Phuket property is set to get a new shop window with the imminent launch of a new real estate portal that aims: “… to give buyers and sellers an unprecedented reach for local property, in Phuket and Thailand’s other hotspots.”
The initiative, www.ThaigerProperty.com, will come from Thaiger.Co. Ltd, a company that acquired the digital and social media assets of the long-running Phuket Gazette earlier this year.
The Phuket Gazette, which had associations with Nation Multimedia Group, ceased its print edition on the island in April 2017.
The new website currently appears to have connections with Fazwaz.com, an existing Thailand property portal. For example, the news tab (which has not been updated for more seven months) redirects to the Fazwaz news page.
What does this mean for Phuket property buyers, renters and sellers?
It’s hard to see, from previous experiences, how a website can operate a free listings model for any serious length of time.
There are portals already that cover Phuket and will have more paid advertisers and listings to begin with, but with what could be a mega-Phuket property portal coming onto the scene, there could be a degree of local favouritism when agents choose to list.
The main issue this portal will face is just how much time and energy, not to mention money, can it devote to this initiative. Remember property is not its main business, and it will be up against companies where property is their only business.
Phuket property agents already spend a lot of time and money marketing their own websites, and promoting them with paid-for positions on Google and social media.
Will this new website be able to devote the same attention to its new venture?
If you want an example of a traditional publisher that just dabbles in property you need look no further than the Bangkok Post, where enquiry rates for listed properties are extremely low compared with the traditional property portals.
I know this because when working for a real estate agency this was one of our outlets for listings, and this outlet was the worst-performing of the five we were using at that time.