Clever’s latest commission survey offers some valuable insights worth sharing. But it ends with a marketing message that doesn’t square with its own data.
In episode 369 of The Real Word, Byron Lazine and Nicole White broke down what the survey actually says about agent compensation, why a 6% commission rate was never the standard (or even the average, except in Michigan), and how Clever’s own marketing is gaslighting the industry.
Their biggest frustration? Clever presents accurate national averages, showing that the real number is closer to 5.44%.
But then it slaps on the same misleading line we’ve seen since the Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit: “Never pay the full 6% commission again.”
Byron called it out with his usual directness:
“Clever, do not put this entire survey together, show people the stats, and then in your marketing straight up lie.”
Read on for a breakdown of what the data actually shows, how misleading language like “6% commission” continues to damage the industry, and how agents can communicate real value to their clients in a post-settlement world.
What the Data Actually Says
Clever’s 2025 survey, which includes responses from 806 real estate professionals, found that the national average total commission is 5.44%, not 6%. That number breaks down as:
- 2.77% for listing agents (average)
- 2.67% for buyer’s agents (average)
This national average has remained fairly consistent over the past few years, with slight adjustments:
- 2021: 5.50%
- 2024: 5.32%
- 2025: 5.44%
In most states, average commissions fall between 5.2% and 5.7%. Byron pointed out that Arizona, a popular testing ground for new models, is “right on the national average,” further reinforcing that a true 6% standard simply doesn’t exist.
Marketing vs. Methodology
Despite publishing a well-researched report, Clever ends it with the line: “Never pay the full 6% commission again.” This framing doesn’t align with the actual numbers in the report, and Byron didn’t hold back on calling it out.
“That 6% commission? It was never the average…. not before [Sitzer/Burnett], not during, and it’s not 6% now.”
Clever isn’t alone in pushing the 6% myth. Attorneys in the Sitzer/Burnett trial leaned heavily on the idea of a “standard 6% commission,” despite consistent data showing otherwise.
That led to the question of what Sitzer/Burnett actually accomplished for agents, the industry, and future home sellers.
“What’s happened since the settlement is that the agents who do the business are now negotiating… I’m negotiating with my buyer… I’m negotiating with the seller… It’s a better world for agents who are true… service providers who have a real plan and a real framework.
“It’s separation of skill sets, and you’re actually seeing these numbers go up. So, Ketchmark said ‘We’re going to get away from 6%.’ We were never at 6%. ‘We’re going to bring commissions down.’ Compensation goes up. So, what did this whole thing accomplish besides a money grab for attorneys?”
Nicole pointed out one notable result of the lawsuit and NAR’s settlement: agents are having more conversations with their sellers and buyers about compensation, which is a critical step toward making real estate transactions more transparent for the consumer.
Why the 6% Myth Hurts the Industry
Misleading statements like “standard 6% commission” have long misrepresented how agent compensation actually works. That kind of messaging undermines trust in the industry, especially when real estate professionals are already navigating heightened scrutiny and legal challenges.
Clever’s report provides ample data that 6% was never the “average” commission across the board. But neither was it the “standard.”
As Byron pointed out:
“There’s a big difference between the word average and standard. Agent fees aren’t set in stone. Clever does a good job of acknowledging that… Average is just numbers…
“Michael Ketchmark, during the whole lawsuit, said commissions are 6%—three and three. ‘They’ve standardized it across the industry.’ Yet the average before the settlement (because we’ve got the numbers that go back) and during the settlement, and after the settlement, on average, were never 6%. They’re closer, in fact, to 5% than they are to six.”
What Agents Can Say Instead
Clever’s data can still be a valuable tool for agents, especially those who want to back up their fees with facts and transparency. But it’s on the agent to translate that information into client conversations.
Here are three key points to reinforce in your commission discussions:
- There’s no such thing as a “standard” rate. Commissions are fully negotiable (and always have been), and averages vary by market.
- Your value determines your rate. Agents who invest in service, marketing, and negotiation strategy should be paid accordingly.
- Data supports transparency. When clients understand their options, including low-fee platforms, they’re more likely to recognize the value of a full-service agent.
Byron put it this way:
“I want sellers to know everything available to them, because then the cream rises to the top.”
The post-settlement environment has given agents more control, but also more responsibility. Those who clearly communicate their value are not just defending their compensation; they’re earning it.
Read the full Clever report for more, including charts, methodology, and state-by-state breakdowns. And carve out some time to enjoy Byron and Nicole’s full conversation.
