Comparing agent fees and actual service scope in Bengaluru

KianCane

Seller
Established
I want an agent who can keep the sale moving from launch through completion, but the Bengaluru proposals make it difficult to see who is actually providing that service. For a small multifamily expected to sell near ₹47,600,000, the packages differ on photography, buyer screening, negotiation and coordination after an offer.

What should I ask each firm to put in writing so the comparison is meaningful? I am thinking of the photography scope, recent comparable sales, response standards, how competing offers are recorded, what happens after a buyer withdraws, and the name of the person responsible once the listing is live. I also want clear conflict disclosures and handoff responsibilities rather than a software demonstration.
 
Make each agent describe the same transaction from launch to completion. For every step, ask who is responsible, the expected response time, and what happens if the first buyer withdraws. For comparable sales and fall-through rates, insist on a defined period and property category; otherwise the answers are too easy to select selectively. Also clarify whether the quoted fee changes with the achieved price.
 
Before comparing percentages, are all proposals calculating the fee on the same basis? Check whether photography and other outside costs are included, reimbursed separately, or payable even without a completed sale. I’d also ask whether the property is occupied, because buyer access and communication could materially change the workload and make a bare listing package less comparable.
 
The fee basis is one of the ambiguities I need to pin down. I haven’t yet converted the proposals into a common table, so apparently similar fees may not cover similar work. I’ll separate included work, outside expenses, payment triggers and named responsibility. The point about access is useful too; I need them to explain who coordinates it rather than simply saying it is “supported.”
 
I wouldn’t assume the most inclusive package is the best. Photography is visible and easy to describe, but weak buyer qualification or slow offer escalation can be more costly operationally. Ask who verifies that an enquiry is credible, what information reaches you before a viewing, and whether the senior person pitching for the instruction remains involved after the listing goes live.
 
Response-time promises and fall-through rates can both mislead. A quick acknowledgement is not the same as a useful answer, and an agent can report a low fall-through rate by defining the sample narrowly. I’d test the workflow instead: give each one the same hypothetical competing-offer situation and ask who contacts whom, how terms are recorded, when conflicts are disclosed, and how the decision is handed into closing coordination.
 
Send one written questionnaire to all of them. Include: fee calculation, cancellation or withdrawal costs, photography deliverables, buyer-qualification steps, offer presentation, named day-to-day contact, cover when that person is unavailable, support after a buyer drops out, closing tasks, and any situation where they might represent or receive compensation from another party. Their willingness to answer precisely is itself informative.
 
Since the proposals bundle different things, compare total cost under at least two outcomes: a straightforward completion and a buyer withdrawing after an offer is accepted. No need to predict which will occur; the exercise exposes who continues working without a new charge and which tasks return to you. “Closing coordination” especially needs unpacking into actual actions and an endpoint.
 
After the written comparison, interview the person who will actually handle the file, not only whoever presented the proposal. Ask them to walk through the first week after listing and the first day after receiving an offer. That should reveal handoff gaps quickly. I’d choose on clarity of responsibility and escalation first, then compare fees among the agents who pass that test.
 
Back
Top