know.”
The Stik application uses “Likes” and referrals to create better search results. The system also aggregates testimonials, recommendations and Likes.
Stik claims to make consumer search faster, more efficient and more reliable. To illustrate, when someone needs a referral to a mortgage broker, the Stik system goes through your friends and their friends to identify the most highly recommended individuals. The system brings the results back and displays them in rank order.
Currently Stik has approximately 3,000 sign-ups per day, with 25 percent business professionals and the remaining 75 percent consumers.
The challenge in the real estate industry
When I polled my Facebook friends about Stik, their responses illustrated the disconnect between what the developers hoped to achieve as opposed to how real estate professionals view the application:
- “I have received numerous requests and I’ve ignored every single one of them. I have no plans to use it. It actually is quite annoying.” –Alyssia Essig
- “Recently I have been besieged by both Stik and BranchOut requests from lots of people that I hardly know. It gave me a very uneasy feeling about granting permission to all of my FB data to passing acquaintances. I have ignored/deleted all requests and do not plan on changing my mind absent a compelling reason.” –Thomas J. Murphy
- “I’m not using it (Stik). Seemed like an interesting idea initially. Recently, there seems to be a sharp increase in usage and requests. I no longer see the requests. I blocked them as spam (as I did with BranchOut). People are free to connect with me for business purposes on LinkedIn. I’m not about to recommend anyone just because, whether it’s on Stik, BranchOut, LinkedIn, or any type of reference.” –Nikki Beauchamp
- “I was very optimistic when I first wrote about this a few months ago, but have since changed my mind. As Nikki Beauchamp was saying, users blast our request for recommendations and it (Stik) just spams everyone’s walls … I equate it to the Facebook Events feature — a good tool gone wrong.” –Jimmy Mackin
While Stik may be a powerful application, the agents above were repulsed by the automated requests for recommendations from people they didn’t know well.
In most cases, when agents ask for a testimonial or a referral, it’s done either face-to-face or by phone. In contrast, most of the people using these automated systems are blasting them out to everyone on their Friends list, even if they don’t know them well. Rather than building connections, they’re destroying them.
Here’s the bottom line: If you are going to use a system such as Stik or any other automated referral system, don’t ask someone else to recommend you unless you know them well enough that they can comment about you and your business. Furthermore, make sure they are happy to make the referral before you send the request.
In All Marketers Tell Stories, I argue that most organizations shouldn't try to change the worldview of the audience they're marketing to.
Worldview is a term popularized by George Lakoff. It's the set of expectations and biases that color the way each of us see the world (before the marketer ever arrives on the scene). The worldview of a 45 year old wine-loving investment banker is very different from that of a fraternity brother. One might see a $100 bottle of burgundy as both a bargain and a must-have, while the other might see the very same bottle of wine as an insane waste of money.
Worldview changes three things: attention, bias and vernacular. Attention, because we choose to pay attention to those things that we've decided matter. Bias, because our worldview alters the way we filter and interpret what we hear. And vernacular, because words and images resonate with people differently based on their worldview.
It's extremely expensive, time consuming and difficult to change someone's worldview. The guys at Opus One shouldn't spend a lot of time marketing expensive wine to fraternities because it's not efficient. Sell nuts to squirrels, don't try to persuade dolphins that nuts are delicious.
There's an exception to this rule, and that's the necessity of changing worldviews if you want to become a giant brand, a world changer, a marketer for the ages. Starbucks changed the way a significant part of the world thought about spending $4 for a cup of coffee.
Or consider Facebook. It started by selling nuts to squirrels. At first, Facebook was social crack for lonely (all college students are lonely) college students. Over time, the social pressure it created snuck up on and surrounded those with a different inclination, those that would never have signed up on their own. These folks had a worldview that privacy was valuable and that time was better spent elsewhere. But once a sufficient number of their friends and colleagues were online, they felt they had little choice. Converting those people (often against their short term wishes) is where Facebook's most recent 300 million users came from.
The interesting truth in both the Starbucks and Facebook example is that a different worldview was at work. The latecomers to each company were sold a very different story–the story of, "you need to be here because all your friends are." That worked because it matched the latecomers' worldview, the one that includes an imperative, "don't be left out." Different nut, same squirrel.