When did we start caring more about metrics than clients? 

Thinking big about residential real estate success requires a big-picture perspective. Industry Decoded features industry experts who can enrich your understanding of issues affecting the industry as a whole.

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author.

Picture every real estate agent you've ever seen on a screen.

There's the "Always Be Closing" shark from Glengarry Glen Ross, working his mark. The reality show agent, selling her lavish lifestyle while serving up on-camera drama. And now the influencer, stacking millions of views with viral trends and chaos-house-tour Reels that leave you wondering, "Is this what a real estate agent is now?"

Popular culture has a type for nearly every version of this job — except the one that matters most: the agent who puts a client's interest above their own, even if it means a hit to their commission.

I suspect that's because the "fiduciary responsibility" persona doesn't perform. But when agents are rewarded only for performance, many come to believe performing is the job. The seller's situation becomes raw material for the agent's brand, the listing becomes the stage, and the transaction becomes content.

That isn't real agency. It isn't what clients want, and increasingly, it isn't what they'll accept.

Representation is about advocacy, not personal success

First, a definition, because the reminder helps. An agent is a representative, hired to advocate, defend, counsel and put the client's outcome first. Agents exist to make their clients look good — not on a feed, but in the very real decisions and negotiations that lead to a closing table.

Too many in our industry have gotten it backward, using clients and their homes as representatives of the agent's apparent success.

Your reaction here is probably like mine: This is wrong, and agents who put themselves first should be held accountable.

That's easier said than done, however, because our industry doesn't reward true representation.

The metrics we celebrate — gross commission income (GCI), sales volume, "Top Producer" status — focus on an agent's monetary success, but they don't tell you whether the human who bought or sold a home was well represented. There's no award for the agent who tells a seller to reject a shaky offer or tells a buyer to walk away from a bad deal — which is exactly why some of the finest agents, the true advisors, will never top their office's GCI chart.

Agency takes effort, with no promise of reward  

Selling leans on urgency, flattery and the soft pressure that turns a "maybe" into a "yes" — and plenty of agents are good at it. Representing is harder, because real agency tells the truth, and in this market the truth often turns an emotional "yes" into a "let's-slow-down."

Consider the version of the job that pays nothing. A buyer has fallen for a house, but the inspection flags a possible sewer-line problem — often nothing, sometimes very expensive. 

The performative agent takes the "inconclusive" report at face value and prioritizes keeping the deal moving. But this buyer hired a different kind of agent, one who brings out a specialist and turns up a $25,000 repair that the seller refuses to credit. The reward for this agent's care and attention? No office party for the deal that didn't close, no volume on the year-end board — yet it may have been the most valuable thing the agent did for a client all month.

Consumers are ready to look elsewhere

Even if our industry fails to recognize it, clients can feel the difference between performance and representation, and their patience for the performer is running out — for a reason that should unsettle every industry leader reading this. 

A recent report found that more than half of prospective buyers say they'd hand their entire transaction to an AI tool, no human involved. Some might see that as an endorsement of technology, but I believe it's a verdict on the performative agent — and a fair one.

This is the part every agent and brokerage must wrestle with. AI's counsel reads as trustworthy because it has no commission at stake. It'll tell a buyer to walk from a house without a flicker, having no sale to protect. Compared to an agent whose advice can never be fully separated from their paycheck, the machine can sound like the more honest voice. For an agent who's optimized for performative metrics, that's checkmate.

Where agency beats AI — and 'performers'

There's still a bright path ahead for true agents. An AI's objectivity is only worth as much as the prompts it is given, and the questions that most meaningfully change the outcome are usually the ones a buyer doesn't know to ask. The ability to raise those questions (and catch what the answer leaves out) is one of an agent's most important skills. Add to this what no AI model has — a feel for a particular street, a read on the agent across the table, and a reputation and license on the line — having human representation becomes more valuable, not less.

The value proposition of hiring an agent is changing. The rockstar agent bravado is fading into a bygone era, and it's about time. The real value provided by the agents of the future will be reflected as much in the offer not sent, the sale talked out of, and the $25,000 nobody else went looking for as in the successful closings. 

True agents have always been rare — but as the machines get better, the rare ones will be worth more, because the gap between them and everyone who's just playing a part will finally be visible to the people paying for it. 

Anything less than that was never agency. It was performance — and the curtain is closing.

Nick Aufenkamp is a real estate broker in Vancouver, Washington, and the founder of The Tartan Team. He and his agents take a client-first approach, offering a tiered model rather than a one-size-fits-all service and fee structure.

His popular Substack, Realtor Gone Rogue, explores topics including real estate incentives, consumer advocacy and alternative service models.