Signal & Brus

🇸🇪 Svenska · 🇬🇧 English · 🇪🇸 Español

For a long time, Hemnet held a position many companies can only dream of. Buyers went there because that was where the homes were. Sellers paid because that was where the buyers went. Not a literal monopoly, but a position that could make the service feel almost impossible to opt out of.

Then it raised prices again and again. To me, this looks like a classic case of greed: confusing customers’ dependence with their appreciation.

According to the Swedish Competition Authority’s summary, Hemnet’s average revenue per published listing rose from SEK 2,467 in 2021 to SEK 8,175 in 2025. More than a threefold increase in four years. That is not the same as the price of an identical listing tripling—package choices and add-on services also have an effect—but it shows how much more the company has extracted from each published home.

A home costs millions. Against that background, a few thousand kronor more for advertising can look like a minor expense. Especially if the seller is afraid of missing the one buyer who could drive up the price. A convenient business model for the party collecting the fee.

But customer fear is a poor foundation for long-term loyalty.

You can price your own competition into existence

Booli and Boneo are not sudden inventions. The alternatives have existed for a long time. But as the dominant player becomes increasingly expensive, the reasons to use them grow. On Booli, appearing in search results costs the seller nothing, through homes published by estate agents. Booli is owned by SBAB and has a different business model from Hemnet.

The Competition Authority’s decision from May 2026 also recounts estate agencies’ dissatisfaction with Hemnet’s strong position and price increases, as well as the view that Booli has intensified competitive pressure. My interpretation is that Hemnet itself has made the alternatives more attractive.

The pressure is visible in the numbers. In August 2026, the number of published listings fell by about 15 per cent compared with the previous year, while revenue per paid listing rose by about 7 per cent. Revenue fell by roughly 24 per cent.

The entire decline cannot be blamed on competition. The housing market plays a part, and Hemnet’s “Sell first, pay later” model shifts revenue from publication to the sale. But extracting more from each paying customer is not a sustainable rescue if more and more people choose other routes.

Now it is changing the model—but what about trust?

On 29 September, Hemnet announced free entry-level listings, with a launch planned for later in October. At the same time, the paid packages will be simplified and the organisation reduced. In other words, it has already begun changing the model.

That is a step in the right direction. But free entry followed by an increasingly expensive battle for visibility risks recreating the same problem in new packaging.

I believe Hemnet needs to do three things: offer a useful basic option at a reasonable and transparent price, show what additional value the more expensive packages actually provide, and be completely open about the compensation estate agents receive for recommending them.

Above all, it must regain customers’ trust. A seller should feel that Hemnet is helping to sell the home, not charging for the fear of being left out.

If the company continues to treat its former dominance as an entitlement to ever-higher revenue per customer, I see a risk of a slow death: gradually declining relevance as both sellers and buyers learn to go elsewhere.

The alternative is a new model AND restored trust. Both are needed. It is not enough to put a new price tag on the same old attitude.

This translation was prepared with AI. The original featured illustration was generated with AI.