I re-read the NAR/DOJ settlement document over the weekend following a detailed discussion with a client. The language below didn’t jump out at me before, but made me smile the second time around.
"An MLS may not refuse to deal directly with an AVP in order to
resolve technicalproblems with the data feed. However, the MLS may require that the
Participant onwhose behalf the AVP is operating the VOW participate in such
communications if theMLS reasonably believes that the involvement of the Participant would be
helpful in orderto resolve the problem."
As someone who has worked on behalf of brokers to set up listings feeds, this clause brought me back to some not-so-great times. But, more importantly, it represents a small victory for:
- Any website vendor who’s been simultaneously yelled at by a broker client and stonewalled by an MLS "IT guy"
- Any IDX/VOW solution provider who’s had to suggest to a client that they email an MLS exec. to resolve a problem with their feed
- Any broker who’s pushing the envelope on listings display on their website
- Technology company customer service reps, who too often play powerless middleman between practitioners and the MLS
Of course, there are MLSs that were always on this and recognized that empowering vendors empowered their members. But for the grizzled and smudged workers in the IDX/VOW business, this is cause for quiet celebration. Or at least an after work beer.
– Brian Boero
Local, Mobile, Social and the future of real estate
20 Tools to Bring your Real Estate Business to the Cloud
15 Ways to Make Your Marketing Mobile
Wouldn't it be nice if this has an immediate impact on the triangle trade you describe?
On the ground, we have a client who has offices in both WA and OR. They want to expand the Google-powered search site they have in WA into OR.
Guess what? The OR MLS *doesn't provide feeds*. All you can get is a framed search, which makes it impossible to turn our captive GoogleBot loose on the data to make it searchable via our UI.
In other words, the MLS in OR has mandated that all consumers who might prefer local sites must use the same sucky search tool, handcuffing their own member's ability to innovate.
So, as much as I would appreciate court-ordered cooperation from the MLS IT guys who are still a PITA, I'd like to see the OR MLS (both of them, actually) get real about who they serve.
JR
It is sad that they actually had to codify that as a rule. Associations & MLS's could be kings of the hill for their market areas if they were not so… smug.
Inside a decade, they will be lamenting "what could have been."