I built the 10 automations that fix what actually eats a real estate agent's day
Most of an agent's day has nothing to do with showing houses. It's switching between CRM, MLS and notes, following up manually, and chasing every moving part of a transaction by hand.
I packaged the 10 automations that come up the most for agents and small agencies into ready-to-import workflows (Make and n8n versions, your pick):
Instant lead reply + CRM sync, day/night
Day 1/3/7 follow-up drip for leads who haven't replied
Showing reminders to client and agent
Post-showing feedback request
New listing match alert to saved buyer searches
Price drop / status change notifier to past inquirers
Transaction coordination reminders (inspection, appraisal, closing)
Cold lead re-engagement at 30/90+ days
Closing review + referral request
Daily morning briefing (follow-ups due, showings, stalled deals)
No code, about 30 min setup per workflow with the included guide.
It's on Gumroad: https://emmanuelbarencourt.gumroad.com/l/bymaus?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=launch
Curious what agents/brokers here have already automated and what's still eating your time.
What's interesting to me is that a lot of these automations seem to inherit confidence from the same underlying assumption.
Not that agents are busy.
That the work consuming the most time is also the work most worth removing.
Those aren't always the same thing.
Fair pushback, those aren't the same thing. The follow-up drip and the daily briefing are pure time-saved plays, repetitive work, low stakes if it slips a day.
The lead response one isn't really about hours saved though, it's about timing. An agent isn't slow to reply because typing takes long, they're slow because they're mid-showing or asleep when the lead lands. The automation isn't cutting 5 minutes of work, it's closing the gap between the lead arriving and someone noticing.
Showing reminders and price-drop alerts are the same kind of thing, the win is never missing the window, not hours reclaimed. So some of these are time-saved, some are timing-precision. Probably should've split that out instead of bundling everything under "eats your day."
That's actually the distinction I'd be most interested in.
Because once timing becomes the thing being optimized, the product is no longer competing against manual effort.
It's competing against delay.
Those can lead to very different expectations about what success looks like.
I'd be curious whether the same customers end up valuing both.