There was a lot to be excited about coming out of the fabulous Inman show last week.
A crop of new apps from hard-pitching innovators.
Interest in our category from investors.
A prevailing sense, in the face of almost uniformly dark economic news, that those with brains and guts can still thrive in real estate.
But then there was the level playing field. That was not so exciting.
Let me explain.
From the opening day Data Summit clear through to Friday, I heard this phrase, or invocations of the spirit behind it, over and over.
A broker in an MLS session I moderated stated forcefully that he didn’t want his MLS adding value to its data store, building products or otherwise “competing” with him.
An NAR staffer, responding to my question about why the organization didn’t hire a small team of developers to create a suite of web apps as a member benefit, chuckled wearily and said “our big brokers would kill us.”
A broker, interested in creating a better consumer brand experience, asked me in the hallway how to do it “without stepping on my agents’ toes.”
The level playing field, indeed. A lifeless expanse where the slightest elevation is quickly graded to ensure no one gets an edge, no one is made uncomfortable, and those with money, ambition or imagination find it harder to rise.
It struck me that this mentality comes from a place of weakness. Not the sort of weakness that motivates striving, but the miserable kind that simply wants company.
If I am a broker with a tired value proposition, no marketing mojo and a tenuous grasp on my agents, then I don’t want competitors without such weaknesses leveraging some MLS-powered innovation.
If I am a mega broker with micro vision, then I don’t want NAR or my state association highlighting my shortsightedness with a shiny new program.
If I am an agent without confidence in my ability to blow clients away, then of course I want my broker to more or less leave me alone.
Better level the playing field.
This makes no sense. Sure, my MLS may offer the same tool to my competitors that it offers to me, but I win on how I leverage that tool in my organization… unless I don’t have my act together. In that case, I want – you guessed it – a level playing field.
This point of view is also thoroughly un-creative.
Let’s say my association offers a mobile app. I might make it more valuable, more my own, by training around it. Or maybe I pay the association to skin it for my brand, which is still a lot cheaper than building one on my own from scratch.
Maybe my broker wants to survey my clients after closing. I could view that as a threat, or I may instead weave this fact into my own customer experience, mentioning it from my listing presentation forward as a means of establishing trust.
In other words, I would take help from wherever I could get it – and make the most of it.
But it’s damn hard to make the most out of the least. The minimum.
The level at which everyone’s comfortable.
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
Brian,
I appreciate your thoughts on the topic of the “Level Playing Field”. Are you suggesting that you agree with local MLS associations creating tools for all member agents’ use is not creating a “level playing field”? If so, I would challenge you to explain your experience as a large or small Real Estate Broker and your direct experience as a broker with an MLS.
This is clearly a topic of great debate right now and is creating some intense discussion around the country at all levels. I do not know that any of us know what the answer/solution is, or if there even is one. As a big broker in my MLS, I am concerned that the MLS is making it more and more difficult to prove my value proposition, which has come with a large financial investment, to new and experienced real estate agents. If you suggest I leverage what they are creating (a mobile app for example), I could agree on some level. But, if i choose that road, what is to stop my competition from doing the same?
I would have to disagree with you on the un-creative comment. Large brokers have become large due to the creativity and innovation they brought to the table prior to the MLS’s offering of tools outside of their reason for existence. That reason is to provide a means for brokers to share listings and, now, to provide data for our respective websites.
As an avid reader of this blog, I am curious with what real estate brokerage experience you write.
Very interesting bigREbroker. It sounds to me that what you’re saying is that you don’t want the MLS to create anything for the small guys to use because you don’t want them to compete. In reality we all know that what we are really selling is expertise. The big brokerages are long in flashy baubles, but short in experience generally. Oh sure all the big brokers have their four or five big agents, but they really don’t compete on the same field (compensation-wise) as the rest of us anyways. I agree with Brian here. The big brokers get to decide how to innovate and the rest of the MLS members just have to take whatever the MLS’s are allowed to offer.
Gene, IMHO the big brokers have not innovated, that has come from outside the industry with Zillow, Trulia and a host of other providers.
I fully agree with you that a larger army is not always a better army, and with boots on the ground it’s experience and guidance through a very confusing playing field the Clients are searching for.
I know of very few consumers that will trust a branded website as giving the complete picture, or not trying to trap them into overpriced affiliate business’s such as escrow, title, lending, and home warranty.
bigREbroker,
I understand that perspective. And the competitive/political landscape is different in every market.
What I am suggesting is that, in most cases, brokers against MLS/association innovation or product development are actually hurting themselves.
And big brokers, I would argue, are best positioned to leverage these offerings. Sure your competitors may do so as well, but if you’re big, it seems to me you have the advantage. You likely have more political leverage within your MLS as well – something that could be used to pursue the sort of creative approach I suggest here.
The bottom line for me though is that having seen many, many brokerage marketing and technology operations, it seems, on balance, that anyone who can bring something useful to the table for brokers and agents should be welcomed.
Brokers and MLSs should be innovating and not giving countless dollars to large data websites like Zillow/Trulia. I think these sites are easily replaced by MLS sites that level the playing field on how listings are displayed, what data is presented, the number of photos, videos. Brokers should stop spending millions on adversting and flashy pictures and compete on service and price.
Amen to that! Zillow and Trulia have successfully fleeced brokers and agents into believing that their services will actually help you sell your home. When in reality all paying them for “featured” services does is line their pockets. I can’t even imagine what the ROI looks like for people that actually pay these schiesters money to list their properties…
I could not agree more with the comments about Zillow and Trulia. What I would like to see is the local MLS innovate with tools that all brokers can use – and may the best brokers then win. However, I am not happy when I see that not only do I need to compete with the likes of Zillow and Trulia for online space – but I end up competing with websites created by my local MLS! In this cases brokers – big and small – are competing with everyone, including the local MLS.
Brian, Rather than worry about how level the playing field is, which of course it never is, the MLS should be more focused on providing core services to it’s members. Having a service that will run on all devices, provide professional tools – because right now, at least in my area, the consumer tools far outperform the professional ones.
Let’ focus on a accurate, reliable data feed so the consumer will get up to date informations from whoever they choose to search with, be it Zillow, Trulia, Realtor.com., etc. This will serve the Client who should be the focus. The cat has long been out of the bag and it’s not going back.
For instance in San Diego, Sandicor will not participate with the RPR because too many of it’s members are MLS only and are not a REALTOR®. Hardly a level playing field in my mind. The politics of hundreds of MLS’s, associations, and committees have continue to argue while Rome is burning, and are now gathered around a smoking pile of rubble.
In my mind the battle will not be who has the best MLS search product or which association offers it’s members that shiny new widget. No, it will be the brokerage that offers experience, advocacy,
to Clients – not treating them like “leads” but being genuine and concerned with the Clients goals.
Big brokers are now in the business of providing tools they can charge their associates for. In the inovation realm it is the sea of sameness while the poor associate struggles to buy the expensive tools the broker is peddling.
So yes, the playing field is not level. It is muddy, slippery, and extremely difficult to maneuver. The advantage for the small guy is inovation and adapting technology, the advantage the big guy has is lots of collective money to toss at a problem.
At the end of the day, everyone is really dirty!
