Why disruption keeps failing (and what actually works): Q&A with Patrick Kearns

Patrick Kearns/contributed. 

 

I’ve seen the same story for almost two decades: a disruptor proclaims its intention of disrupting the Canadian real estate industry. The so-called barbarian appears with good funding, better tech, sleeker messaging and national ambitions. In response, the industry clutches its pearls, wrings its hands, and articles (like these) get punched out, predicting the brave new world is upon us. And then nothing happens.

No barbarians were ever at the gate. It was just the wind.

But is this time different? I’ve built businesses at the intersection of brokerage, fintech and technology for over fifteen years. And, I’ve learned as much from mistakes and failed experiments as from success. With those lessons comes a set of heuristics that help distinguish saber rattling from real barbarians. For the first time, I believe there are actual barbarians. Because, for the first time, the people building the technology to disrupt real estate are focused on what consumers actually want, not what we think they should want. 

What follows is a conversation with Patrick Kearns, someone who has experienced this industry from multiple angles: journalism, startup communications, proptech leadership, and now strategic roles shaping integrated platforms. Based in the New York City Metropolitan Area, Kearns is the executive director of PR and communications at PLACE, which bills itself as an all-in-one real estate services and technology platform for top real estate teams. We explore why disruption keeps failing, what we’ve fundamentally misunderstood and what’s finally different.

Falcomer: Patrick, why hasn’t real estate been disrupted? The industry has all of the hallmarks disruptors love: fragmentation, inefficiency and slow tech adoption, yet technology hasn’t fundamentally changed the industry. Why is that?

Kearns: There’s been a core mismatch between what the industry thought the problem was and what consumers actually wanted. I’ve covered this space from multiple angles – journalism, proptech, then the brokerage side at Anywhere. And here’s what I observed: the industry kept trying to solve for convenience for either the consumer or agent. Better user experience, which means seamless integration and friction reduction. Agents should adopt this CRM because it saves time. Consumers should use this platform because it’s easier.

But that’s not what either of them actually cares about. Agents care about ROI. Consumers care about control and certainty that they’ve found the right home at the right price. The industry was solving the wrong problem.

Falcomer: And DocuSign proves this. I often point to it as being the best example of a technology that got it right in the real estate industry. 

Kearns: Exactly. DocuSign is one of the few technologies that actually stuck in real estate. Why? The value proposition is undeniable. Instead of driving around signing documents for one deal, you manage two deals simultaneously from your home office. That’s not theoretical. That’s money in your pocket. An agent does the math instantly. The buyer and sellers, on the other hand, don’t have to wait for you to drive back and forth to get a deal done. The benefit isn’t the UI. It’s actual revenue multiplication for the agent. You can do more deals in parallel. And, for the buyer or seller, it’s a more convenient process, more transparent and makes them feel more in control because they get feedback regarding the offers faster and more visibly. 

Falcomer: If I could extend the logic here, would you say that agents don’t care as much about a brand of a tool or convenience? Rather, they care more about whether a tool makes them more money.

Kearns: Exactly. These are small business owners. They don’t care if the tool is from Zillow or Realtor.com. If it generates leads and doesn’t cost too much, they’ll use it. But they won’t adopt tools unless there’s a direct line between adoption and their bottom line. That’s not irrational. That’s rational because every dollar spent on something that doesn’t have a return is a dollar that is lost and could be used to feed their family. It’s exactly the same thinking that a businessperson has. 

 

The Anywhere observation: What technology investment actually means

 

Falcomer: Anywhere and Compass are both brokerages. Both have technology. Both were doing sophisticated work. For example, Anywhere with AI document processing, modernizing agent payments, rebuilding internal infrastructure. But the market valued them completely differently. Compass told a story about being a technology company disrupting real estate. Anywhere told a story about being a brokerage that happened to use technology. That narrative difference was worth $1.6 billion when Compass acquired Anywhere. How much of that valuation gap was about actual innovation versus the story they told?

