Unfortunately, not all have as thick a skin as me.

Kris didn’t go looking for blood either.

One could argue that Hian did….

Just a couple of points…

You wrote: “You say that, “she violated the first rule of our culture, which is that everyone is respected”…

I didn’t say that, Glenn Kelman said it. It’s his company, as the CEO, he established the culture. He felt Hian violated it, he terminated her.

You wrote: “but at the end of the day (in my opinion) he only fired Hian because she was “disposable” or “replaceable” in his eyes. Now if she was a top producer within his company, then I stand corrected, but I highly doubt it. Chances are that a top producer (read: putting lots of money in Glen’s pockets) wouldn’t have been cast off to the wolves the way Hian was”

Hian wasn’t a Redfin agent. She was a paid blogger. As such, its unlikely she brought much hard cash into the Redfin till. In effect, she WAS pretty much disposable/replaceable.

And as a paid blogger, who apparently had guidelines with which to write her posts, she made a glaring error — that being violating those guidelines.

Did the post make Kelman “physically ill”. Probably not in the literal sense. I doubt he leaned over and actually threw up. I suspect he used that term in more of a metaphorical sense.

“BUT was ANYTHING that ANYONE said seriously THAT bad?”

In my opinion, yes. Your mileage may vary.

Was I overly sensitive because one of those being attacked was a friend? Yep.

The point is that everyone seems to have taken this a bit too sensitively and to me I don’t agree with Barry with the comment that this decision was a no brainer for Glen. There may be more to the story then we know, BUT was ANYTHING that ANYONE said seriously THAT bad? I believe that what BOTH parties said were jabs at one another and nothing to lose sleep over. Berg disrespected Redfin, Hian defended Redfin (and please everyone stop with the “oh Berg commented on the business model and Hian was wrong because she rebutted making personal attacks” theory because an attack is an attck whichever way you want it to be looked at. Who else was Hian supposed to say something about? The entire “establishment”? And have MANY more angry agents jumping down her throat?……….but I digress) Glen may have been defending his company’s name, but at the end of the day (in my opinion) he only fired Hian because she was “disposable” or “replaceable” in his eyes. Now if she was a top producer within his company, then I stand corrected, but I highly doubt it. Chances are that a top producer (read: putting lots of money in Glen’s pockets)
wouldn’t have been cast off to the wolves the way Hian was. Just slapped in the wrist, told to make an apology, and live again to put more money in CEO’s pockets. Again, if I’m wrong, then I apologize and I stand corrected.

Only Kelman, Hian, and Berg know what REALLY happened……………..but I HIGHLY doubt that ANYONE was “physically ill” after reading the post. (Ladies and Gentlemen please try to stay seated as the swarming gust of political correctness sweeps its way throughout your area)

Point is, I think that all party’s defendants will find a way to defend their corner’s decision. I am coming at this from a completely neutral angle and basically saying that once the first stone was thrown (by Party A) then either “ALL’s FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR” or they shouldn’t have made the comment in the first place.

Just wondered if it had not been on Redfin’s blog would the reaction and result been the same.

We did contact the Berg’s and got the proverbial no comment. Bad move I think…but nonetheless, it was their declination that causes people to look further.

I understand all too well about people getting personal, but I don’t go looking for blood when people take a swing at me.

You don’t have to defend your position. It was clear, it was a reaction to someone insulting one of your friends. Nuff said, but if you’d like to come on I will set it up.

I don’t think Glenn fired Carol Hian for the publicity. Nor do I think he fired her to appease the establishment. I think he fired her for the exact reasons he stated. That being Hian’s post made him “physically ill” and she “violated the first rule” of Redfin’s culture.

I’d have a hard time paying someone to write for me if they wrote posts that made me physically ill or violated my company culture.

Barry, you’ve got my number. I’ll be happy to go on air and explain to your listeners exactly why I wrote what I did.

Interesting analysis.

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else involved. For me, it was honestly this simple:

Someone personally attacked a friend of mine. In my opinion, they far exceeded what Kris wrote and they got personal about it.

That’s about it.

Glenn Kelman is probably less afraid of “traditional” real estate than anyone on the planet. I can’t see him firing anyone to appease someone — especially the “status quo”.

Isn’t it just possible that Glenn Kelman, having met Kris Berg, felt the personal attack was unwarranted and he fired Hian for for exactly the reason he stated — “she violated the first rule of our culture, which is that everyone is respected.”

Or if it’s really a conspiracy theory someone wants, maybe Glenn fired her because he knew there would be “buzz” about it. He is, after all, a *master* of PR and spin. And I say that with the utmost respect. To me, that’s a FAR more plausible reason than him firing her to “take the high road instead of battling a larger, more traditional and more established opponent”. Good grief. Did you SEE the 60 Minutes clip? Have you read anything Glenn’s written in the past? Kelman is fearless when it comes to taking on “the establishment”.

