When Does a Second Platform Become Worthwhile?

Every auction platform promises access to a new audience. The logic seems straightforward: more platforms, more bidders, higher hammer prices. In practice, the relationship between platform count and revenue is considerably more nuanced, and for many houses the costs of running multiple platforms outweigh the additional income they generate.

The Single-Platform Phase

For houses processing fewer than fifteen hundred lots per month, the broad consensus in the trade is that a single well-chosen platform is sufficient. At this volume, the administrative overhead of managing a second platform — duplicate cataloguing, additional clerking requirements, separate reconciliation processes — typically exceeds the marginal revenue it produces.

The focus at this stage should be on maximising the value extracted from the primary platform through good photography, thorough descriptions, and effective buyer communication. A house that catalogues well on one platform will almost always outperform a house that catalogues poorly on three.

The Threshold for a Second Platform

Industry experience suggests that a second platform begins to make commercial sense when a house is consistently processing between fifteen hundred and two thousand lots per month, with a hammer total exceeding fifty thousand pounds. At this volume, the fixed costs of the additional platform are spread across enough lots to justify the investment, and the house is likely producing categories of stock that appeal to different buyer demographics.

The second platform should complement the first rather than duplicate it. If the primary platform serves a domestic audience well, the second might target international buyers, or vice versa.

The ATG Consolidation Factor

Any discussion of multi-platform strategy must acknowledge the ownership structure of the market. Auction Technology Group owns The Saleroom, i-bidder, Lotissimo, and LiveAuctioneers. A house that lists on both The Saleroom and LiveAuctioneers is, in effect, paying two fees to the same parent company. This does not necessarily negate the value of using both, as the buyer audiences are distinct, but it should be factored into any cost-benefit analysis.

The concentration of platform ownership also limits the competitive pressure on pricing. Houses negotiating with ATG should be aware that the alternatives are genuinely few, which affects bargaining power.

Negotiating Flat Rates

Houses with sufficient volume should negotiate flat-rate agreements rather than accepting per-auction pricing. Industry feedback consistently indicates that platforms are willing to negotiate, particularly for houses that can commit to a minimum number of sales per year. The difference between a per-auction fee structure and a negotiated flat rate can amount to thousands of pounds annually.

Passing Commission to Buyers

An increasingly common practice is to pass the platform's buyer commission through to buyers rather than absorbing it as a house cost. This is now sufficiently widespread that most experienced online bidders expect it. Houses that adopt this approach should ensure it is clearly stated in the terms of sale and visible during the bidding process. Transparency is essential; buyers who discover unexpected charges after winning a lot are unlikely to return.

Building Independence

For smaller houses considering their first or second platform, the most valuable long-term investment may not be another external service but rather the development of an independent buyer database and bidding capability. Every buyer acquired through a paid platform is a buyer the house is paying to reach on an ongoing basis. Building a direct relationship with those buyers reduces reliance on any single platform and improves margins over time. The platform question is important, but it should not overshadow the more fundamental question of how the house builds its own audience.