During the boom years, lots of people were looking to get into the real estate game, including a few who thought it needed changing.

Alternative brokerage models – which often relied on homebuyers to do most of their own legwork in finding a home in exchange for a flat fee often lower than traditional sales commissions – proliferated.

In 2007, two such firms, Redfin and Territory Real Estate, made their Boston debut. Today, after a few bumps in the road, both are still afloat, and potentially poised for big success.

The rise of larger, more established, national alternative brokerages like California’s ZipRealty, and smaller startups alike is likely spurred by larger trends.

“Last year was in fact the first year where it was an equal percentage of consumers who had found the listing by their own searches as opposed to those who had found it by an agent, which was quite remarkable,” said Nicolai Kolding, partner at REALTrends, a real estate publishing and communications company based in Colorado.

Kolding’s research on the feasibility of brokerage models suggests there are many viable ways to achieve profitability.

“There’s a percentage of consumers that will always seek a discount, [and] a percentage of consumers that will always seek a full-service model, but a majority fall somewhere in between,” Kolding said. “We think the strong-service companies are going to hold their ground.”

‘Pretty Good Growth Cycle’

Redfin raised hackles nationwide after its 2006 debut – CEO Glen Kalmen went on CBS’ 60 Minutes and slammed traditional brokerage models. When the Seattle-based company first premiered in Boston in 2007, many traditional brokers were skeptical of the firm’s model, which rebates buyers the agent’s commission after the deduction of a flat fee. Others were outright disdainful.

But Alex Coon, manager of the firm’s Boston office, says that’s changed.

“Because we’ve done a lot of business now in the marketplace, most people who are good at their jobs and are true professionals in this industry are happy to work with us,” he said.

The firm has grown quickly. It now employs 40-staff in Boston – including 27 field agents, who meet with buyers and conduct home tours; and 10 lead agents, who negotiate deals and conduct closings. Unlike traditional brokerages, all work on salary, not commission.

“From where we started, which was me at my coffee table,” says Coon, “that’s a pretty good growth cycle in three years.”

The expansion hasn’t been all smooth. Earlier this year, the firm announced a radical change to its model, switching to a commission-based structure for listings, while keeping the flat fee structure for buyers.

Coon said the company felt it needed to offer more services on the sell side in order to appeal to sellers. Currently, he said the ratio of the transactions the firm handles are about 80:20 buyers to sellers.

While shooting for a 50:50 ratio might be too high, “I’d love for [seller transactions] to be a large part of our business,” said Coon.

Hitting Benchmarks

But achieving parity between buyers and sellers is not a philosophy all alternative brokers support.

“The core of our company is the fact that we’re a buyer brokerage, and the flat fee model falls out of that,” said Terry Sanford, co-founder of local Boston firm Territory Real Estate. “It’s goofy if we’re incentivized as a percentage of the sale price to represent a buyer.”

Sanford said he thinks more traditional brokerages have overlooked opportunities by focusing on listings.

“It’s a part of the market which has historically been ignored,” he said.

Territory has also benefited from the tumultuous markets of the past several years. “People are more price sensitive now,” Sanford said. “If there’s potential for a lower-cost transaction, I think that incentive hits home in today’s market.”

But the firm has also had to make adjustments. In the beginning, Territory often encouraged buyers to make viewing appointments with listing agents, so long as those agents were informed of Territory’s involvement. But they found that process often led to resentment from traditional agents and confusion for buyers. The company ultimately decided to hire internal staff to conduct property viewings.

Nor has the firm been able to grow as quickly as they’d like.

When the downturn hit, the firm decided to focus on building marketshare in order to establish the viability of their model. After a year and a half of rebuilding, the firm is now eyeing potential expansion markets.

“We’ll make [a final decision] when we hit our benchmarks in Boston, but we’re [willing] to go across the country to find our best fit,” said Sanford.