For the record (which I’ve said several times before) I’ve got no problem with Redfin. I think parts of their model are flawed, and I think parts are brilliant.

I defended a friend. It had absolutely nothing to do with who attacked her, or even why. I don’t just stand by and watch someone attack a friend. Hell, read my blog. I got assaulted in a bar fight a few weeks ago defending a complete stranger. People can rant on all they want about me and my motives for defending Kris. I know why I did it, and Kris knows. To be honest, I don’t really care what the speculators think.

Someone wrote me and said, “You may have lost a potential client with that post about Carol Hian!”

So what. Some things in life are more important than potential clients. (And judging by a couple of emails I received, there may just be people that appreciate someone standing up for what they feel is right. It works both ways.)

I couldn’t care any less that Hian worked for Redfin. Barry asked would I have had the same reaction if it had happened on Bloodhound Blog. Ahem. The primary reason I stopped contributing on Bloodhound was due to the escalating personal attacks. So yes, I certainly would have had exactly the same response.

Was Hian’s termination justified? I don’t know. It’s not my company. Apparently the CEO felt it was justified. Would I have done it? Maybe, maybe not. If one of my agents wrote something like Hian did, I would probably smack them (figuratively), and make them issue an apology. If I had contracted a blogger to write for me, yeah, I likely would have ended the contract. Someone paid to blog and nothing but blog ought to know better, or at least have enough of a clue to say before they clicked PUBLISH, “Hey, I’m thinking about teeing off on someone here. Personal attacks, name calling and questioning their charity work. You have a problem with that?”

Barry – have you considered contacting the Berg’s for info about the food drive? Or to get Kris’ opinion on her post on Redfin or any of this mess?

I am trying to get Carol Hian on the show. I think we will all now what went on if we can get an interview with her. I feel there is more to this than we all know and I want to reserve comment until further facts are uncovered.

Tomorrow we will be speaking to the food bank to find out how this food drive came about.

Something is smelly and I want to know wha it is that smells. You’ll be one of the first to know what we turn up if anything.

The simple fact of the matter in this is that Party A bashed Party B and then in turn Party B (or a representative of Party B) then bashed Party A in return………and then everyone in Party A’s corner came out swinging for the fences. WHY? Is it because Berg (……Party A for those not keeping up) was a “made member”? Was it because Hian didnt have a leg to stand on professionally, underestimated her opponent, or rebutted in a “childish” manner?

NO…..

I believe that this is simply because Party A (Berg and the clan of TRADITIONAL agents) is MUCH larger and MUCH more influential than Party B (Hian and Redfin). Party A does not want to see anyone step on THEIR toes or anyone dare challenge them for their commision or traditional means of collecting their paycheck, so it is fine for them to fire shots at anyone, anytime they very well feel like because at the end of the day there are MANY more agents that will support them (themselves) before they ever support Redfin (sorry………Party B for those keeping up). Party A will ALWAYS get the upperhand at arguments like this because they have strength in numbers. So they rally behind their keyboards and defend their brethren like faithful little worker ants. How can Party B EVER win, especially in this sensitive time when they are ALWAYS the hunted? Simple, THEY CAN’T!

As long as we live in a world of status quo, “the masses” or “the norm” are allowed to practice and preach whatever they want as long as it doesn’t intervene with what everyone else is being taught and practice at the very same time. As long as no one is going against the grain, then everything is fine. This is Party A. The problem with this model of not only business, but also society, is that who is to say that what is being taught and is held as “the norm” is actually the CORRECT or BEST way to do something? Who is to say that Party B’s way of conducting business isn’t the more ethical, or simply better way to practice business? NO ONE IS TO SAY AS IT IS ALL A MATTER OF OPINION!

We here in the West (i.e. The United States), predominantly practice Christianity and feel as if it’s “the norm” and therefore qualifies as our status quo. We are much larger in numbers here than any other religion and if any of “them” (_______ fill any other religion in this blank) say anything about “us”, then we have the right to bash them in and say whatever we want about them without any major backlash. They (or “them”) will always lose HERE on our turf simply because we (or “us”) think or believe it’s the better or more logical way of conducting business (or religion). Now let’s be honest here, is ANY of this FACT based, or is it all OPINION? Answer not by faith, or not by anything you’ve ever been taught, but by proof of FACTS. The fact of the matter is that if this entire example was switched to us being in the middle east, then we as Christians would now be considered the “they” and “they” would be the minority and “they” would be wrong and “they” would be blasted at any chance “they” chose to even try to begin raising “their” voices and speaking “their” minds. It’s not nice being the minority is it? Again, is any of this FACT based? No, just opinions. Are there ANY facts proving without a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is better than Islam or vice versa? No there are no facts, just what we’ve been taught and what we believe to be true (in case you don’t know by now, this is referred to as an OPINION). So who’s to say that the traditional means of practicing the sale of real estate is BETTER or MORE LOGICAL than Redfin’s method? No one, it’s just everyone’s opinion as to what side to choose. In this example it’s obvious that Redfin is the “they” and are the minority and simply can’t win.

