The catch, of course, is that brokers were doing all these things before the Internet and they're still doing them off the Internet today.

So the question is not about getting business. It's about making money.

Savvy brokers have no trouble getting listings. But listings are not a sure source of profits because you only get a fee if the property sells. No broker sells every listing, and if you get enough properties that don't sell or which represent big marketing costs you can list yourself into bankruptcy.

Buyer brokers have similar concerns. A client is a "cost" until a deal is made. Every hour spent with a client who doesn't close means less income for the broker.

All of which gets us back to the Internet.

If the Internet can produce additional business for brokers that's a step in the right direction. But is such business profitable? Is the time spent servicing clients found online reducing the income that brokers might otherwise gain? And is the Web turning into another cost for brokers, a cost on top of all the other expenses required to remain in business?

The Internet is neither a curiosity nor a hobby at this point. It is increasingly a place of business, and like all commercial matters that means the usual financial standards apply.

Unfortunately, today's business guidelines can be tough. In one example, a food service business closed the last branch of a local eatery, not because it was unprofitable, but because fast food outlets run by the firm produced better returns.

In a similar sense, brokers will stay online if the results are financially advantageous, just as they would with any productive medium. And by "financially advantageous," what brokers increasingly mean is not just more business, but transactions that result in profits equal or greater than those which can be obtained offline.

In effect, it's not enough for a site to generate business if such business increases broker costs and cuts broker margins. It's not enough for a site to generate business if such business does not maximize profits. It's not enough for sites to offer short-term gains if the long-term result is reduced broker income.

The days of Internet hype are over -- a shame because it was a lot of fun. The new measure of success is now the bottom line, a criteria everyone can understand.

Question Of The Week

Q Can a "duplex" be a "townhouse" and vice versa?

A In general terms a "duplex" is a single property which includes two separate living units. The units can be arranged such that one is on top of the other, or they can be side to side and perhaps even front to back.

A townhouse can be seen as one unit within a row of individual properties that share a common design pattern. The old term, "row house" fits nicely.

A further complication is that a duplex sits on one piece of ground, whereas townhouses may have a separate lot for each unit or as condos or co-up units they can all share a single piece of property.

So, if you had a duplex with units side by side, they could sure look like townhouses -- maybe just a short row. And a duplex with units side by side may seem to consist of two townhouse end units.

The catch is that local zoning codes may permit "townhouses" but not "duplex" units. If the definition game is an issue in terms of zoning, marketing or whatever, you need to speak with nearby brokers and attorneys to see how the matter is handled locally.

Weekly Resource