If you review the article, the issue of the property not selling for a
higher price and REA pushing for deal that may not be in the best interest
of the seller is that the risk of losing the sale increases as the price
increases. The demand elasticity is unknown. So you ask for a higher price
and you risk losing the entire deal.

So if a REA sells a property for say, 400,000 and his commission is 1.5%
(typical on a brokered sale - the listing agent gets a piece 1.5%, and the
broker gets the biggest part, 3%), he will make $6,000.

Let's say the seller wants to increase the price to $420,000, a 5% increase.
The seller would receive $18,800. The REA would receive $300. So - for
$300, the REA risks $6,000. Most are unwilling to do that.

So putting the REA on the side of the seller means one must equalize the
risk/reward. Therefore, offering a "non-standard" contract with a bonus for
a selling price above a certain threshold or an additional bonus for selling
within a certain time changes the equation for the REA and puts the agent
and the seller in a similar risk/reward position, thus creating better
alignment of goals.

Not what you originally posted about, Justin, but hopefully others will find
value in this.

Mark