A member of the Inman editorial staff once asked me why my reviews were always so overtly enthusiastic. It’s simple really, if I didn’t like a product, I wouldn’t bother to write about it in the first place. I get weekly offers to review products or services on this blog. Most of the products, to be diplomatic, are not worth writing about.
I decided a while back to stop doing reviews on lenderama. I figured it would be better to let the product’s creator give it their best pitch. There’s an open invitation for just about any company to post a review. When I receive invitations to do reviews, I either refuse, or if it looks interesting, I tell them about my ghost review program.
But every once in a while, a truly great idea, that I absolutely love comes along. That was the case with the DotHomes post I wrote yesterday. I had a feeling that the real estate community would not be as excited about this product, and I was right. The general consensus is that the MLS’s of America are not going to like. I agree, that’s why I like it so much! I despise the MLS system.
Once upon a time, the MLS was pretty cool. I remember when my Mom used to type a bunch of parameters into what looked like an electronic typewriter with a phone line hooked to it. Mere minutes later, a list of possible homes for sale popped out. Real estate agents worked hard to build a network of listings, I understand why they are hesitant to give up what they built. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong to try to keep the data for themselves.
So long as MLS systems work to deny companies the ability to mix FSBO listings and agent listings, they are not acting in the best interest of the consumer. If they seek civil action to deny a third party company from redisplaying listings (like DotHomes is doing), they may be legally correct, but it’s not in the interest of the consumer. MLS data deserves to be public.
There’s much talk of a need for transparency in the mortgage industry. I agree. There’s also a desire for more transparency in real estate, but as long as the MLS limits consumers from full access to this data, it’s just talk.
Every once in a while, I’ll read a blog post about how Redfin’s business model is flawed because there’s so much more to a real estate transaction than searching for a few homes on the net. Fine, I agree. But if that’s the case, then allowing consumers full access to do those searches shouldn’t be worth so much to you. Give it away.
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
Mortgage Industry Professionals. Like what you see?
SUBSCRIBE for free by RSS or email, and never miss a post!
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Well stated Todd. There are some MLS that are trying to make the information more accessible to consumers via multiple listing sites, but there are some that are terrified that they may lose their power and they refuse to share their listings. The data belongs to the people.
“But if that’s the case, then allowing consumers full access to do those searches shouldn’t be worth so much to you. Give it away.”
Classic!
“So long as MLS systems work to deny companies the ability to mix FSBO listings and agent listings, they are not acting in the best interest of the consumer.”
Ah, duh. Listen, I’m all for letting information out. I do it all the time. But MLS was not set up for the public. Never was. Why everyone thinks so is beyond me.
MLS was set up as a professional networking tool. Today it does vet information. But it also shares compensation rates with rival companies. It sets up parameters for showings. There are items on there that should not be public.
Now, if anyone wants to ask me what I make on any given transaction I’m more than happy to share that.
But do you want me sharing your alarm code? How about your phone number? Or, how about I share with everyone exactly what hours you are gone during the day so anyone, in the guise of public information, can know when you are gone, then use your alarm code to clean out your house.
If someone wants to sell their home FSBO, I’m cool with that. In fact, I’ve been known to counsel people on how to do so. But unless and until that FSBO wants to get their license, pay their dues and attend the training I say let them set up their own network.
And as far as Amy Le’s statement the “data belongs to the people” I would again say “what?”
Who puts the data together? How many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars does it take to compile it?
Again, and make no mistake about this, I share all data about my listings that people need to know. Any company can market it so long as they are attempting to bring a buyer so that my seller can meet their goals.
But to say I have to let someone use our information for their own puroses is funny to me.
Chris, you’re correct. The public doesn’t own the data. Real Estate agents have every right to keep it to themselves. But I still say they should willingly share it.
Of course their is some information (like alarm codes) that does not need to be public. But that’s really not the issue.
Virtually every MLS builds a semi-public portal for agents to publicly display listings. Many times, what they won’t allow, is for 3rd parties to to take that public information, and mash it up with FSBO’s, valuation engines, etc…
That’s what irks me.
Very good points.
But again, Todd, I would ask why the MLS system (a system developed and run by an association of real estate agents) share their technology and information with people who, by their definition, do not wish to pay real estate agents?
I’m not angry here. Nor do I completely disagree with the premise of open information. But I really, really have to side with the MLS on this. It’s their information. The public has no right to say it belongs to them.
And that’s not being greedy, in my opinion. It’s about proprietary rights.
“I would ask why the MLS system (a system developed and run by an association of real estate agents) share their technology and information with people who, by their definition, do not wish to pay real estate agents?”