Brian,
Borders>>>Amazon
Blockbuster>>>Netflix
MySpace>>>Facebook
Sears>>>Wal-Mart
MLS>>>???
Your Thoughts?
Duke
Great post – not only short and sweet but right on. Personally I would like to see:
mls database>>>MLS DATABASE (with front end of choice.
Russ Bergeron
MRED
We used to sell our access to MLS. Those days are gone and we need to quit acting as if they weren’t. Buyers today can find properties nearly as quickly as we can. MLS has the potential to be THE source for buyers. We need to head that direction.
By definition an MLS IS a level playing field. I would much rather think of us as the people who can RAISE that playing field for everyone so brokers and agents can compete on their own merits. I have seen many brokerages claim to compete because they offer the coolest technical tools (for which they usually charge their agents) but it never creates a sense of agent loyalty to that broker. Just like an MLS, the broker always hears “what have you done for me lately?”.
Russ B
MRED
Russ -
I agree: upward movement is almost always a good thing!
Brian
Brian -
I’m a little confused. Are you saying that the big brokers are demanding a level playing field — a wasteland as you put it — or that they’re resisting the level playing field… and that resistance is creating a wasteland?
On the one hand, you seem to suggest that innovation, investment, and the like should be rewarded… but then on the other hand, you seem to suggest that the MLS, the Association, or NAR should be creating those innovations and that big brokers should support those efforts… because they would leverage those things better than small brokers.
Could you clarify a bit please?
Thanks!
Rob,
The sentiment I picked up on at Inman – though it certainly was not new to me – is that some brokers want the MLS or Association to stand down from innovations (e.g., market data products, a CMA or, to dig up an older subjet of arguent, a public listings site). They believe these activities give some brokers an advantage and are thus contrary to the MLS or Association’s purpose.
They want the MLS to maintain a level playing field where all participants are left to compete using tools of their own creation.
This is what I contend is wrongheaded, in most cases, for any broker with the capacity to market, train, message or otherwise leverage outside innovations.
Gotcha. So the argument actually goes as follows:
1. The MLS today provides a level playing field, in which big brokers have a competitive advantage due to their greater resources and ability to do things like expensive public websites, market data products, custom CMA products, and the like.
2. Many MLS/Associations want to provide new products that provide the smaller brokers and/or individual agents the capabilities that these larger brokers may have today. This would “un-level” the playing field.
3. Big brokers should support such un-leveling because they stand to gain more from common toolsets and common innovation made available by the MLS/Association.
– If we take this to the broker/agent level, then, you would suggest that today, there’s a level playing field inside a brokerage, since Agent Smith can spend $30,000 on a super-duper custom website, while Agent Jones can barely afford to spend $19.95 a month for a templated website. What the broker should do is provide Agent Jones and Smith both a super-duper custom website by leveraging its greater resources, since Agent Smith is more likely to benefit from that than Agent Jones.
I guess the confusion arises from the fact that most people would say that when the larger entity (MLS, Association, NAR, or the broker) creates tools/innovations that provide equal capability across the membership/population, that is “leveling the playing field”, i.e., taking away a competitive advantage from one or more of the competitors.
BTW, Tucker, Jack Miller of GoodLife Team was one of the people at the Data Summit who maintained that the MLS should get out of the innovation business altogether. So I think your perception might be a bit off
Rob, I am inclined to believe you and Jack Miller in that the MLS should be focused inward and not outward. Make sure it runs on all devices, make it fast and easy to use, and integrate data that will help the agent in the field. The MLS is far more than just a data base, it is a way for all real estate agents to cooperate with each other and get paid – this benefits the client leaving them free to choose their own representation.
Inovation is not coming from large brokerages but from outside the industry. A clear example of that business model is Zillow which raised about 20 times what I think it is worth and is yet to be profitable in the private sense of the word. How is any Brokerage or agent going to complete with that? The only shining star that is quasi real estate friendly is REALTOR.com.
Brokerages that invest a great deal of time and expense into legacy systems that take 3 years to implement are sure to loose money. And any brokerage that models it’s value proposition on such a system is going to be in for a very rough ride.
Well, I don’t know that I think MLS has to be inwardly focused… but I do think the big brokers are simply not going to tolerate for long their MLS/Associations doing things they perceive as being harmful to their competitive position.
If the recent Franchise IDX brouhaha taught us anything at all, it is that the big brokers have come to realized they can actually stay in business outside of the MLS. That’s not… a good thing for the industry.
Brian, for what it’s worth, the “level the playing field” term is usually used against the MLS offering products that compete with the broker. In other words, the big brokers don’t want the MLS “leveling the playing field” by giving tools to the small guys subsidized by the big guys.
I think it is interesting that so much of this comes down to people trying to hold on to “what was” and not pushing forward into “what it can be.” The first comment from bigREbroker, “As a big broker in my MLS, I am concerned that the MLS is making it more and more difficult to prove my value proposition,” brings up an seemingly common issue of desperation and frustration these days.
What is the actual value of a real estate agent, broker, association, etc?
Is there a way for Big or Small brokers to think more offensively, not through trying to make power moves and trying to oust innovation, but in fact by being more innovative themselves. Real estate brokers and agents can have so much more value than they think they can. I don’t know this for sure, but I have a hunch that thoughts and statements like the ones that came from bigREbroker don’t even remotely cross the minds of companies like Redfin and the Good Life Team.
Having worked for four real estate association’s in the Silicon Valley over the past 20 years, and trying to innovate and create more member value for ALL members, I have heard the big broker complaint MANY times. “Don’t create programs/tools/education that will compete with our value proposition to our agents”. I have heard the same thing from my colleagues from different associations from across the country, too. However, it IS interesting to note that the Minneapolis Association created, “The Thing” to provide ALL their members with real time real estate data to use on their websites and with their customers..and you know what? They just won an Inman Innovator Award. I wonder if the big brokers in their association think they just handed their competition the keys to a “level playing field”?
I had to read through this thread a few times to understand where everyone was coming from. Little slow today I guess. I missed the Data Summit, but thoroughly enjoyed ICSF.
My thoughts. I want my MLS and anyone and everyone in the real estate business to innovate if they can. It will only help move the industry forward…however, I am not sure I can rely on my local MLS to innovate. As Bryan stated, innovation rarely comes from within.
The scariest thing I heard at Inman, which Bryan commented on, was the growing gap between the industry view of controlling information and the consumer’s desire to have as much information as possible. Insanity. This is the age of the informed consumer, and the more we as an industry try to horde / protect information, the less we are going to be able to serve buyers and sellers of real estate. There is plenty of room for Realtors to provide an extremely valuable service experience for Clients and there are many of us out there proving it on a daily basis.
Billy
Good points. However, what is often lacking out in the cyberworld is the differentiation between data and information. There are tons of data out there regarding the real estate space, but is it all useful information? Several yeras ago Brad Inman used (if not coined) the term “infomediaries” referring to those who can corral all the data and turn it into useful information. The theory being that the person who provides the information gets the customers. The real estate practitioner is very much an infomediary today.
Russ B.
MRED
Agreed Russ. Data without knowledge / context is meaningless. Unfortunately I still see too many agents / brokerages that take individual data points and “transform” them into misinformation.
