Yes, but it seems you've missed my main point entirely. If I had used Redfin, the house could have sold for $80-90k less than it otherwise did, whereas using the local agent cost me perhaps $5-6k more. The smaller point that I was making is that you often can't compare Redfin's fees to the local agent fees without also knowing if the local agent provides staging services, and many of them do. Granted, staging is only a couple thousand for a modest house (from what I understand), but it's something to be aware of.
I would guess that Redfin's problem is retaining talent. If an agent can make more money going off on their own, they likely will. The agent who helped us buy that house was amazing. But, guess what, he isn't at Redfin anymore. It's too bad. I love Redfin's site and want them to succeed, but perhaps they don't do enough to retain good agents (or their model financially prevents it). That's just a guess, though. Also, their agents may have to cover a larger geographic area than other agents, so it's not possible for them to be as intimately familiar with particular neighborhoods.
Semantic quibbling. GP paid their agent (presumably) 3%, which included staging. Redfin charges 1%, which doesn't include staging.
(exact numbers might vary based on locale, these are Seattle numbers)