Umm…to reach buyers who will write contracts that fulfill the fiduciary responsibility the listing agent has to the seller and as a result, make a RE commission for representing the seller…or something like that.
Chris, I’m not taking sides, just thought I’d throw a hand grenade into the thread
This thread has the making for a lot of post/comments.
Let me get this clear in my mind. A private group gathers proprietary data for it’s own benefit, and in the name of the false god of transparency they’re supposed to bend over, take a smack in the ass, then say, “thank you sir, may I please have another”?
A thief has two choices when he wants something belonging to another: Force or technique.
The question is NOT, whether we in the industry should share the MLS. It is whether anyone but us has the right to decide.
For those thinking the MLS somehow ‘belongs’ to them, and don’t care what method they employ to take it, here are some thoughts.
Are they gonna force Grandma to give them her coveted recipe for lasagna too? Will they use transparency as their lever?
The issue is private property plain and simple. Nobody has any business trying to force this property away from its rightful owners.
A thief is a thief no matter how they steal your property. Let’s stop pussy footing around and call a spade a spade.
The fate of MLS data is not the public’s business. The rest of the discussion is moot until the people wanting our info come clean.
And while we’re at it, as already mentioned in a previous comment, most of these cat burglars merely want something for nothing, not exactly a new motivation.
They can have my data through brute force, and no other way.
Paul,
I like grenades.
A FSBO being on the MLS isn’t a fiduciary matter in any way, shape or form. I have no agency with nor allegiance to a FSBO. Unless I sign an agency agreement placing me within a fiduciary situation and then I would put them in the MLS!!!!
What if I’m working with a buyer? Well, if I’m truly the “neighborhood expert” as so many purport to be then I know there is a FSBO at 123 Main St and I knock on the door and I have them sign a 1 time showing agreement. They know I work for the Buyer and will expect to be paid upon closing.
So you see, no problems. I’m happy to show a FSBO (and do about 50 times a year…honestly) so long as they will compensate me.
This issue comes down to compensation. FSBO wants in. They just don’t want to pay for it.
I see your point Jeff, and believe me, I’m the last person who will say the MLS data should be forcefully taken. But it’s not stealing if you give it away. I think you should give it away.
Chris, I think they should give it away because for the most part, that data is not why people employ an RE agent. At least, it’s not why they should. Freeing the data will allow it to be dispersed in innovative and effective ways for consumers. But finding a home online is not the same as buying a home in real life.
Here’s another way to look at it. If a consumer drove by a home with a for sale sign in the front yard, and fell in love with it on the spot, then called you to represent them as their buying agent to buy that house, how much would you discount your services? If I were the agent, there would be no discount because we all know that finding an initial house is only the beginning of the transaction.
Chris, I didn’t see where I mentioned FSBOs in my post, but thanks for catching the grenade!
Jeff, I’m still not taking sides here, but you’ve lobbed up a softball with your comments, so…
>>>Are they gonna force Grandma to give them her coveted recipe for lasagna too? Will they use transparency as their lever?
Probably not, but if Granny’s R&D led to a pharmaceutical drug that could cure fatal baldness in a week’s time, then her patent would expire in twenty-years.
>>>The issue is private property plain and simple. Nobody has any business trying to force this property away from its rightful owners.
Ummm…ever heard of eminent domain?
>>>A thief is a thief no matter how they steal your property. Let’s stop pussy footing around and call a spade a spade.
OK, let me give it a try. Here I go!
Mr. Seller, we don’t do everything we can to sell your home. Specifically, we restrict consumer access to the MLS even though that might help to sell your home faster and at a higher price. The reason, Mr. Seller is because I call a spade a spade and I belong to “A private group gathers proprietary data for it’s own benefit…”
How’d I do?
I’m willing to be persuaded.
Long live the MLS!
Paul — yer on.
>Probably not, but if Granny’s R&D led to a pharmaceutical drug that could cure fatal baldness in a week’s time, then her patent would expire in twenty-years.
I represent the fact you choose baldness as your example. Seriously, this argument as no merit whatsoever, as the MLS doesn’t fall into the category used, i.e. patent. Yes, Grandma would lose it in 20 years, but she’d become a gazillionaire in return. A fair trade, with the rules set up ahead of time.
>Ummm…ever heard of eminent domain?
You gotta do better than this stuff, Paul. Again meritless on its face. Our data isn’t subject to eminent domain through even the whackiest logic.
>Mr. Seller, we don’t do everything we can to sell your home. Specifically, we restrict consumer access to the MLS even though that might help to sell your home faster and at a higher price. The reason, Mr. Seller is because I call a spade a spade and I belong to “A private group gathers proprietary data for it’s own benefit…”
Gee, let’s look at Russell Shaw, an agent in the worst hit county (at least #2) in the country. Average time on market is 89 days for everyone else, and around 43 for Mr. Shaw. I guess the above statement goes out the window for him.