AH – but that is where you can jump in and become the hero.
I am by no means downplaying the fact that competition is good. Big broker vs. small broker, agent vs. agent, start-up vs. start-up. These are the competitions that create innovative ideas.
My main point is that, in my area of the country at least, the big brokers were the ones to innovate ahead of the MLS. We went out and purchased or created a CMA tool for our agents, we went out and found a provider for agent websites, I could go on. We did these things before the MLS did. We made these investments to attract good talent. Contrary to a previous post, all big brokers are not in this to fill seats in offices. Good big brokers are in this to create a unique experience for their customers, both agents and consumers. I will add that these investments were not passed on to my agents. They were absorbed by my company and myself.
The MLS responded to the small brokers voicing their thoughts to the MLS boards that they can’t compete because they can’t afford to implement a company wide solution for agent centric tools. I appreciate Brian’s statement that as big brokers we should leverage our position in the MLS. However, in broker owned MLS’s, each broker gets a seat, regardless of size. The brokers who lobby for election to the executive seats are usually the ones with more time available to fill those roles, the smaller brokers.
If I was to leverage what the MLS offers, what would come of the investments I have made in staying ahead of my competition? I am in no means desperate, as Tucker eluded too, nor am I operating in a vacuum. I am looking to our MLS’s to do the job they were created to do, and do it really, really well. Build us a database of information that is accessible from any browser, on any device.
This has turned into an interesting thread and in reading the views and opinions of all the contributors i can see there are some very intelligent and informed people participating in this discussion. I would be curious to know, when commenting, from which side of the fence you speak, big or small brokerage?
I am a huge supporter of our MLS from data standpoint. As a previous stated, the MLS does exist to support the consumer as well as the agent and broker. Without the MLS we would not have the cooperation that we do in our industry between competing firms, unlike almost any other industry in our country.
I have contracts with big brokers and small agents.
If the MLS does not provide shiny tools that help smaller agents/brokers compete with big brokers, then they need to work a heck of a lot harder at providing homes for sale and other data in way that is much more accessible and affordable for the little guys to do some innovation on their own.
MLSs provide IDX and RETS feed but using those feeds well to create unique home search websites is fairly difficult and/or expensive.
To solve this problem MLSs could create efficient databases that can be accessed by various programming libraries. I paid a odd, but brilliant programmer, a lot of money to put the NTREIS data in the Amazon cloud.
Any $15 an hour php, .net, asp, etc…programmer could use Amazons libraries to pull the data into a front-end search. We even did some clever geo-coding to get around google limits. Take that big G! (Don’t freak, it’s not in use right now.)
This is very different than just giving programmers a RETS feed, and usually MLSs like TREND ($2,500 review fee), MRIS (the worst at something like $10,000 per year) charge thousands of dollars for 3rd party vendors to develop and sell products.
The high fees of course, prevent smaller vendors from developing applications that would be more affordable and sometimes, more creative, than the big brokers and big vendors.
@Rob Hahn. Don’t/Didn’t you consult with MRIS? I believe MLSs are not being flexible in this regard because they (a) are desperate for cash, and (b) are told by bigger brokers and possibly big vendors to NOT allow easy access to data from 3rd parties or their own members.
Some MLSs at least allow brokers their own RETS feed for free or at very little cost – so the loophole is that a vendor is simply hired for $1/year or something ridiculous so they are “on staff” and a contract is written so the vendor isn’t a 3rd party.
I’m in favor of MLSs creating better tools so that smaller brokers can compete with big brokers, and in favor of MLSs making the data more accessible to third party vendors. But that’s because I believe that technology should be used efficiently so agents can go focus on being local experts and building relationships rather than being outgunned in the SEO and SEM games.
That said, any MLS (or broker) that gives their homes for sale data to companies like Zillow or Realtor.com is giving up their own competitive advantage and enabling their competition. They’d do better to use their size to freeze everyone else out and shut their competition down.
Imagine if Prudential Fox and Roach in PA, NJ and DE which has by far the most market share announced it would no longer distribute any homes for sale data to the MLS or other sites. If they communicated this right, consumers would learn very quickly that they needed to go to Pru’s websites with the PRU Advantage Seal (or something like that on them) and other brokerages would be seriously hurt.
Sam
Let’s summarize.
MLSs should provide the agents/brokers listings to small vendors at no cost so they can build a business without having to pay for the raw materials necessary to build that business. Like US steel providing raw materials to GM to build cars.
And we should foster competition by NOT providing that same data to Zulia because they are big and evil and successful.
Russ B.
MRED
That’s obviously not what I stated nor implied. Try again.
I found a brilliant programmer, who for $2,000 put the entire NTREIS database in the Amazon Cloud in a structure that is more efficient and serves data up as fast or faster than just about any I’ve reviewed. (It was much faster than OnBoards API.)
Cost of data storage $146/mo. Flexible, scalable, easy to add MLSs. I could run 1,000 average agent websites off of it, which could be built easily by any $15 – $60 per hour programmer who knows php, .net, asp, or any Amazon library.
I agree with Michael, “Make access to and use of the MLS data easier and more secure for developers through modern APIs, and make the business model for selling software across MLSs easier as well.
These basics of infrastructure and market building by the MLS for real estate software are much more important than offering products.”
And, as I indicated below, take a good look at which vendors are hurting your brokers and agents and consumers with their “innovations.”
Are you the CEO of MRED?
Good Lord Man!
Are you seriously promoting Zillow which directly harms your members?
Your service on the Trulia Board of Directors is certainly a conflict of interest.
And, in spite of your awards, etc… your website and blog violate almost every UI principle known to man! or woman
I gotta get a look at ConnectMLS. I’ll dig around a bit more.
It never surprises me to come across talented, lauded people who have either huge blind-spots or who have sold the people they are supposed to be helping down the river.
Not saying that’s you…but, sheesh…defending Zillow?
NAR and the MLS’s should be more worried about the Trulias and Zillows rather than the backlash they will get from big brokers. IMO NAR and the MLS’s will be obsolete if they continue down the path they are on. Outside innovators are already and will continue to create systems that will make them more and more obsolete.
Hi – This is my first weigh-in here. As a very small broker, I still recognize the importance of technology investment. Of course, that will only take you so far. A great example is Circuit City. I remember in the 90s when the CEO said the reason for their success is their systems. Well, they were successful, but, you still have to watch out for the BestBuys of the world.
In order to get props with Google, you need to have your own property search pages. No matter what your MLS provides as a frame type seach engine, you won’t get pages for that on Google.
For example, check your site’s pages by typing in Google site:www.yoursite.com. That shows how many pages you have indexed. Of course the more you have, the more likely they will be displayed when the right search string is entered.
Our sites http://www.DreamRealty.com and http://www.ClearwaterDreaming.com have over 70,000 pages in Google. That accounts for a lot of free traffic.
My overall point, you don’t have to be a big broker to invest in technology, but I think you need to do that and continue to give great service.
Well said, Sheldon. How or who built your current site? Do you mind sharing the approximate cost. (This is relevant to this discussion.)
Well done BTW – I’ve reviewed hundreds of real estate websites, dozens of IDX Home search providers, and more than 25 real estate CRMs. Full screen map – Yes! IDX data used correctly for SEO – Yes!
