There's a point in my conversation with Phil Farrell that I kept coming back to afterwards, not because it was especially controversial, but because it was uncomfortably accurate.
The idea is this: a huge proportion of what happens in a property transaction isn't really value in the way we like to think it is. It's process. And not even particularly good process at that.
That's not a new observation. Anyone who has spent meaningful time in agency (sales or lettings) already knows how much of the day gets absorbed by keeping things moving. Chasing updates, relaying information, nudging different parties along, making sure something that should be happening actually happens. It's work that matters, in the sense that without it deals stall or fall apart. But it's also work that exists largely because the system itself is so fragmented and inefficient.
What struck me in the conversation with Phil wasn't just that acknowledgement - it was the implication that follows it. If we accept that much of what we do is tied up in managing a clunky process, then we also have to accept that if that process improves, the role of the agent inevitably changes. Not disappears. Not diminishes. But becomes more exposed.
And that's where the industry, if we're honest, gets slightly uncomfortable.
Effort isn't the same as value
There's a tendency in property to conflate the two. The more time something takes, the more touchpoints it involves, the more visible the activity... the easier it is to point to that and say, "this is what we do, this is what you're paying for."
But from a client's perspective, that's rarely the bit they care about most. They care about the outcome, yes, but they also care about being guided confidently and clearly through something that is, for most people, unfamiliar and often stressful.
That's where the real value sits. And it's not in the mechanics of the process itself.
It's in judgement. Knowing when to push something forward and when to let it breathe. Being able to read a situation that doesn't fit neatly into a workflow and make a call that improves the outcome rather than just progressing the process. Communication that actually reassures rather than simply updates.
None of that is easy to quantify, and it doesn't always show up as "activity" - but it is the difference between a transaction that simply completes and one that is properly managed.
Why this matters more now
Parts of the process are beginning to change. Slowly, unevenly, and not without resistance... but they are changing. Digital offer handling, better data, attempts at front-loading information. None of these things are perfect yet, but they all point in the same direction: less manual chasing, fewer gaps between stages, more visibility across the transaction.
As that happens, the old comfort blanket of "we add value because we manage the process" starts to look thinner.
That's not a bad thing, unless your entire proposition is built around that idea.
The same dynamic plays out in lettings too, just in slightly different forms. End-of-tenancy is a good example. It's an area where the industry has, for years, simply accepted a certain level of friction - back-and-forth emails, competing interpretations of what was agreed, delays that are nobody's fault and everybody's problem. It's become so normal it's rarely questioned.
But much of that friction isn't value. It's just the by-product of a process that hasn't been designed to be as clear or efficient as it could be.
When you start to remove it, even in small ways, something interesting happens. The process becomes less dominant, and the human element becomes more visible. Conversations aren't buried under layers of admin. Decisions are easier to follow. Outcomes are clearer. What you're left with isn't a reduced role for the agent, it's a more defined one.
The question every agency needs to answer
If your value sits primarily in managing inefficiency, then any improvement in the system is going to feel like a threat. If it sits in advice, judgement and influence, then those same improvements should feel like an opportunity - they remove the noise and create space for the parts of the role that genuinely matter.
That's not always an easy shift to make in an industry that has, for a long time, worn its busyness as a badge of honour. But as processes get cleaner and client expectations around speed and transparency continue to rise, it becomes harder to sustain.
At some point, every agency has to ask itself a fairly simple question: if the process were easier, faster and more reliable, what would our clients actually be relying on us for?
The answer to that question is where the future of the business sits.
If the answer is compelling, better process doesn't undermine the agent's role, it strengthens it. It allows good operators to spend less time holding things together and more time actually influencing the outcome in ways clients recognise and value.
That's the shift that's underway. Not the removal of the human element, but the gradual removal of the parts of the process that have been masking where the human element truly matters.
Once you see it that way, the conversation changes entirely.
