The ground between portals and IDX is being defined in large part by Alex Chang from Roost. As a result, I was psyched Alex agreed to be a part of our panel on MLS portals. I had several take aways from Alex’s talk:
After the panel, I had many participants say how much they enjoyed Alex’s perspective, which was just enough outside the MLS perspective to be fresh and invigorating.
In my last post on the public MLS site panel discussion, the panelists seemed to agree that IDX programs don’t conflict with a public MLS site. The more I think about this issue, though, the more I think they do conflict or involve a “fork in the road” that needs to be illuminated before choosing one or other or to build a new road that combines the two. Put simply:
As Brian Larson says during the video, there is a fork in the road here. Perhaps new roads will be built that create the best of both worlds, but, today, the difference between IDX and public facing sites remains distinct and choosing both creates the potential for conflicting policies. I think the difference between these policies is highlighted well by Duane Sauke’s refusal to weep for buy-side brokers who get to use his listings on IDX sites.
Some time ago, I wrote this in a post called Listings, Leads and Losers, Oh My!:
IDX was a great idea. Larry Cragun and Kris Berg have it right, the agents should be delivering the listing information to the consumer. Importantly, this argument should not be confused with those who think agents make a living simply by hording the listing information. I seriously doubt that ever worked as a long term business model, but, if it did, there is no question that such a model won’t survive today. No, what I’m suggesting (and what I think Larry and Kris are suggesting) is that the agent is on the front lines and there should be as little friction as possible between them and their potential clients. Isn’t that what the web revolution is all about, efficiency, knowledge, and power to individuals? That was the promise of IDX and I think it can still be brought to fruition.
Here’s how we can revive IDX. Brokers and agents should be allowed to put all the listing information on their web sites. The IDX data set should be complete (which should get the DOJ off the NAR’s back) and brokers should be assured that someone else isn’t going to sell leads from their data (this is called compromise). Once data standards are established, promising a strong and comprehensive data product from brokers and agents to consumers, NAR should create and heavily promote a branding and logo program for legitimate IDX sites so consumers can have confidence they are seeing everything. (No, I’m not crazy, this is a really good idea, if you pause to think about it. See, the NYSE and NASDAQ for examples.) Consumers should be able to shop till they drop, without being bothered, until they’re ready to engage. But, when they are ready to engage, they should be one click away from the agent who is going to serve them. Getting funneled through lead site after lead site before getting to the agent is not efficient and is not consumer-friendly.
This post was the genesis for my question of whether a public facing MLS site conflicts with IDX programs. Put another way, is branding IDX a better investment for members in an MLS than branding a public facing MLS site? Is there enough budget to do both well? What is the market impact of one versus the other? Which would members prefer? I didn’t put all of these questions to the panel, but I think the responses are valuable on the main point.
The first question I posed during our panel discussion on public facing MLS sites is a variant on the classic “level the playing field” issue and whether public facing MLS sites benefit big brokers, small brokers, both or neither. Victor Lund starts off the discussion suggesting that public facing MLS sites would benefit big brokers more, because, having more of the listings, they would get more of the leads or traffic. Duane Sauke, the broker on the panel, said that, if it is true that big brokers would benefit more, then they’ll still not want an MLS web site because they’ll want to own the space entirely.
Brian Larson then follows that up with his mantra throughout the panel discussion, which can be paraphrased as “show me the data.” Lastly, Brian suggests that MLS web sites have the possibility of dampening competition by “treating everyone equal” and puts forward Zip Realty as a new web competitor that has succeeded but may not have if it was competing against a public facing MLS site. Combining Brian’s observations, I wonder what the data shows about Zip Realty in Houston?
What do you think? Do public facing MLS sites benefit big or small brokers more? Or neither? Or both proportionally? Following Alex Chang’s suggestion that the answer depends on how the site is constructed, how does IDX fall into the mix?
P.S. Isn’t the ablity to deep link into a Viddler video awesome?
A week or so ago, we held our annual FBS Summit and hosted a panel of speakers on the pros and cons of MLSs creating and promoting consumer facing listing sites. We recorded the sessions and now have the videos uploaded for public viewing. We had to break the nearly two hours of video into many small parts and the easiest way to show them all is with the links below. Over the next week or two, I’ll be writing some posts with additional commentary on some of the videos and embedding them at that time but if you want the full experience just click through the following links.
Question 1 – Do MLS sites favor big brokers, small brokers, both or neither?
Question 2 – Is an MLS site in conflict with IDX?
Question 3 – If an MLS has a public facing site, what are the best ways to drive traffic to brokers? (Pass through versus destination.)
Question 4 – Are leads from a listing search good leads given dual agency? How do consumers choose an agent?
Question 5 – Is promoting an MLS brand in conflict with the brokers’ efforts to promote their own brands? Is advertising by the MLS in conflict with the advertising of the brokers?
Question 6 – Should an MLS spend member dollars on advertising a portal?
Question 7 – How would the branding efforts of a site like Roost compare to what an MLS could or should do?
Question 8 – Can an MLS promote the REALTOR brand and the MLS web site at the same time?
Question 9 How can MLSs help train agents to respond better to consumers? Is that the role of the MLS?
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?