Wow! thanks Sam – that’s quite a complement coming from you.
Here’s probably the bad news. I did the entire site myself. I’m a very experienced programmer and also a real estate broker. Works out great for me as I love doing both.
Thanks again, Shel
@Shel – this is OT, but I checked out your site. Nice work. Very clean. I would imagine customer feedback has been excellent.
Thanks, Billy. I checked out your site. Also, very nice. Plus, you are in Maui!!!
The comment from Sheldon really hit home for me – because it summarizes very well what I want from our MLS, but cannot seem to get. Access to data that is reliable, easy and not crazy expensive. This is a “real service” from a local MLS. Like Sheldon we have invested considerably in our website, in an effort to create a custom look and feel. The weakest part, however, is its search options – and that is directly due to rules and obstacles provided by the MLS – which should be our ally in the business of real estate, not the competition.
I have to agree with some of the points made by bigREbroker and wanted to add another thought to this.
I am speaking from a big broker perspective. We take the time, money etc to create something that our competition doesn’t have. Then the MLS comes along after the fact and offers it to all the members (so that the playing field is level and they can better compete).
Our agents pay dues to the MLS, just like other agents. Why would we want to support the MLS using our dues to build features that we already have?
Angie -
Valid point – and one we have heard from many of the big brokers we’ve worked with. In *most* cases, though, when these things are embraced creatively by the broker, they usually net out as a positive.
It also suggests more active big broker involvement in the product planning process within the MLS.
Brian
Overall just a really interesting discussion and Brian and Angie, I see both of your points. At the end of the day, isn’t survival about continual innovation?
Another thought that came to mind. Even if we did embrace a feature provided by an MLS… in almost all cases we still couldn’t use it in lieu of things we do ourselves, because one MLS can’t offer that service to all of our agents. We participate in almost 40 different MLS’s. In order for us to offer a service to our agents, we have to provide it on a much broader scope than an MLS does.
Angie,
Great point, I did not mention that I am involved in multiple MLS’s. Being part of more than one MLS would present a problem to large brokers when embracing any tools offered by a singular MLS. Since we have offices located in different MLS areas we would have a difficult time adopting any new “tool” offered because it would be impossible to offer it to all of my agents. This would create a nightmare for my training, IT, marketing and Relo departments.
Is that cost effective?
I am still curious about the brokerage background of Brian. I understand you have worked with many brokerages but owning one is a completely different story than consulting with one.
bigREbroker -
I have never owned or run a brokerage.
My background can be examined here: http://1000wattconsulting.com/who-we-are
Brian
Sorry to chime in late and congrats on stirring quite the pot here Brian. I discussed this on Gahlord’s post over at Inman but I think that the major questions still ring true here.
1) MLS uses dues monies to develop agent based technology – As you said this essentially “levels the playing field” for all agents and brokers out there competing. My question is, “is this the job of the MLS?” Seriously? Using agent dues to create tools for agents that either 1) they pay for on their own 2) their brokers create? If I’m an agent and use something as a competitive advantage, why do I want my dues going to pay for something that “agent x” can use now simply because they’re too cheap to pay for it or their broker doesn’t provide it?
2) MLS uses monies to develop agent based tools without working directly WITH the broker to find out what the agents really want/need. This overwhelms the agents with tools and a “paraylsis by analysis” develops on the agent behalf = wasted money. Seriously, I have seen so much technology paid for by MLS systems that agents 1) don’t use or 2) don’t know HOW to use, it’s really sad. How about updating your search function, reliability of data feeds, etc instead?
3) MLS uses monies to develop consumer facing products/technologies. This I believe is the most dangerous one of all. So the MLS opens up the doors to the MLS. This essentially takes the “need” for an agent to access (and most importantly interpret) the information out of the picture. AND… is directly competing with the Broker (who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into THEIR website) for online leads and essentially taking out the ability for the Broker to recoup any money off of these leads through referral %’s. Simply put – the broker is in the business of making a profit… Why do we want ANOTHER R.com, Trulia, Zillow, etc. to compete with?
Rob, By looking inward I simply meant that the MLS should be focused on providing the best search and data for the Client, which is the member. They should not be focused on having a consumer facing products or features that are not needed by the industry.
As Matthew points out so well in his comment above I believe each brokerage should determine what and how they spend their technology dollar – and I am a very small brokerage. Again, INHO this is just a small part of a companies value proposition.
In #2 Matthew is correct. Currently Sanidcor MLS is being serviced by Tempo 5 and a “so called” browser neutral product called Fusion. I am a fairly technical guy, but I don’t think a team of 10 google engineers could produce a CMA report or use 1/3 of the functions that they agents don’t know about and don’t need.
Number 3 is a dangerous place for an MLS to be and why should the members be in competition with their own MLS?
Business is not a level playing field – each type will have strategic advantages and disadvantages. Money does not solve all problems, Google is a shining example of that.
Matthew, good to hear from you, you should chime in more often!
Jeff, are you quite certain that the client of the MLS should be the member?
Therein lies much mischief.
-rsh
Rob, Who else would be the Client of an MLS? As I’ve stated before the MLS is far more than a database full of properties. It deals with compensation issues, rules and regulations, showing information, confidential remarks, and the ability to sanction or fine members in violation. It has required information, a high standard in a court of law, and different type of listing agreements.
If your answer is the consumer should be the Client I don’t agree. They certainly benefit from the public facing side of the data via IDX, VOW’s, Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, or franchise websites, but it’s the cooperation between competing brokerages and agents that make the system work. With all it’s flaws I don’t know of a better system out there.
Would you as a Seller want all your information posted on an open website, if your home was vacant or not, and other confidential information? The idea of a Client owned MLS would result in something not unlike Craigs List for the data, and would not have model rules and regulations for members, agency issues, and cooperation of commissions. How would the data be secured, confidential information conveyed, or any rules be applied – it would be the wild wild west.
Plan and simple the MLS should be the best possible system running on browser neutral devices. The bells and whistles and overlay data can come from 3rd party vendors, big brokerages, or a guy writing PHP code in his garage.
Care to expand your statement my friend?
My answer, Jeff, is that the BROKER should be the client of the MLS, not the agent/member. I’m finding that much of the current mischief results from the agent/member being the customer of the MLS.
Agreed on all your other points.
Gang,
Like Brian, I too have never owned a brokerage. I understand the disadvantages of that. But I’ve embraced that disadvantage and remain steadfast to our beliefs and alternative perceptions. I am confident that when our collective opinions are blended, amazing results ensue.
At the very core, I believe this industry is about helping people buy and sell homes. It’s about providing the most excellent services and great people (agents) insuring a safe, efficient and responsible transaction for every buyer and seller.
For the industry to remain vital and command the respect it wants, needs and rightfully deserves, practitioners must continue to grow, acquire and integrate new forms of tools and technologies to help them better do their job and afford their customers and themselves the best possible experience.
Everything else aside, this is our a cornerstone belief.
If you share this belief, then I submit it would be impossible for you to ever stand in the way of any innovation or impede anyone from offering that innovation. Even an MLS.
