Comparison

Traditional Model vs Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®

In the eyes of Buyers

Category	Traditional Model	Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®
Trusting the system	Trust relies heavily on the person and promises Compensation tied to price can feel misaligned	Trust is reinforced by structure: pay increases when savings increase Alignment is baked into the compensation logic (Inverse Commission™)
Incentive alignment	Higher price → higher commission (perceived conflict) Speed/closure can become the silent priority	Savings/terms → higher compensation (Commission on the GAP™) Motivation is transparent at the closing table
Buyer control over property choice	Agent may drive the shortlist (availability + incentives + convenience) Buyers can feel ‘steered’ toward closeable options	Buyer can pick any listing and send the link to the NEGOTIATOR® Less pressure: the NEGOTIATOR® focuses on negotiation outcomes
Protected from the start (BBA)	Sometimes no buyer-exclusive contract until late (or ever) Representation boundaries can feel blurry	Buyer Agency Agreement + NEGOTIATOR® agreement is foundational Clear duties, scope, and compensation expectations upfront
Finding negatives (leverage)	Finding deal-breakers can slow the deal and reduce enthusiasm Incentives don’t clearly reward uncovering negatives	Unfavorable issues become negotiation leverage (GAP improvements) System rewards diligence and tough negotiation
Price anchoring	List price often anchors expectations Buyers may struggle to know what is ‘fair’	HEV (Highest Estimated Value) frames a rational ceiling NEGOTIATOR® aims to close below HEV when possible
Out-of-pocket anxiety	Buyer worries they pay ‘extra’ for representation Fees can feel like a sunk cost	Performance framing: paid from savings/credits when achieved If no GAP/savings, compensation can drop dramatically (by design)
Transparency of compensation	Commission math often feels abstract Hard to see how effort changes pay	Compensation ties to an explainable number (GAP) Clear why the NEGOTIATOR® pushes for better terms
Lower-cost suggestions	Alternatives exist but aren’t systematically rewarded May default to ‘standard playbook’ offers	Motivated to propose cost reducers: repairs, credits, concessions Buyer sees multiple paths to improve the final deal
Negotiation intensity	Negotiation can be ‘good enough’ to close Hard for buyer to verify maximum effort	Motive-based proof: more effort can mean more pay If room existed, the NEGOTIATOR® benefits from capturing it
Conflict avoidance	Dual agency / conflicted situations can appear in some markets Buyer may question whose side the rep is on	Designed for clean separation and buyer-side alignment NEGOTIATOR® negotiates from the other side of the table
Overall experience	One agent does everything (search + show + negotiate + close)	Specialized roles: NAVIGATOR™ (search/tours) + NEGOTIATOR® (negotiation) Cleaner expectations and more buyer control

In the eyes of Brokers

Category	Traditional Model	Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®
Winning buyer agreements	Harder to justify fees when buyers find homes online Pitch can feel subjective	Concrete pitch: paid to negotiate down for the buyer Easier to win buyer-exclusive agreements consistently
Risk management (conflicts)	Perceived incentive conflicts can create complaints Dual agency or mixed loyalties can raise issues	Alignment reduces perceived conflicts Role separation clarifies duties and expectations
Standardization across the brokerage	Wide variance in buyer-agent quality/process Hard to enforce consistent negotiation rigor	Certified process + defined expectations Operational consistency and coaching structure
Recruiting & retention	Top negotiators can feel under-recognized Income not tightly linked to skill	Merit-based pay narrative attracts strong negotiators Professional track for buyer-side excellence
Training focus	Training spreads across lead gen, showings, closing Negotiation can be secondary	Negotiation becomes the core craft (specialization) Skill ladder: valuation → HEV → GAP → terms
Compatibility with MLS dynamics	Standard MLS buyer-agent workflow	Complements MLS dynamics Adds buyer-side negotiation layer
Value auditability	Compensation simple but not outcome-linked Hard to show why buyer ‘got value’	Outcome-linked story (GAP/savings) Repeatable story for value delivery
Business model clarity	Broker revenue tied to traditional splits/commissions	Programmatic offering Straightforward per-agent participation fees (where applicable)
Market messaging	Hard to stand out: ‘great service’ Consumers increasingly skeptical	Differentiator: “paid to negotiate down” Message fits modern buyer expectations
Professionalism signal	Anyone can claim they negotiate hard	System sets higher standard Supports fiduciary narrative
Role clarity for management	Buyer agent role can blur into showing/admin	NAVIGATOR™ vs NEGOTIATOR® clarifies accountability
Competitive positioning	Competes on brand, inventory access, personalities	Competes on model + measurable outcomes