The point is that even though I don’t agree with Mr Kelman’s hanging of his own crew member, I do at least understand why he did it. Simply because in a business where it is safer for him to take the high road instead of battling a larger, more traditional and more established opponent . His numbers are no where near that of Party A’s and he knows that staying behind the scenes is always much better than purposefully starting a fight that he knows he won’t be able to finish. Anyone who feels Hian or Berg were EITHER wrong are just hypocrites in my opinion, because none of this is fact based to ever begin with, so if adults can’t have different opinions, then why should they even be referred to as adults to begin with? The ONLY facts in this are that Berg was disrespectful in the first place, and Hian followed by defending her company (excuse me………EX……..company) by being disrespectful right back. As adults, we need to be less sensitive and practice a few things like, “treat others with the same respect as you want to be treated with” or better yet, “don’t dish it if you can’t take it”.

I don’t think that’s a can of worms we want to open ..is it?

Kris Berg took a light shot at the business model of Redfin as they changed it to be more like every other discounter… I’ll give you that.

But, Carol Hian didn’t take Kris Berg to task for that comment. She didn’t counter her argument. She didn’t refute what she said. Instead she chose to go after her for having a canned food drive.

What does that have to do with the issue?

If I take Brett to task for his opinion and he responds by saying I’m fat and smell bad… that has nothing to do with it… and then I’ll be mad because I’ll think he’s talking to my wife.

If you dispute me on my market niche, and I respond by telling you that you need to do more for charity… I’d be off base… changing the argument.

Carol Hian didn’t call Kris Berg a Barbie because she nailed Redfin on their business model change. She attacked her about something completely different… and stupid.

Just how does one justify calling someone out for having a canned food drive? Could she do more? Maybe… but she did more that 299,000,000 in this country. Did Carol? I don’t know… she didn’t address that.

Kelman is a stand-up guy. I saw from your comments that Kris was obviously close to you.

It’s a fine line between the whole entity and personal thing. People take shots at me and my business all the time. I don’t call for a public lynching.

To me it was a bit of overkill. Russell Shaw called me a turd over at Bloodhound..I’m a big boy, I did not storm the Bastille asking for his head, nor was there much uproar denouncing what he said.

I read many, many, incendiary posts all over the blogosphere inside and outside of real estate.

We hold ourselves out to the public and as such we are fair game. I don’t think you can take a swipe at someone’s business and not expect them to react.

If Carol had called out Kris’ real estate business would you have felt differently? Probably not, it’s a veil that is often pierced.

I believe that if you hold yourself out in the blogosphere, then you are prone to detractors.

This platform is predicated upon free speech. Hian’s mistake is she did it on someone else’s turf and she met with her demise, which satisfied the bloodlust of many (I’ve read many the subsequent comment affirming this).

I have not touched on the validity of Hian’s assertion regarding the superficiality of the food drive. For now, that is not the issue. It may become an issue but it is not one right now.

The matter at hand is many were offended including you…but if I can be so blunt…so what?

What I am saying is that if not for that it was written on Redfin, just what exactly do you think would be happening right now?

You, with your warranted feelings regarding her post, would be one of many dissenting comments on Carol’s blog and she would be free to write another post again today and it would be your choice to again comment or not read the post.

That is not the case right now. I am not in any way questioning your motives, I am questioning the outcome and whether or not that was realistic in nature outside the realm of Redfin.

While her post was arguably mundane and inane, was it cause for termiantion, and was that the real cause for the upheaval, after all…even you wrote “Kudo’s to them (Redfin) for doing the right thing all around”.

It can be inferred from your statement that you indeed wanted her head and that was what you considered to be the “right thing”.

So today, the basis of my post, was in reading all of this over and over again, was Hian singled out with the intention of putting Kelman in a position wherein he was forced to do the “right thing”.

Accordingly, if she was blogging on Active Rain or Bloodhound or her, what would the dissenters be hoping to achieve today other than the continued voicing of their opinion? What would have been the “right thing” if she did not work for Redfin?

That’s what I am trying to ascertain.