Kearns: Perception matters enormously. Anywhere was innovating on internal processes that weren’t visible. They were modernizing infrastructure, handling massive document volumes through AI, making the entire company run more efficiently. But they weren’t talking about it. They were intentionally suppressing that narrative, worried about looking like a bloated incumbent.

Compass went to market with a different story: We are a technology company disrupting real estate. Wall Street believed it. Because they believed it, Compass grew their market cap, raised capital at higher valuations, and then acquired companies like Anywhere at a massive premium.

Falcomer: So the company actually being more efficient internally loses to the company better at narrative.

Kearns: That’s right. Whether the story matched reality almost became secondary. The story won. And it led to a $1.6-billion acquisition instead of a higher public valuation. Market perception became market reality.

 

Why technology adoption actually fails

 

Falcomer: I want to dig into adoption. You can build sophisticated internal tools, but when you’re asking franchisees to deploy technology to agents, adoption is often flat. Why?

Kearns: At the end of the day, adoption is voluntary. When I was at OJO and Anywhere, I learned agents use what directly impacts their commission check. Not what makes their lives easier. Not what sounds innovative. Commission checks.

And I think what happens is brokerages understand this intellectually, but they still pitch tools wrong. “This CRM will help you organize leads better.” Agents hear: “I have to learn a new system and change my process for no guaranteed ROI.” Of course they don’t adopt it.

 

The end-to-end platform dream (and why it keeps failing)

 

Falcomer: Every part of that transaction is an opportunity for breakage. Every part is a place where consumers shop around or agents steer away. Why hasn’t end-to-end worked?

Kearns: Every part of that transaction is an opportunity for consumers or agents to opt out. We saw this at OJO. You pre-qualify someone for a mortgage, introduce them to an agent, and that agent says: “Don’t use that lender. Use the one I know.”

The infrastructure to build truly coordinated platforms didn’t exist before. Technology has allowed more connection than ever. But breakage points existed everywhere—places where consumers and professionals could shop around and exit the “funnel” you’ve created.

But here’s what’s changed: the technology infrastructure has finally caught up. Data standards and APIs are improving. When you own the infrastructure—when you own mortgage, title, transaction coordination—you can create a product so connected that consumers don’t have breakage points. They’re not managing multiple systems. They’re not getting handed off from agent to lender. They’re working with both simultaneously in one system. That wasn’t possible before today’s technology. 

Falcomer: In Canada, we’ve tried this with in-house lenders. The problem is: if I own the mortgage company but can’t guarantee you the best rate, you’ll go elsewhere. Breakage still exists even if I own the infrastructure.

Kearns: True. But think about what end-to-end coordination actually reduces: origination costs. When you integrate mortgage, title and transaction management, you eliminate redundant processes, duplicate data entry, competing timelines. Mortgage origination in the U.S. is now more expensive than ever in history. If you connect platforms and make the entire homeownership experience more transparent and frictionless, you bring costs down with it. That’s a trade-off many consumers would take.

And you’re not forcing consumers to use your mortgage lender. But think about all those different levers as funnels into the homeownership ecosystem. A mortgage company monitoring your equity, monitoring your rate—that’s another way to get a consumer to think, “Maybe now’s the right time to buy or sell.” You don’t even need the mortgage from you. But you’ve got engagement across their entire lifecycle.

Falcomer: So the value isn’t the mortgage itself. It’s ongoing engagement through the entire lifecycle by offering tools that improve the homeowners financial situation or simply to offer a better home management system.

Kearns: Exactly. We help you manage your home. Find landscaping. Monitor equity. Think about refinancing or taking a HELOC for maintenance. That’s value. So if you constantly engage with consumers that way, you create funnels back into your platform. It’s a win for consumers and professionals.

 

The consumer psychology piece: Control, not convenience

 

Falcomer: What do consumers actually want versus what we think they want?