In the eyes of Franchises

Category	Traditional Model	Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®
Brand differentiation	Many franchises look similar on the buy side	Clear buyer-first product: Inverse Commission™ + NEGOTIATOR® role
Consistency across offices	Experience depends on each office/agent Hard to ensure uniform negotiation quality	Standard concepts (HEV, GAP, role split) More replicable buyer experience
Training program packaging	Training broad and not productized	Specialty certification creates trackable competency
Expansion readiness	New markets require heavy customization	Core principles translate well; adapt while keeping the promise
Reputation / consumer trust	Industry skepticism affects brand perception	System-based trust message improves confidence
Agent attraction	Attracts agents via splits, leads, culture	Attracts negotiation-minded pros; strong identity/community
Operational templates	Agents do everything; hard to operationalize excellence	Two-role model creates scalable staffing templates
Consumer messaging at scale	Hard to teach every agent the same buyer pitch	Simple pitch scales: ‘If I save you more, I earn more.’
Network effects	Limited buyer-side differentiation	Certification signaling enables recognizable network value
Compliance posture	Messaging can drift across franchisees	Clear rules + agreements encourage consistent disclosures
Unit economics story	Revenue tied to price; weak ‘value delivered’ framing	Outcome-linked framing supports premium positioning
Future-proofing	Sensitive to transparency and expectation shifts	Built around transparency + alignment as defaults

In the eyes of Agents

Category	Traditional Model	Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®
How you earn	Paid as % of price (more spend → more pay)	Paid from negotiated value/savings (GAP)
Professional pride	Negotiation skill undervalued in pay structure	Skill is the product; outcomes drive compensation
Client trust	Buyers may suspect you want a higher price	Motive is obvious: you’re paid to save them money
Role specialization	One agent does search, tours, negotiation, admin	Choose a lane: NAVIGATOR™ and/or NEGOTIATOR®
Negotiation permission	Pressure to ‘keep deal alive’ can soften negotiation	Mandate to negotiate hard is built in
Property negatives	Highlighting negatives can feel like risking the deal	Negatives become leverage in GAP strategy
Career moat	Hard to stand out beyond marketing/hustle	Stand out with measurable outcomes + specialization
Referrals	Referrals rely on experience; motive isn’t obvious	Easier story: ‘They got paid by saving me money.’
Earning upside	Income correlates more with price-point than skill	Income correlates more with negotiation performance
Showings load	Showings can consume the whole week	NEGOTIATOR® can focus on strategy while NAVIGATOR™ handles tours
Broker alignment	Broker may focus on volume/velocity	Broker can sell a premium buyer-side product
Ethics becomes easier	Ethics relies on personal discipline	Ethics reinforced by incentives + rules

In the eyes of the Industry

Category	Traditional Model	Paris Paradigm / NEGOTIATOR®
Conflict-of-interest reduction	Buyer-side pay can feel misaligned with buyer goals	Buyer-side pay aligns with buyer savings outcomes
Consumer understanding	Consumers don’t always understand who is paid and why	Simpler narrative: compensation explained by GAP/outcomes
Professional specialization	Generalist model dominates	Distinct buyer-side negotiation profession (NEGOTIATOR®)
Negotiation standards	Negotiation quality is inconsistent	System encourages measurable negotiation rigor
Transparency	Disclosures vary by market and practice style	Emphasizes documented logic (HEV, GAP, terms)
Buyer engagement	Buyers think: ‘I found it online; I don’t need an agent’	Clear reason to want representation: value + alignment
Ecosystem compatibility	Existing MLS workflows continue	Designed to complement MLS dynamics
Merit-based rewards	Pay correlates more with price than skill	Pay correlates more with negotiation success
Reputation lift	Trust challenges persist	System-based alignment can improve sentiment
Market evolution readiness	Struggles when consumers demand transparency	Built around transparency and alignment by default
Role separation clarity	Buy/list roles can confuse consumers	Separate buyer-side functions for clarity
Fiduciary proof	Hard to prove maximum effort in negotiation	Motive-based proof: savings should increase compensation