If you share this belief, never fear a tool. And always proceed by having supreme confidence in what you could do with any tool versus others.
Give Norm Abrams a saw, he’ll make a gorgeous cabinet. With that same saw, I’ll end up slicing off my foot. The same hold true for you and your competitors.
It’s all in the integration, customization, branding, training and implementation of any tool across your brokerage and by your agents. In other words, the execution. In light of this belief, the argument over whether the MLS should create tools or not seems moot.
Matt, your firm uses tools available to every brokerage and yet you’ve achieved things no other brokerage has in your market. Was it the tools that allowed that happen? No way. I submit that it was the brains, vision, follow through and passion and you and your team posses that your competitors do not.
REBigBroker: You have market share because of your genius. Your branding. Your marketing. Your amazing agents. And the fact you built your own tools that were completely customized for your company rather than a generic MLS tool built for the masses.
It’s these things you both and everyone else here bring to your firms, by virtue of your deep belief that your agents and their customers deserve it. This is the stuff that pound for pound allows you to crush your competitors at every turn. This is what you alone possess that can never be replicated by a vendor. Including an MLS.
Great tools die in the hands of those who do nothing with it. That reality is your competitive edge now and forever.
For what it’s worth, your collective comments, deep knowledge and opinions provide so much value to everyone. Your individual passions are remarkable. It’s precisely why each of you are already winners in your marketplaces. We value it all immensely and thank you for taking the time to share it here on Brian’s post.
Marc
Marc -
Do you think it matters WHO develops/owns/manages the tools/innovations? It appears to me your answer is a resounding “No”.
The focus is the MLS on this thread. But why not Zillow? Does it matter to the industry as a whole if Realtor.com or Zillow or Trulia or Microsoft becomes the source of the most innovative, most useful, most impact-having tools and features?
Put another way, is there a reason why it has to be a part of the INDUSTRY that develops the innovations and the tools, or can it be the so-called outsiders to the industry as well?
-rsh
I can’t and don’t speak for the industry so I don’t know what matters most to it. I speak for me and I believe what matters most is not who develops, owns or manages anything but rather, how much effort, energy and gusto a brokerage puts behind whatever piece of innovation they obtain.
It could be something they build, something they borrow or something their neighbors teenage kid built for a high school tech fair.
Big brokers should never fear anything innovative or worry about a level playing field by virtue of a tool unless they value tools more than that they value themselves and what they can do with those tools versus someone else.
My issue, Marc, isn’t “fear of the tools”. My issue is that residential real estate is headed on a course to become like commercial real estate.
Big brokers in CRE do not “fear” CoStar and Loopnet; many of them laugh at these sites. But they have adapted their business practices to deal with a world without MLS, dominated by a single company.
For example, it is fairly well-known amongst CRE practitioners that any property advertised on the Internet “has hair on it”. Anything prime, anything truly desirable, is almost always handled via pocket listings, via private networks of insiders.
That world doesn’t hurt the big broker, I suppose, but it does do a number on the little guys. As a consumer, as a agent/broker who isn’t part of one of the top five or six firms, try getting accurate information on availability, comps, and other data that a professional needs.
There is a reason why even in the 21st century, commercial practitioners are still waiting for a really good, reliable, data solution for their industry.
So I think yes, WHO develops, manages, and controls the innovation does actually matter to all of us — even those of us who aren’t brokers, aren’t agents, but make our living advising them or selling stuff to them.
Maybe the MLS should be that center of innovation; maybe it should not. But I just can’t be as nonchalant about it.
I hear you but I just don’t see real estate going down that particular tube. Rather, I see the industry simply becoming more and more susceptible to innovation from outside with no means of controlling or harnessing it but rather, more or less, just becoming a consumer themselves of that innovation whereas I see working in tandem with their MLS as a more holistic and prudent approach.
While we both appear to have different tactics, perceptions and strategies on how to right the real estate ship, we are indeed unified in our mutual disdain for nonchalant solutions.
Haven’t had a chance to read all these responses, but would just say, Brian, that there’s no question that our industry needs more innovation, but the development of ‘common denominator’ products available across an MLS seems to do the opposite, and just training around such a product or putting a different skin on it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the same product for all. I’m having difficulty understanding where the innovation lies in that.
The argument by many about “leveling the playing field” is really a larger issue…the insidious movement throughout our industry of undermining brokerages and trying to render them irrelevant (lots of examples for another blog post on another day
. Many brokers (and not just the largest ones) invest heavily in tools for their agents for the purpose of differentiation with consumers and attracting the best and brightest. It’s called competition. To have their local association or MLS then offer the same thing dilutes that investment and competitive edge. Local associations and MLS systems are scrambling to retain their relevance and are thus trying to move into new product areas, but in some cases this puts them in direct competition with their brokerage constituents, who provide the funding (and content) that enables this new product development.
Excellent comments, great post Brian, and a wonderful debate. My question is this: What consumer-driven technology disruptions, if any, will force an industry-wide shift in the way business is conducted in the future? The consumer wields the power to truly level the playing field if his/her expectations are not met. Focus on fulfilling these consumer expectations while delivering an exceedingly brilliant experience. Consumers nowadays expect nothing less. By and large, consumers’ patience with lackluster levels of service decreases at exponential rates, whereas their expectations with respect to excellent levels of service increase at exponential rates. The very best companies—Apple, Zappos, Amazon, Google—recognize this and leverage technology to deliver exceptional service and a brilliant experience. These companies are setting consumer expectations nationally and globally. Companies in our industry that meet, and exceed, these standards will survive and thrive.
Marc is right and also terribly mistaken when he says,
“I believe this industry is about helping people buy and sell homes. It’s about providing the most excellent services and great people (agents) insuring a safe, efficient and responsible transaction for every buyer and seller.”
That is certainly NOT really what the industry has been about, nor has it done a good job of what is stated in the second sentence.
Correct me if I’m wrong about what has occurred in the last few years…
#1. Big brokers “sell desks,” hiring anyone and everyone who has a bit of a list to burn through, since they make more money off the poor saps anyways given the high commission split and when they exit the business, oh well…
No one has an interest in requiring any sorts of real certification for “REALTORS” (what a joke that is) who are supposedly dealing with, “the largest financial transaction” most consumers will ever make.
#2. Training is offered by as much to cover the Brokers’ ass as it is to protect buyers and sellers from inexperienced agents. (If the broker was interested in consumers’ needs these agents wouldn’t have been hired in the first place.)
#3. There’s a Bubble. Everyone with half a brain knows there is a bubble – certainly the brokers do – but do they help agents caution consumers on not overspending, tell people to wait 6 months or more to increase their credit score as high as possible, fight to keep people away from subprime lenders.
No? That’s right, brokers and agents, kick people to whatever lender will get the deal done to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the “loan” part of the process.
Why? Greed. That’s it. It’s that simple. And when the No-Doc loan meisters in CA figure out a way to avoid regulations and the Bush administration declines to investigate even after the FBI testifies before Congress that huge levels of fraud are occurring….
…well a rotten apples does spoil the bunch of the bunch just says, “Oh well…there’s nothing we can do but go along…and anyway the NAR economist says…
#4. The average agent of average intelligence can only be blamed so much. Poor bastards do a few deals a year and are pretty much broke and will do just about anything to get the listing or close the deal.
