Shane Bellone Thinks It's Ok To Bypass Broker.

[talhahassan]

Hi

I sent two LLL.com domains which I was brokering to Shane Bellone in response to his thread in Domains Wanted.

He replied to me first about dropping the price.

I asked how much is his client's highest offer . To which he said how many months finance would be agreeable.

I told him owners won't agree to financing options.

He then asked me why I messaged him in the first place as his requirement was related to financing the domain and he will contact the owners now to see if they will agree.

I apologized to him for missing the financing part and asked when did it become a good business practice to bypass brokers and contact the owners directly.

His reply was " My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money."

I am attaching the link to the screenshot as well.

imgur. com/a/l4VDz
I think it's totally unethical to bypass a broker . What are your thoughts on this?

 

[promo]

@johnn = person that has been trying to sell the same 10x lll.net names for 10 years => person who needs a broker.

 

[MackieMesser]

I've got the impression from this thread that the anonymity / distance created by the communication via internet - in this case a forum - created some misunderstandings and (initially) lead to maybe overreacted statements written under too strong emotional impact?

This unfortunately seems to be a very prevailing element of most forms of online communication.

 

[wwwweb]

The best way to look at this is in regards to real estate brokers, they come to your house, open up their briefcase, and make you sign a contract. You have an exclusive listing with them for 6 months, so if you sell it on the side, you still need to pay them.

With the domain industry, there are a few solid brokerage houses, and I am sure they sign contracts, or make their clients aware of the terms. Then there is a group of part timers who sort of co-broker domains with the fact if they can move a 5-6 figure name, they can take a home a nice chunk of change. With such contracts you always run the risk.

Just like in real estate nothing stops someone from knocking on your door, and waiting out that 6 month contract to close a sale, if you are co-brokering in a loosely worded arrangement you can't fault someone for contacting the owners directly just based on your words. It is up to your contractual partner the seller, to honor the deal between them, and their broker. If the seller axes your handshake deal, then your issue is with the seller, the buyer you cannot fault as most buyers do everything they can to get the best price.

It is just business, ethics are more directed towards the selling party who has a contract with such co broker, as a potential buyer you have no exclusive contracts with any such party, and your best option is always the source.


It is a touchy subject for sure, but this is business, this is why we have contracts, most brokers BS half the time anyways, do you know how many times I have tried to buy a domain for a few K, and the broker tells me they have a $10K offer rejected already, and a few days later email me saying they will take $5K today.

So it is really up to the selling party to uphold their agreement to the broker to cut them in, if they choose to sell behind the brokers back, no fault to the buyer, they are just paying for a domain to the rightful party, it is upto the seller to compensate the broker for their time, and efforts, not such unsuspecting buyer.

 

[bashariqbal]

Their is business and then their is business ethics. I think ethics are essential to keep a business successful for a long time
And both the parties here are brokers, representing seller and the buyer. 1 broker is working on someone else lead by bypassing him. It may be good for business but not a good business practice in my opinion.

And many times brokers rely on each other to bring in the leads and domain brokering is such a small niche you would not want to loose any potential leads source or reputation.

 

[mr-x]

There is something we call ETHICS. I hope you are aware what is it!

Shane is 100% correct. Responsibility to his client is his only concern.

I would argue without an exclusivity agreement, you're not even an affiliate, just a middle man. When was cutting out a middle man to get a better price unethical?

 

[johname]

Shane did give it a go (try working with this broker)

But the deal quickly hit an impossible impasse when the broker said "I told him owners won't agree to financing options."

Shane's client can only finance the domain.

And "ownerS" plural was typed twice by the OP, that would get my attention.

It quickly reached a point where Shane had to approach the owner himself and ask about financing possiblites and talk to the boss.

Once it hit the point where Shane has to do all the negotiations himself (try to convince the owner(s) to accept finance, price) then there went the broker fee. A finders fee was probably still on the table if things were all smiles.

 

[Silentptnr]

If a broker is going to work to sell a domain, they should try to secure a solid contract to represent a domain and put the domain under privacy..in advance. For their own protection.

In the absence of a contract, the domain could be sold with nothing legally owed to the broker with no contract.

On another note, there should be a level of honor and trust when brokers are dealing amongst one another.

Seems brash to announce that one will simply go direct. We are all hungry for deals.

Moral of this story is two fold. One, get a contract. Two, if you dont have a contract be really careful about who you trust.

