An automated receipt is not an answer

Most properties have something in place. A confirmation page, an autoresponder, a line thanking the buyer for reaching out and promising that someone will be in touch shortly. It is polite, it is instant, and it answers nothing.

We do not stop the clock on it. The measurement we publish runs to the first reply that contains information the buyer asked for: whether the date is open, what it costs, what the space holds, when they can see it. Anything short of that leaves the buyer exactly where they were, which is comparing properties with incomplete information.

The receipt does do one thing, and it is worth being honest about it. It buys a small amount of patience. A buyer who gets an acknowledgement will usually wait a few hours longer before writing the property off. What it cannot do is stop them from continuing to shop, because the question that prompted the inquiry is still open.

This is where a great deal of automation goes wrong. It is aimed at making the property look responsive rather than at making the buyer informed. The buyer can tell the difference immediately, and so can a planner comparing three properties for a client.

The standard worth holding is simple. The first reply answers the question. If the date is taken, it says so and offers what is open. If the price depends on the season, it gives the range and the variable. If the property genuinely cannot answer without a conversation, it says what the conversation is for and offers two times.

Speed only matters because it is a proxy for competence. A fast reply that says nothing spends the proxy without earning it.