Check out an agents sales record through the MLS, and you can tell immediately how fast they will cave and get their clients to cave in a tough negotiation.
Then again they “buy the listing” because they have no guts, no command of statistics, and often because their broker tells them to…and consumers get F*&*ed once again.
Starting to get my point?
There ain’t a lot of folks who are acting in the true interests of consumers, so now that that is clear, let’s get in to the virtues of “innovation” touted by technologists who have no one to give them the same caution that Spider Man received…”With great power, comes great responsibility.”
#5. The MLS Boards are so full of dinosaurs they have no clue how to use technology effectively.
Certainly, there isn’t a consumer watchdog saying, “this is the way to use technology effectively to HELP AGENTS BE BETTER at SERVING the public.”
The NAR exhales into the bubble misrepresenting reality so badly that the bubble turns into the kind of serpent balloon art you might find at a Satanic birthday party. Where’s that Demon drink anyway?
So who fills the void?
Ah, the big brokers have some dough, so they spend and strengthen their market position. All in the best interests of “providing excellent service,” like they are so committed to.
Ah, some smart guys who at least understand that consumers will flock to home search sites with big pretty pictures and some extra information.
They know that the MLSs and Agents and Consumers are suckers and will use that to full advantage to earn a sh&T load off advertising.
God Bless their innovative hearts for pretending to have accurate pricing estimates. Lipstick on a pig, but it looks so damn pretty I’d even kiss it.
(I had a Zillow executive tell me, “Look at our traffic. Look what we can do in terms of SEO. There is no way you guys can compete. You’ll all end up coming to us.)
So…
If I hear one more jerk-off say, “We are on the business to make money,” with adding, “ethically and by providing what is in the best interests of home buyers and sellers,” and “honestly…that IS what we do…I swear….” then I think I’ll throw up and Brian or someone owes me a keyboard.
Here’s what I think…
#1. Brokers and Agents should be in the business of, “ensuring a safe, efficient and responsible transaction for every buyer and seller.”
#2. MLS Boards should be in the business of helping them do this.
#3. MLS Boards should then attempt to ensure that Technology applications are developed by themselves or 3rd party vendors that help Brokers and Agents achieve these.
#4. Vendors who do not do this should NOT be allowed access to the data.
Specifics? Sure…
Zillow does not provide consumers much value. Neither does Trulia. Is a Map search with some of the homes on the market helpful? No.
Does a pricing estimate that reflects a huge margin of error in many markets help consumers? No.
Does the access to the data by these companies who leverage it into top search engine rankings diverting traffic away from local agents and brokers help agents or consumers?
No, and giving a “lead” to any agent who pays for the zip code does nothing for the consumer, or frankly the agent who could have better spent that money on PPC ads and a decent website.
Do most IDX home search companies provide a valuable service to consumers and agents. Yes. Inexpensive ones allow any agent the ability to work more efficiently with home buyers and sellers. Expensive ones usually have very good follow-up systems that save consumers and agents a lot of time.
How about CRMS and “eNewsletter companies” that allow agents to more efficiently communicate with consumers. Sure!
How about “lead generation” companies? Well, that depends on whether or not agents have other access to home search sites and internet advertising and SEO training that would allow them to do this themselves.
Oh that’s right…MLS Boards are clueless and Brokers often would rather generate the leads themselves and sell them back to the agents…so they aren’t providing either tools or training.
It’s a side note, but how often have you ever heard a website designer, social media consultant, or technology vendor ever say to an agent, “wait a minute…this doesn’t fit your business model, or skills, or resources…don’t buy my product…or don’t do this,” or, “You know what….how about you work on BEING a better professional rather than just advertising yourself as such.”
Very rarely, if ever.
Ok, so I don’t want to be a total party-pooper, here are few other things I do think are helpful…
- Realist by CoreLogic. Access to market data IS good.
- RPR (though I haven’t seen it in awhile)the reports appeared helpful.
- Reviews and Forums. Active Rain.
(Why MLSs don’t simply launch similar systems on WordPress or other easy to use CMS I do not know.)
- HomeGain’s referral program. Ok, so they suck off commission. But, consumers get to choose based on ratings, records, etc…
Final Thoughts…
Innovation for Innovations-sake is NOT necessarily good.
You only have to look at the financial services sector to see that.
And, I say this as someone who loves technology, makes a living using it in the real estate, financial services and small business sectors, and who can’t wait for the Singularity to occur so I can become a cyborg and live forever.
So ask yourself, if you are a broker or agent…
Have you provided a “safe, efficient and responsible transaction for every buyer and seller” for every client you or your agents have worked with?
Why not?
Why hasn’t your MLS helped you do this?
Who in the industry is really committed to these values?
I’ll save my thoughts for what might upend the industry later… for which I’m sure you are grateful.
Sam,
Clearly, there are too many examples that prove you right and render my belief terribly naive. But I’m sticking by it anyway thanks to some brokers both big and small who do exist and prove my point. They relentlessly reach for these higher ideals, recruit great agents, builds great tools, run honest, beautiful businesses and do not resort to greed or react from fear to generate great profits and thrive. Maybe I’m wrong when it comes to the masses. It’s a sad reality. You painted well. But hopefully they do not represent the future of the industry.
Hi Marc,
Thanks for responding.
Usually when I go off on this rant all I hear is crickets since most brokers know exactly of what they are guilty of and most consultants are well aware that they’ve enabled them to do so.
The only kind of brokerage I would run would be one that would hire experienced agents in specific niche service and geographic markets with a guarantee to them of closing a minimum of 3 transactions per month.
Their responsibility is to BE the best in their niche by being smarter, more ethical, and being more personally connected to the people in their target market.
If they ARE the best then it’s easy to communicate that they are which sends the ROI on any advertising strategy through the roof.
They would NOT need to blog, Facebook, follow-up with cold or even warm leads, or worry about becoming tech savvy.
Support staff and inexpensive overseas VAs could handle all of that.
How to do this isn’t rocket science.
It just takes some creativity, clear thinking, and a willingness to develop a comprehensive plan and implement it step by step, doing things in the correct order.
For example, you don’t run PPC ads until you have a website that generate leads. You don’t get a website that generates leads until you have identified exactly what functions and content and design will do so, and make sure that the follow-up and sales process matches the site.
The day I meet a RE Broker who is really committed to a vision that involves “ensuring a safe, efficient and responsible transaction for every buyer and seller” is the day I’ll happily work for free (well almost for free) to run everyone who isn’t – out of their market.
Sam
Sam, You are painting a pretty silly picture with a broad brush. There is good, bad, and mediocre in all vocations, including yours.
The fraud committed in the real estate industry (not to mention the financial services industry in collusion with the RE industry) has had a devastating impact on the finances of millions of families and our economy.
Plumbers. Website Designers. Landscapers. Beauticians. Crappy SEO consultants. Even lawyers. None of them have done, nor have the ability to do, 1/millionth of what the RE industry has done.
I am a fan of your business model though.
