What 700 conversations with sellers reveal about the housing market blockage

The findings presented here are drawn from a qualitative and quantitative analysis of telephone conversations held with approximately 700 homeowners planning to sell, over the past six months, primarily in the Île-de-France region. The message from these conversations is unambiguous: the relationship between sellers and agents has deteriorated significantly.

Nearly one in five salespeople spontaneously recounts, within the first few minutes of the conversation, a previous listing that yielded no results. The words keep coming up, often the same: “I never hear from them. Nothing, nothing, nothing.” Or: “It was so easy to do that they left with their listing and then nothing happened.” These past experiences are no longer marginal. They now shape the perception of the profession.

When we categorize the reservations expressed at the beginning of the discussion, a clear shift emerges. “I’ve had a bad experience with an agency before” is mentioned five times more often than “I don’t agree with the proposed price.” Overall, the obstacles related to mistrust account for more than eight times the number of mentions compared to disagreements about price. The main barrier to putting a property on the market in 2026 is therefore no longer financial. It is relational.

This distrust is particularly evident around the exclusive mandate. The term itself has become problematic. Not for legal or contractual reasons, but because of what it suggests. Homeowners express five recurring fears: reducing their chances of selling, facing agent inaction once the mandate is signed, feeling contractually bound, blocking other sales opportunities, or, more simply, refusing any form of exclusivity on principle. “All the agents call me, then once they have the mandate, there’s no one there anymore,” one of them sums up.

This point is crucial: none of these concerns relate to the terms of the contract. They all reflect the same intuition, that of an asymmetrical commitment. The seller makes a commitment, the agent makes a promise. And this promise, all too often, is not perceived as being kept.

Several factors contribute to this imbalance. The proliferation of networks and solicitations has increased commercial pressure on sellers, sometimes to the point of saturation. “I was harassed by real estate agencies,” confides one homeowner. At the same time, the property valuation, long a tool for legitimizing the agent, is increasingly being challenged. Nearly one in ten sellers now arrives with their own price, calculated using online tools, and immediately questions the one offered by the agency.

Contrary to popular belief, this phenomenon is not confined to Paris. It is widespread in the suburbs and outer suburbs. Distrust has become a market reality, not a local anomaly.

Does this mean the real estate agent profession is being called into question? No. What is being called into question, however, is its compensation model. As long as this model relies on a logic of acquiring listings based on promises, the temptation will be strong to overpromise in order to close the deal. And the subsequent disappointment will be commensurate with the gap between the promise and the reality.

The way out of this impasse lies not in the disappearance of exclusivity, but in its transformation. It can no longer be demanded; it must be earned. In other words, the promise of commitment must give way to proof of commitment. Only then can trust be rebuilt and the market once again function smoothly.

Tribune by Benjamin Mechaly, Founder of Primomanda (LinkedIn).