If the property is not selling, blaming it on Realtors for not giving away their most valuable asset doesn’t cut it. Find an agent/company who’ll get the job done.
This is all good fun. Why don’t we apply these exact same arguments to secure the recipe for Dr. Pepper away from its owners?
I’m open to be persuaded on the subject of giving away the MLS data to the public. Frankly, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
That said, it’s amusing to say the least, to take roll call of the team roster heading the fight to ‘persuade’ us to give our stuff to them. The vast majority of them have been trying to use the valuable data we harbor while avoiding paying for our services. Imagine that. Of course they deny any such agenda, which is equally amusing.
Again — let’s call a spade a spade.
Now here’s a question for those in favor of Realtors giving up their most valuable asset.
A statement of reality first.
Realtors serve their clients. They’re in business to earn as much money as possible. Frankly, I know what I’m worth and what value I bring to the table. That value will not be reduced because a consumer brings up the whole ‘best for the consumer’ totem.
If they don’t like my fees/commissions then go somewhere else. That’s capitalism in a nutshell. If enough ‘consumers’ don’t think I’m worth my fees I’ll lower them or be out of business.
What benefit does the average Realtor derive from giving away his most prized asset?
“What benefit does the average Realtor derive from giving away his most prized asset?”
My good friend Jeff, I can continue this charade no more, for I, even I, am the epitome of the capitalistic gatekeeper drawn in this thread and by my own comments.
Seriously, if you click the link on my name you’ll see that I own a company called Seller Helps Buyer that goes way beyond the MLS bounds of ‘not sharing.’ We provide far less data than any MLS. Our focus is on short sales with sponsoring loan officers as the gatekeepers. I believe firmly in the gambit of give to get. In that regard, the potential buyers must give their name/number/email to get prequalified before going any further.
By the way, we’ll be looking for one exclusive LO for Regional sponsor per County.
Hey, Todd does write some great thread titles, though, and I’m pleased to see many comments, albeit goaded. Sorry for the bald joke.
Paul, I knew who you were and what you did a minute after your comment reached me.
I just wondered at what point you were gonna crack. 
Thanks for the fun.
Don’t you get it - it’s no fun when we agree!
Thanks my brother!
Ah, what a love fest.
I can understand people misunderstanding the point of the MLS. Real estate agents have confused the public with this info. It’s really the REALTOR’s fault we’ve gotten to this point.
But make no mistake. It is the agent association’s information. Going back to Todd’s wish that FSBO’s would be able to list themselves on the MLS to help with mash-ups is where I disagree with him.
I can see why he wants it. But the reality is that the systems are proprietary. Now if people were willing to pay a fee…
Chris, the ability od FSBO’s to be able to list on the MLS is not what I’m asking for.
Some MLS organizations will not allow their listings to be mashed onto the a third party web site that also is willing to list FSBO’s. So, KW, ReMax etc… can publicly publish listing info but Trulia (hypothetically) cannot unless they refuse to allow FSBO’s. I understand why they do this. I think they have every right to do this, but it’s not in the best interest of a consumer who’s looking for a house.
“Some MLS organizations will not allow their listings to be mashed onto the a third party web site that also is willing to list FSBO’s”
Which arguably is less exposure for the seller who is represented by his listing Realtor.
Sorry for the Jekyll/Hyde commentary, but Chris has the grenade.
I understand what you are both saying. And I’m just going to say from an agent’s point of view more competition for my listing is not good for my seller. (Or from a broader view, more competition for KW’s sellers is not good for them.)
Now, from a consumer’s point of view, sure I would love everything in one place. But for market reasons it’s probably not going to happen.
I’d also really, really like it if I could get Southwest Airlines prices to show on some of the travel mash-ups. But for their own reasons they don’t participate with all of them. I get that.
Todd, I am a licensed real estate broker in North Carolina. I have had tremendous success using a unique system of generating my business somewhat like Redfin or Zip Realty. My concept is simple and mimics your thoughts exactly. Those of us in the real estate industry need to know that our success is a bi-product of what is best for the consumer. As the marketplace continues to change with the move to more consumer based models and much improved FSBO programs. The Cartel we know as the MLS will need to change with the times or face a serious revolt from homeowners. I like you have a serious beef with the MLS and dislike the way facts get skewed by the NAR. The facts get skewed for the benefit of NAR membership and not the consumer. We need to continue educating the consumer on their options.
“The Cartel we know as the MLS…”
Cartel?! I knew this was going to be a great thread! Look out below!
Leave a Comment