#1. Big brokers “sell desks,” hiring anyone and everyone who has a bit of a list to burn through, since they make more money off the poor saps anyways given the high commission split and when they exit the business, oh well…
I am sure you didn’t realize you mistakenly lumped together the words “big brokers” and “sell desks”. We are a large brokerage and like many of my “big broker” peers we are about service and value. not about “desks”. A better definition would be “full service” and “warehouse brokerage”, or “self help brokerage”. Really bothers me when big brokers are stereotyped, many are big b/c they are successful in providing value.
Kevin,
Good point re: the labeling of big brokerages. It’s an important footnote to this discussion. Throughout the U.S., there are phenomenal brokerages who do not fit the stereotype that Sam paints.
These brokerages are large because they’ve paid heed to the things that matter most – providing an unrivaled service to their agents who together provide those same unrivaled services to the customer. When it comes to the data they posses and the listings they have, they realize that the only reason why they have this content in the first place is to market and sell the home.
Seems to be a common sentiment amongst strong and confident brokerages that as long the MLS and their members stay focused on providing tools and ideas that get that job done and do right with the data, everyone else benefits.
Amen
[...] at 1000watt, there is a rather interesting debate going on with some heavy hitters contributing, on whether big brokers should or should not support [...]
As an MLS vendor, we’re constantly confronted with these issues. Over the last 20 years or more, competition among MLS vendors has resulted in more and more marketing related features being added to the MLS system for the base fee. Whether it be full-featured CMAs, flyers, contact management, web sites, IDX, or other products and features, competitive pressure results in more of these products being included in the base fee. When we go in to show our product to the MLS Committee, you can be assured they expect to see all those products. And the committees want to show the agents what value they’re delivering to the members, so they negotiate to include more and more features into the base fee, which, of course, means that non-users subsidize users.
This problem also plays out along the lines of big versus small MLSs. First, all the MLS products today, whether they server big or small MLSs, contain a LOT of features. In the case of the smaller MLS markets, that may be a good thing, because the number of agents is too small to attract third party developers. So, if it’s not provided in the MLS, it won’t be provided. In the case of the bigger MLS markets, however, more third party developers come to the party, and the result is often features in the MLS go unused or the third parties struggle to gain a profitable foothold in the face of a successful MLS offering.
Of course, I must beat the dead horse here and say that the cause of so much of these problems is a lack of data standards in the MLS industry. The lack of standards essentially means each MLS is its own market for real estate software, and some of those markets are really small. If we had standards, the market for real estate software could be much, much bigger, even national.
MLSs have proven good at engendering cooperation among competitors in their local markets, but they need to get better at cooperating with other MLSs to create standards. MLSs should consider third-party developers important customers and be seeking to build a market for their software. Make access to and use of the MLS data easier and more secure for developers through modern APIs, and make the business model for selling software across MLSs easier as well.
These basics of infrastructure and market building by the MLS for real estate software are much more important than offering products. Associations and MLSs focused too much on offering their own products only mess up the market. Let competition deliver the best products for the lowest price.
This is an amazing debate… truly it is.
But the 800lb Gorilla question here that no one wants to tackle is “3) MLS uses monies to develop consumer facing products/technologies. ”
When or HOW did the end consumer become part of the MLS client list? Seriously? I know people whose MLS systems won’t even let them create a decent CMA (not ours Russ… ours is perfect
– yet they want to move ahead with a consumer facing site?
And will it be etched in stone that the MLS will never ever ever ever ever (x100) choose to CHARGE the agent for leads from those sites? Will all the leads go directly to the agent?
This is seriously Pandora’s box… and I for one don’t want to be standing within a Chernobyl zip code of it when it gets opened.
Agree, Matt! More commentary on this (including my two cents
)on Rob Hahn’s blog: http://www.notorious-rob.com/2011/08/06/modest-proposal-fixing-mls/
Agents…Agents…Agents…Brokers…Brokers…Brokers…Big Agents…Small Brokers…BIG RE Brokers…Small RE Brokers…Small Agents!!!
How bout we shift the conversation to:
Home Buyers & Home Sellers
My point exactly.
Whenever I hear a broker say, “we complete on the basis of value and service,” and I ask, “Well can you prove it?” I rarely get an intelligent response….especially when I ask them what kind of value and service did they provide buyers during the bubble.
When agents talk about “interpreting market data” as their job/strength, I say, “Oh really, well…what did you do….” Crickets.
I can count on one hand the guys I know that got out of the real estate and lending business and refused to buy into the hype or sell horrific loans. One refused to sell in the San Diego market.
They did not make very much money and no one knows or cares what they did.
Sigh…
Matt,
Good question.
In my limited dealings with MLS, the ones doing “consumer facing” stuff don’t view the buyer or seller as their customer. What they’ve done, they did to help their broker customers. In that instance, as someone very sympathetic to brokers, I see that as a good thing. I can see why some brokerages don’t however. It’s the stuff that makes this all a very worthy discussion.
So who owns the listing?
Great question Eric!
I’ll tell you who owns the listing…the seller does!
Sam made a good point:
“The fraud committed in the real estate industry (not to mention the financial services industry in collusion with the RE industry) has had a devastating impact on the finances of millions of families and our economy.”
What really makes you think sellers are going to continue to let you list their properties?!
I started off doing loans in 03, the people are smart but the industry as a whole is a fraud. Forward to 05 and now I’m doing both, loans and real estate, finding out that 90% of agents are stupid but the real estate industry as a whole is well intentioned. By 06 I’m a Broker. 3 years in the business and I’m at the top, and I know what most agents/brokers don’t: Finance
Geeeeeez, I know agents/brokers who are in the biz 5+ years and still don’t even use electronic signatures…Are you fucking kidding me?
Agent’s don’t take the time to learn, they just want to collect commissions! This is fine, some people don’t want to be on the computer all day learning new procedures and systems that will make their jobs easier. No, I’m not talking about all of you who have posted, you love the internet…if wifi was available for your brain I’m sure most of you would have it. This post is for the other 90%…so again, coming from a sellers perspective:
What the fuck makes you think I’d let you list my property?
@Eric,
Hey you aren’t playing nice here… lol
My favorite kind of agent is one that (a) knows something about finance and loans, and (b) is ethical enough to use that knowledge to tell buyers, “Wait kids, this is a bad idea. Let’s run some numbers and see if you shouldn’t rent for awhile longer while we improve your credit score.”
Yeah, the con regarding, “Oh Mr. Buyer, the seller pays the commission,” or “oh your buying a home will be a great long term investment,” when it’s obvious the young couple is going to get pregnant and move within a few years and LOSE money – is practically criminal.
The idea of buying a home absent a team of people that includes an accountant, financial/retirement planner, mortgage planner, credit repair specialist (a real one), family therapist, professional mediator, attorney, and an agent who “shows properties” is a little nuts.
I am late to the party folks, it seems like you were all having fun without me!
Here is the bottom line – the BROKER owns the listing data. Therefore BROKERS want to have choice in where & how that data is being used. Frankly, franchisor IDX, Trulia, Zillow etc have awakened an awareness at least in large brokers to these issues, raised concerns and sparked what I think is the beginning of a new understanding. That is what you heard at the Data Summit guys.
I am not as concerned about the tools as I am about the data. Want to create a slick tool? Fabulous. If it helps our brokerage, my agents and our clients – great. If I think you are getting a free ride and trying to take profit out of our pocket with our data, I am going to think twice before you get it.