Kearns: People want to feel like they’re getting a good deal. If they can’t see every home for sale, they don’t feel in control. They’ve got FOMO. “What if there’s a better house in the neighborhood? What if it’s cheaper? What if it has a pool?” That anxiety of “Am I getting the best deal?”

That’s why portals matter. Agents should be using them: “Here’s the full market. Here are the trade-offs you need to make at your price point.”

Falcomer: So the fear isn’t missing convenience. It’s missing the right home.

Kearns: Exactly. They want peace of mind. They want to feel like they’ve seen everything. And this is where Compass did something brilliant. When Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) cut off Zillow’s listings in Chicago, Compass went to market with one message: “We have every listing. Zillow doesn’t.” Not features. Not UX. Just: complete information.

They took a regulatory dispute and turned it into a consumer control narrative. Every Compass agent in Chicago posted: “Looking for homes? Compass has every listing. Zillow does not.” Because they understood something fundamental: that’s what actually matters to consumers.

 

Why Zillow dominates

 

Falcomer: Why is it so hard to dislodge Zillow in the mind of the U.S. consumer?

Kearns: Winning on brand in the real estate portal space is very difficult in the US. That battle is won. Zillow has it. Everybody knows what Zillow is. They were first movers. They’ve got brand equity. Great product. Great UX.

But here’s the thing: Zillow doesn’t have a data advantage. They get the same IDX feed as every brokerage. It’s the same listings everywhere. But the perception is that Zillow has everything. And that perception is valuable.

What Compass has done is eliminate that neutral ground. They said, “No—the real estate brokerage should control data. Not a neutral third party.” And they’ve told that story so effectively that for the first time, a real estate brokerage has a data advantage.

They changed the game by controlling the narrative and controlling the data simultaneously.

 

Consolidation, AI and the future

 

Falcomer: What half-baked crazy prediction do you have about the industry five, 10 or more years from now? 

Kearns: More consolidation. More consolidation of brands and technology. On the brokerage and franchisor side, it’s going to be tough to be an indie broker. You’re seeing Remax buying independents. eXp buying NextHome. Compass acquiring Anywhere. Big brands are consolidating to go to battle of listing data. 

But you’ll see proptech consolidate too. Companies that raised money are running out of it. There will be a lot of consolidation.

Falcomer: How about AI? How is that changing the industry and fit into your vision for the future? 

Kearns: AI is changing behavior generally. But in real estate, we’ve established that consumers want control. They don’t want to say, “Find me a three-bedroom house in a good school district” and get curated results. They want to feel like they’re finding everything, so I don’t think that cha-bots are going to disrupt the portal space. It’s still about having all the listings in one place. 

Falcomer: What about the real estate space? Will AI eliminate the agent? 

Kearns: Not at all. People still want the psychological security that a good, informed agent provides. Also, agents won’t automate tasks with AI if it means losing control over their business. 

Falcomer: What about brokerages? I have a theory that AI does not democratize the industry, rather it’s an amplifier, which means that it’ll have outsized positive impacts if you’re larger and so-so impact if you’re smaller.

Kearns: Agreed! We are already seeing it – larger brokerages can deploy AI more efficiently because they have the resources to do so. If you’re a smaller indie broker, you get a worse deal on ChatGPT or Claude. You can’t build custom tools the way you want. You’re stuck with base-level AI. And you’re probably putting consumer data into ChatGPT that you shouldn’t be.

And then there’s the regulatory piece. Real estate is heavily regulated. Mortgage banking is heavily regulated. If you’re a smaller company navigating those AI and confidentiality guardrails, it’s difficult. If you’re a bigger company with 24 lawyers and 600 engineers, you can work through it and find ways to use this technology that smaller companies cannot.

Falcomer: So AI doesn’t democratize. It concentrates power.

Kearns: Exactly. It widens the gap.

Falcomer: What’s your vision for where this lands?

Kearns: When we start to see the housing market turn around, innovation will start coming to fruition. We’ve got new technology, new tools, and agents are well-equipped. But the process of buying and selling houses feels similar to 20 years ago. Listings are on the Internet. That’s the only difference.

