Whoa, check it out, our little niche hit the New York Times today. They call it M.L.S., which I find funny, but most likely is correct. Anyway, on to the article. I wonder if Bob Hale knew they would start the article like this:
The triple threat of a weak market, legal pressure and increasing competition has compelled real estate professionals to offer their information more freely online, putting cracks in a walled garden of data that stood strong while the industry enjoyed its breakaway growth. It also presages an end to the days when sellers must list their homes with a broker so buyers can see them.
I also find this quote interesting:
Tom Hurdlebrink, chief executive of Northwest M.L.S., said his service’s shift [in allowing Redfin and others to display FSBO's and non-MLS foreclosures intermingled with MLS listings] was meant to “create a balance of giving consumers what they want while promoting the best interest of our broker members.â€
Bob Hale concludes:
But Mr. Hale, of Houston’s M.L.S., suspects that resistance will wane. “Their attitude has been, ‘Just because the consumer wants it doesn’t mean we have to give it to them,’ †he said. “It’s the sure way to your demise.â€
Hmmm, at some levels, this seems like a “dead if you do, dead if you don’t” conundrum, but, at the least, it poses a very good prelude to the discussion we’ll be having at our FBS Summit June 12 regarding public-facing MLS sites. We’re assembling a panel with Brian Larson from Larson/Sobotka and Marilyn Wilson from WAV, who each have written papers recently on the issue of public-facing MLS sites and have somewhat different views. We’re also in the process of getting at least one MLS executive and one broker with differnt views. We’ll start with some presentations and a panel moderated by me and we’re going to then follow with a speed Q&A session that I think will be really interesting.
For example, Trulia and Realtor.com are mentioned in the article as well. R.com is against FSBO’s for data quality reasons and Trulia is against them because they offend brokers. Who has the better model here? Does it all come back to Google in the end? Are we in a battle for links and link love? Because here’s the deal: Links require public-facing sites. Does the MLS have a role to play in that battle? Or not?
Matt, I think a different twist on this issue is uncovered well by the NYT article: Some of the portals are combining FSBO and other listing sources with the MLS data. The conclusion they then draw is that these portals effectively will become a better MLS, ending the days when “when sellers must list their homes with a broker so buyers can see them” or making FSBOs as attractive as MLS listings. At least that’s my interpretation of the article. Of course, this is the same refrain that has been voiced many times by many people, but the evolution to mingling data is new, I think. The upshot seems to be that what may be disintermediated is the advertising power of the MLS listing. Brokers will still be able to add value in the many ways they already do, but listing promotion will be less of a value add is the argument the article seems to be making.
Michael,
I disagree that they would become a better MLS – I agree that, if provided with both MLS data and accepting of FSBOs, they could become a more comprehensive public site. We continue to see arguments predicated on the assumption that the value of the MLS is somehow about advertising – let’s not contribute to that confusion!
The issues surrounding this mingling in the consumer-facing site arena has been a recognized issue for over a decade – I know that I’ve been working with clients on it for at least that long – and I don’t see anything all that new here other than the recent re-focus on the subject. But, focusing the conversation back on what sites listings / professional IP should be sent to or whether industry sites should display FSBOs and how – could certainly be a very interesting conversation – and I very much agree with you that how the industry approaches the FSBO issue may have an effect on the value of the broker and industry in listing promotion.
Yeah, I’m not saying I agree with the article, I was just trying to explain what I see as the point the article is making. Though mingling has been discussed before, it’s now being done both by Zillow and Redfin. Isn’t that new?
Back to my position, for the last eighteen months or so, I’ve been thinking that public-facing MLS sites are valuable if not important. Lately, however, I’m less sure. Brian Larson makes some excellent points in his new paper, I wonder how consumers get from listings to brokers on MLS web sites, and what Alex Chang is doing with Roost is stirring my thinking, too. Lastly, I think the issues of data portability and user-control being faced by the social networking sites is very relevant to this discussion.
I don’t think the mingling new, but now that it’s being done on prominent sites it should bring more focus to the conversation on the subject.
The value of the well-promoted MLS public site has been demonstrated by Mr. Hale, and I believe in their importance. Will those sites, and the industry, need to evolve to remain relevant? Probably!
It’s time for get some different perspectives … c’mon fellow FBS blog readers! I’m looking forward to hearing what others have to say on the subject.
>> I don’t think the mingling new…
It was also my impression that it is a new thing. I believe the prohibition of commingling MLS data with other property data is one of the rules/regs that NAR “suggests” should be incorporated into local MLS Rules & Regs. Most of the MLS rules & regs in my area have that prohibition in place. Perhaps in a future Clareity study we can find out more about the commingling landscape across the country.
Hey — if we can’t commingle escrow funds, why should we be able to commingle property data?!?! 
>> The value of the well-promoted MLS public site has been demonstrated by Mr. Hale…
I am intrigued by the concept of the MLS public site. I haven’t been in many sessions where the value has been discussed or debated, but would be interested in hearing the perspectives on it. In my view, in most market areas it would seem to be:
– advantageous to Realtors as a whole (increased traffic to a web site that promotes Realtors and their property listings)
– highly advantageous to smaller brokers with a limited web presence (increased visibility of the brokers, their agents, and their listings on a heavily trafficked site that will point the consumer back to the broker or agent)
– less advantageous to large brokers with a significant web presence (the brokerages with the most web traffic before the launch of the public MLS site would likely lose ground — over time they may have less traffic because the public MLS site would become a prime destination)
– more valuable to Realtors if large national players are also offering access to property data (in large markets, a public MLS site can feasibly compete with zillow.com, trulia.com, roost.com where brokerage sites likely cannot — however, in smaller markets, brokerage sites don’t have to complete with those national players because they have such limited data, if any)
8:21 am
Commenting on: “The triple threat of a weak market, legal pressure and increasing competition has compelled real estate professionals to offer their information more freely online, putting cracks in a walled garden of data that stood strong while the industry enjoyed its breakaway growth.”
Oh please! Wasn’t the “walled garden” opened up over ten years ago, when we enabled (Moore Data’s) Cyberhomes, Realtor.com, Homeadvisor, Homes.com, and six or seven other major players, alongside a multitude of others, to put listings online? Real estate practitioners actively opened up the public portion of the “garden” when the Internet made it possible to do so, and it didn’t take market pressures to make it so, only a desire to better serve the consumer.
There are those who want the MLS opened up fully, but if that were to happen the industry would be immediately attacked on the consumer privacy issues – and the attorney that today pushes for “Open” MLS would be the first one in line tomorrow to lead that attack. There is a clear need for a business system for professionals-only use, and for an extension of that system to provide consumers the appropriate level of information – balancing the ability to find properties with the privacy issues. I believe our industry has done a very good (if not perfect, IMHO) job in finding that balance, and has for at least a decade. It has not, however, done a great job marketing what it has accomplished to the consumer – allowing articles like the one published in the New York Times to continue to fuel the fallacy that the real estate industry is actively resisting giving the public access to property market information and that it needs to be forced open.