Regarding the MLS…here is my simple answer. If we compliment each other we co-exist and all play nicely. If MLSs try and become brokers, that is where conflict arises. What works in my favor at least is the MLS just can’t execute the way we do – that is OUR innovation as a large brokerage. The future of MLS is not shiny tools, it is not about consumer facing websites or iphone apps – it is this simple question. What is the role of the MLS? Supporting its members or competing against them? I have hope that we will compliment each other and work for a common good, but sometimes feels like the MLS would rather be a brokerage. If we as an industry move from compliment to compete, not sure what that future holds.
I am all for innovation, whether we create it internally, through a group effort or externally. But it needs to be a value add to our business for us to allow usage of our data.
Now back to the party already in progress….
Hey Kevin (and others)…
So it turns out that the bottom line of BROKER owning the listing data ain’t quite so… at least according to Brian Larson:
http://www.notorious-rob.com/2011/08/06/modest-proposal-fixing-mls/#comment-279703466
I’m still thinking through this, but… to say the least, that would have a fairly dramatic impact on this whole argument.
Hey Rob,
Brian also says this:
“There are exceptions, and some MLSs and brokers have taken steps to change the ownership to place it in the broker/owners’ hands”
I won’t get into individual company policy in a public forum but suffice it to say as I mentioned before there is a new awareness (especially among big brokers) regarding data and having a say in its usage.
My sentiment about data remains.
Kev -
I saw that by Brian, and I’ve confirmed quite a bit of it via emails/private convos with brokerage general counsels. Here’s what I’m wondering about.
Even if brokerages have recently come to religion about data ownership and copyright, it strikes me as entirely possible (given the conventions of the industry over the past ten plus years) that those agreements are relatively recent changes. That is to say, it strikes me as entirely possible that brokers assumed that the listing copyright belonged to them for years and years, and then only in the last few years, they started adding language into the agreements with agents that transfers copyright to the broker.
If Brian is right about the agents holding the actual copyright, absent a specific contract that transfers the ownership from the agent to the broker, quite a few standard practices may have been in violation of the agent’s intellectual property rights. (For example, some brokerages/franchises who have direct syndication agreements may find that they’ve got a problem on their hands.)
This is still speculative, since I don’t know that the “copyright belongs to the agent, absent transfer agreement” would be correct given all of the various laws in play here. But this little thing may not be a little thing after all.
-rsh
Hey Rob, did you overlook my posts on Rob’s blog. The language was taken verbatim from an MLS Exclusive preprinted form that is supplied by MLS. The seller signs, as does the agent who is associated with their broker. It seems like there is confusion between, broker/age – agent – MLS. cc: Brian Larson
Look folks I am neither a broker or an owner (and never want to be). All I know is that the MLS exists to allow “cooperation” between the Realtors with the listings and the Realtors with the buyers. ANYTHING that the MLS can do to make my job easier, I appreciate. In my mind, any MLS that features an easy way for my customers to look for homes that may meet their needs is good. I get paid to translate data and provide my expertise through quality analysis of the data, whether for buyers or sellers. Whether or not the third party developers are good or not is irrelevant to me because as long as their is perceived money to be made, those guys will be around. I am looking for tools from my MLS. Things to save me time and make my job easier. That’s it. that’s all.
As a little broker who once worked for big brokers, I feel that the services provided by our affiliations and associations have greatly leveled our exposure and reach IF we do the work and use the resources. Most agents do not use what is available from thier broker OR the associatrions unless it’s automated…
Hi Lee, Thanks for sharing your experience. I guess the question here is “Should that be the purposeful role of the MLS”?
The MLS should be acting in the best interests of the consumer which means making data available to creators of innovative tools that help agents and brokers work more efficiently and therefore more effectively.
These “creators” of course could be brokers who develop their own proprietary systems.
The MLS should not provide it’s data to Zillow, Trulia, etc… that don’t act in the best interests of consumers, or agents, or brokers.
not sure about MLS being consumer-centric. The stock exchanges are not. As a broker I want a say in who is using the data, because it may not be in the best interest of my clients or my business.
Let me put my question in a different context:
How long before sellers start listing porperties themselves, and facilitate the whole transaction from beginning to end on their own?
They’ve always been able to that. The problem for them is that they might sell a home every five years or so. Many of us do that many sales before February every year. Experience counts.
I went away for the weekend and came back to some pretty amazing dialog on this post!
Thanks to everyone for weighing in. Especially those who took issue with my premise. There are exceptions, regional wrinkles, contradictions and unintended consequences galore around the question of who should be doing what in this business.
I do, however, remain steadfast in my general belief that industry conflict about the nature, pace and source of innovation within the industry almost always plays to the advantage of those outside of it.
Brian
I have a question: Have Brian or Rob H. ever used the MLS on the backend as a paying agent customer… or been licensed as an agent and represented a consumer in an agency capacity?
I have a question about your question.
Why does it matter? Could you explain in detail?
Thanks,
-rsh
It’s really simple. Brokers and Agents – and therefore the MLS – should be in the business of providing “Care, Protection, and Guidance” to consumers.
The fairest way to do this is to create data structures that can be easily accessed by agents and brokers and partnering with companies (approved by Membership perhaps even) that access that data to create quality tools that help agents/brokers help consumers.
Agents benefit. Brokers benefit. Consumers benefit.
They should not provide data to – even the most talented “innovators” that do not serve the public AND undercut their members.
Let me know if you want access to the coding we built to process RETS feeds and store them in the cloud in an easily accessible way.
The old website should be up RETS2Cloud.com (though we haven’t been maintaining the site or selling this.)
And to Rob Hahn’s point, eventually the big brokers (like Prudential, Long and Foster, Coldwell Banker, etc…) in each market will get together and decide they don’t need to feed the MLS and competitors like Zillow – and squash a the little brokers and agents.
Now Thats! bad for competitors!
In the end.. this is all about money. There are waring factions who don’t want to give up what they have and no amount of “they should do this or that” is going to change things. What will change things is the consumer. Going to take time.
Most agents and brokers and mls’s have blinders on… but they currently own the horses and the roads so they can currently get around.
I would think that because the MLS is owned by the associations it should be an open source platform for the agents (owners) to do what they want with it.
[...] we’re ever really going to find our way out of the wasteland, finding a way to bridge this gap meaningfully is what we really [...]
Good day! I just would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice info you have here on this post. I will be coming back to your blog for extra soon.
I see. So real world experience = “used the MLS on the backend as a paying agent customer… or been licensed as an agent and represented a consumer in an agency capacity”. Gotcha.
Well, I wonder what you’re even doing on this post, given that Brian has no real world experience. Or responding to me, since I have never held a license.
For that matter, since none of the CEO’s of major technology companies — Spencer Rascoff at Zillow, Pete Flint at Trulia, Errol Samuelson at Realtor.com, not to mention Marty Frame at RPR, and the heads of LPS, CoreLogic, TaraSoft, etc. etc. — have ever held a real estate license, I assume you would immediately cease using those products.
I confess, this line of thinking, which pops up once in a while in the industry, is just extremely frustrating.