 

[ksusha64]

Lets use simple logic and simple laws here.
1. A broker is someone who is usually licensed by some organization or govt and also regulated by same institution.( domain brokers are self proclaimed brokers which is unthetical to start with, any conaritst, faker, idiot can call himself a broker on this forum or in email)
2. Unless broker has exclusive or NON exclusive agreement with seller, nobody has any responsibility to him. Buyers have 0 legal or ethical responsibility to guys who call themselves brokers ( usually conarists)
3. Shane Bellone did nothing unethical or illegal. If so called " broker" really brokering this domain its SELLERS responsibility to give him % commission!!!! If seller does not pay this so called broker then he not a real broker or not considered to be a broker by seller!
4. Talking trash on the forum about someone is really not good for domain industry or for domain brokers.

 

[HUKU]

Business is not for everyone. If you take things personally like this or you expect anything different you will have some rough deals in the future.

Business is not for everyone because clearly not everyone has business principles.

You go into a store to see a TV, you then realize you can get it 15% cheaper buying off amazon. Cut out the middleman, and saved yourself 15%

That's perfectly fine and I have no problem with that. It's a terrible analogy because you are not cutting out a middleman and you have not formed an agreement with the store simply by entering the store. There is no obligation upon you to purchase from the store the item you ultimately purchased.

This should be a lesson to you to always cover your own back in situations like this.

No the lesson here is in determining who are those with business ethics and who are those without. My guess is that if you look back through this thread, you will find that those with ethics are the ones who have been successful.

Leads generated by brokering are very much the same as leads generated through affiliate programs (my area of business). If you do not credit the affiliate with the sale generated by their lead, you're cheating them and you're breaking the law.

 

[N-A]

Leads generated by brokering are very much the same as leads generated through affiliate programs (my area of business). If you do not credit the affiliate with the sale generated by their lead, you're cheating them and you're breaking the law.

You're kidding, right? You had a very good, though not agreeable position on ethics with me, but this last statement to back your claim really killed any credibility you had.

 

[WINBJR]

That's perfectly fine and I have no problem with that. It's a terrible analogy because you are not cutting out a middleman and you have not formed an agreement with the store simply by entering the store. There is no obligation upon you to purchase from the store the item you ultimately purchased.

I really have no dog in this fight and my better judgement is telling me to stay out of it. But, I would argue with your post that just the same someone has no obligation to purchase from the store is no different then a buyer having no obligation to purchase from the broker.

The buyer and the broker is not in an agreement, but the broker and the seller is. As a buyer, no matter what I am buying, whether it's a TV, car, house, domain, etc... I am looking for the best deal and whatever keeps more $$$$ in my pocket. I can see and understand the frustration on both sides of this debate, but I just don't see how as a buyer I am obligated to work with someone who can't make final decisions when I could go straight to the source. It is the sources responsibility to turn me away and point me back to the broker.

Sorry this turned out this way. I have been on these boards for a while and I am still learning day-by-day and I hate to see the name-calling, bashing, and utter disrespect for each other and opinions.

 

[ksusha64]

I totally agree. UNLICENSED BROKER who claims to have agreement ( which he does not have with seller as we know) claims 15 percent off Buyer is like asking to buy Brooklyn Bridge.

I really have no dog in this fight and my better judgement is telling me to stay out of it. But, I would argue with your post that just the same someone has no obligation to purchase from the store is no different then a buyer having no obligation to purchase from the broker.

The buyer and the broker is not in an agreement, but the broker and the seller is. As a buyer, no matter what I am buying, whether it's a TV, car, house, domain, etc... I am looking for the best deal and whatever keeps more $$$$ in my pocket. I can see and understand the frustration on both sides of this debate, but I just don't see how as a buyer I am obligated to work with someone who can't make final decisions when I could go straight to the source. It is the sources responsibility to turn me away and point me back to the broker.

Sorry this turned out this way. I have been on these boards for a while and I am still learning day-by-day and I hate to see the name-calling, bashing, and utter disrespect for each other and opinions.

 

[ksusha64]

There is 10 guys on NP selling the same LLL to me. Should I pay them all 15%?? or should I report them to fbi for interstate scamming>

 

[HUKU]

I would argue with your post that just the same someone has no obligation to purchase from the store is no different then a buyer having no obligation to purchase from the broker.

That is correct. However, if the sale was generated by a lead, then the broker who generated that lead must receive the commission. In the case of non-exclusive arrangements (multi-agency) I will always seek to find out which lead generated the sale and if it clearly came from one broker, that broker will receive the commission.

I just don't see how as a buyer I am obligated to work with someone who can't make final decisions when I could go straight to the source. It is the sources responsibility to turn me away and point me back to the broker.

Absolutely, the buyer is not obligated.... the onus is on the seller to then send you back to the broker ie in the case of exclusive brokerage or in the case of non-exclusive, to discover which broker sent the lead (if any).