I don’t think AI will create the “latte experience” that Brad Inman predicted–where buying a house is as easy as getting coffee. I don’t think it’s ever going to be one click. But consumers will feel more in control because they’ll have technology enabling that control. We’re not taking experts out of it. Agents are still critical for guiding, building community around each consumer and “gut checking”. People just don’t trust AI blindly, yet. 

What’s different now is that infrastructure finally exists. For twenty years, we didn’t have the technical building blocks. Now we do. APIs work. Data standards are improving. We can coordinate across mortgage, title, and transaction management in ways we couldn’t before.

 

Biggest takeaways: Same consumer psychology fighting on a different battlefield

 

The U.S. and Canada face the same fundamental consumer dynamic: people fear missing the right home at the right price. But our laws, brands and ways of doing business are different, which changes how most disruption plays out.

Kearn’s Compass-Chicago example is instructive. Compass could displace Zillow because they controlled supply. In an impressive coup, they made Compass listings unavailable elsewhere, then told consumers: “Zillow doesn’t have what you’re looking for.” That worked because the U.S. MLS landscape is fractured and because the biggest brokerage is willing to crack a few eggs.

Canada’s problem is the inverse. We’ve always had a unified national aggregator: Realtor.ca. That’s more efficient, but it creates a different vulnerability. Realtor.ca’s dominance rests on perceived data completeness, not actual competitive advantage. Like Zillow, they get the same IDX feed as everyone else. But the moment a competitor controls a meaningful portion of new listings and communicates that difference (“Realtor.ca is missing 20 per cent of Toronto homes”) the perception shatters faster than Zillow’s did. I believe that the Canadian consumer will platform-hop just as quickly.

This points to the second dynamic: consolidation won’t flatten the brokerage industry. Instead, Kearn’s analysis about AI and infrastructure suggests a barbell structure that I already see forming.

Kearns noted that AI amplifies rather than democratizes. Larger brokerages with compliance teams and 600 engineers can build custom tools, while smaller indie brokers get the less effective and more risky base ChatGPT. The edge that AI provides the large brokerage creates a vicious downward spiral for the smaller brokerage as they become less attractive to real estate agents, which hurts the smaller brokerage’s ability to compete, which impacts their ability to invest in AI, which makes more agents leave (you get where this goes). But there’s an escape hatch: real estate teams.

Teams operate differently. A team lead acts as a franchiser as she handles all marketing, operations, lead generation she deeply cares about ROI because every dollar matters. And here’s where Kearn’s infrastructure insight becomes tactical: technology platforms that solve operational problems for teams, such as regulatory headaches, transaction coordination and lead tracking will thrive because they show direct ROI. “You buy this, you free up three hours a week and capture two more deals. That’s $X in your pocket.” Teams don’t care about brand or convenience–they care about dollars in their pocket.

Companies like Side Brokerage Inc. in the U.S. caught onto the wave of the “team” concept as they offered brokerage services to the team. Prior to AI, this model was hard to scale because you didn’t have the technology to do a lot of the compliance, operational and marketing work that today’s AI empowered technology certainly can. As such, Canada will see the same model emerge. So the real battlefield isn’t Zillow vs. Compass or Remax vs. eXp. It’s consolidation at the top (big brokerages acquiring data and building integrated platforms) and decentralization at the bottom (high-performing teams with lean operations buying point solutions that stack ROI on ROI). The middle—traditional mid-market brokerages without data control or team infrastructure—gets squeezed.

The barbarians aren’t at the gate. They’re already inside, but it turns out they’re very polite and just want to help by developing tools that make real estate teams more money, creating better brokerages that deliver better services to customers and platforms that let consumers find every home without switching screens. Once the barbarians make themselves truly known, adoption won’t be flat. It’ll be ferocious. That’s the difference this time.

The post Why disruption keeps failing (and what actually works): Q&A with Patrick Kearns appeared first on REM.