 

[ksusha64]

That is correct. However, if the sale was generated by a lead, then the broker who generated that lead must receive the commission. In cases of non-exclusive arrangements (multi-agency) I will always seek to find out which lead generated the sale and if it clearly came from one broker, that broker will receive the commission.



Absolutely.... the onus is on the seller to then send you back to the broker ie in the case of exclusive brokerage.

NO, Even if there is NO exclusivity the seller has to pay commission to broker anyway!! It means they never had any real agreement!

 

[elmoney]

Eat with the right hand and use the left hand in a toilet

A verbal agreement between men it is equivalent signed and sealed agreement.

 

[HUKU]

You're kidding, right? You had a very good, though not agreeable position on ethics with me, but this last statement to back your claim really killed any credibility you had.

Why so? You, as an affiliate program owner, have an agreement with an affiliate to promote your product and pay them commissions on any sales generated by leads they send you. The affiliate works hard for you to generate sales and you don't credit those sale commissions to that affiliate.

Why is that not similar to a domain seller who has an agreement with a broker, not paying commission on a sale from a lead generated by that broker? Well, I may have missed the point but it's at least similar.

Affiliate agreements are similar to Brokerage agreements.

 

[ksusha64]

Why so? You, as an affiliate program owner, have an agreement with an affiliate to promote your product and pay them commissions on any leads they send that purchase your product. The affiliate works hard for you to generate sales and you don't credit those sale commissions to that affiliate.

Why is that not similar to a domain seller who has an agreement with a broker, not paying commission from a sale on a lead generated by that broker? Well, I may have missed the point but I think it's at least similar.

Affiliate agreements are quite similar to Brokerage agreements.

You are not making ANY SENSE my friend. When you affiliate seller pays u commission. Its never a buyer who pays u commission. Your comparison makes no sense. This so called broker is like a "spammer" who is upset that u did not click his spammy link, but went to the source!

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

Shane is 100% correct. Responsibility to his client is his only concern.

I would argue without an exclusivity agreement, you're not even an affiliate, just a middle man. When was cutting out a middle man to get a better price unethical?

You may want to read this again "Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense."

So bypassing a broker who may have an exclusive contract makes sense to you?

 

[HUKU]

NO, Even if there is NO exclusivity the seller has to pay commission to broker anyway!!

Of course, that's correct. I mean in a case where there is no exclusivity, and there are multiple brokers pitching the same domain, where its not obvious where the lead came from. That's a situation which can happen if the buyer attempts to bypass a broker.

 

[ksusha64]

Its not a question if there is exclusive or non exclusive deal between broker and seller. The question is there is NO AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND BETWEEN THEM!! Thats the real issue here. Otherwise the so called broker should ask for % of seller!! EXCLUSIVITY has nothing to do with it. If they have agreement then seller is dishonest, if they do not have agreement then the broker is complete fraud. Why is buyer blamed for anything here??

 

[S-B]

Leads generated by brokering are very much the same as leads generated through affiliate programs (my area of business). If you do not credit the affiliate with the sale generated by their lead, you're cheating them and you're breaking the law.

I quite literally buy in incognito to cut out all those affiliate leeches.

 

[HUKU]

You are not making ANY SENSE my friend.

No? Well sorry then....... my brain is fried.

Bottom line, people need to think very carefully before getting a broker involved. There should probably be a clear set of rules or at least guidelines somewhere on how brokerage is handled and so everyone knows where they stand.

In general, I'm leaning away from non-exclusive arrangements which probably create a situation of less clarity especially when it appears there are so many who will try their best not to honor them.

 

[N-A]

No? Well sorry then....... my brain is fried.

Bottom line, people need to think very carefully before getting a broker involved. There should probably be a very clear set of rules or at least guidelines somewhere on how brokerage is handled and so everyone knows where they stand.

In general, I'm leaning away from non-exclusive arrangements which probably create a situation of less clarity especially when it appears there are so many who will try their best not to honor them.

Yeah, the word you're looking for is "contract". Just ensue all elements are met to make it legally binding prior to working as a so called "broker" (we'll, in that case, I'd call you a broker).

Point is, @Shane Bellone did nothing wrong in this scenario.

My last comment. Just here for the laughs now.

Hope you get a good deal cutting the illegitimate / illiterate broker out of the picture Shane.

 

[Joe N]

I created this post to warn brokers like me of people like Shane.
i think the purpose is achieved.

The only thing you achieved is to draw a lot of negative attention to yourself. Very unprofessional. I would close the thread and try to contain the damage.