Conversations about the MLS industry, creating software, and employee ownership.

I attended a presentation from Dale Ross and Marty Frame to a variety of MLS and public records software vendors last Sunday at the NAR Convention in San Diego.  Here are a few points I took away from the Q&A session:

• No Focus on Data Standards for MLSs.  In response to my question as to whether RPR would be promoting a data standard for MLSs, Marty said something like they didn’t want to be a RETS enforcer.  I’m not completely sure what that means but if Marty intended for RPR to help with data standards, he likely would have said so.  Instead he said it wasn’t part of their plan and they’re primarily focused on about 120 data fields or so.
• No Help For MLSs With Overlapping Market Disorder or Those Who Want to Data Share.  In response to my question as to whether RPR would be helping MLSs resolve overlapping market disorder in their area by serving as a data exchange/repository, Marty said no, that wasn’t in the plan either.  Of course, users can come to the RPR interface and see data from participating MLSs but there isn’t a plan for an API (RETS or otherwise) to allow MLSs to retrieve aggregate data even if the MLSs in the area agree to such an exchange.
• No Authoritative Record.  In response to my question as to whether RPR will be establishing an authoritative record from the various sources of data (public records, MLS, loans, etc.), Marty said no.  RPR will present the various sources of data side by side but they won’t try to reconcile them.  I think this fact makes their claim of being a “property-centric” system a bit off target.  My understanding of property-centric systems is that they do, in fact, establish an authoritative record from the many sources — they combine the best data to provide a long-term repository of property information, instead of just displaying disparate data side-by-side.  The scenario I posed was as follows:
  • Agent Smith creates a new listing on January 1 and auto-pops the listing from the RPR tax record, and then corrects the square footage, which is off by a significant amount.
  • Agent Smith’s listing expires March 30.
  • Agent Jones lists the same property on April 1 and again auto-populates the listing from the tax record.  Agent Jones will again have to correct the square footage coming from the RPR public records because there isn’t a base or authoritative record available from RPR.
• Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) — (Note: An API is a way two systems (such as RPR and the MLS or a broker back-office system) can talk to each other.)
  • Marty said there will be an API for the public records and MLSs will be able to pull the public records into their own system.  MLS systems also will be able to link to the PDF market and listing reports (though they won’t be available in HTML, just PDF).
  • RPR hopes MLSs will help RPR with authentication by using single sign-on (SSO) standards, though they’ll adapt to whatever the MLS will provide.
  • There will not be an API for any of the third-party licensed data (including listings), just the public records.  If you want to see the other data, you must login to RPR.
  • API documentation should become available in the next 30 days or so.

There were questions from other vendors as well about the APIs and the business model, but the above were the highlights for me.  I walked away from the meeting thinking they were missing a lot of the potential for how a system like RPR could help MLSs and their broker and agent members.  Helping MLSs improve data quality, data standards, and data sharing are all key benefits not being addressed by RPR. Hopefully this will change over the coming months as MLSs negotiate licenses with RPR and require that these issues be part of the deal.

——————————————————————–

Related and recent posts RPR by others:

Brian Larson — Report of RPRs Birth Is An Exaggeration

Rob Hahn — No More Drama and Hype: Known Facts on RPR

——————————————————————–

P.S.  Can I please request that all NAR conventions from here on out be in San Diego?  What a perfect location, with a great convention center, great hotels nearby, awesome restaurants, entertainment, and, of course, the views and weather!

Here’s an email I received today from a member of the Board of one of our MLS customers:

Hi Michael,

I believe you are involved with the Data Standards group at NAR, right? We are still struggling with some definitions and wondering if there is anything published by the data standards group on things that have already been agreed on at the NAR level. Do you have anything like that? Yesterday we struggled with “Single Family Detached” home for over an hour. Is there some help out there?

Thanks, and look forward to seeing you in San Diego.

I typically discuss data standards in relation to MLSs wanting to share data or regionalize, but this is a good example of an MLS simply wanting an easier way to get the data right. I pointed this customer to the RETS schema, but also had to say that it wasn’t user-friendly and didn’t say anything very specific about her question.

From my perspective, a broker asking for a definitive data definition to be published at the national level isn’t too much to ask. I would really like to be able to respond, Yes!, here’s a link to the data dictionary we’ve been working on for the last many years and the definition you’re looking for is on row 28 (or whatever). Wouldn’t that be great? Let’s make it happen.

In my last post, I mentioned that RETS data standards may get a boost from the COVE Group of MLSs starting to work together on further defining standard field names for their MLSs. Standard names have existed for a long time in RETS but they are rarely well populated. This new effort is to reinvigorate standard names and try to figure out how they can be changed so they are actually put into use.

Because there are other regional data standardization efforts across the country, I suggested in my last post that sharing the process for this work with the broader community would be helpful so that the work can be coordinated with work other groups are doing. One of the most basic first steps is defining a format for publishing the agreed upon fields. Spreadsheets tend to be the easiest way for the broadest group of people to access the results, and so they are most commonly used in data standardization efforts.

One of the challenges with spreadsheets, though, is that they are two dimensional and the listing data often is nested, especially when it comes to fields with a list of values. How do you best show the field name and the list of values? One approach is to combine them into one sheet and another is to include the list of values on a separate sheet as shown in the example below (though I couldn’t figure out how to link the two sheets together in Google documents).

Another question is whether to include the data type in this initial effort. In the past, defining data type has created a lot of consternation where, for example, some MLSs use a list of values for number of bedrooms while most others use a numeric value. If this effort is to have meaning and usefulness long term, I think we have to define data types as well as names. Lastly, even though RETS schema doesn’t define fields by property type, I suggest the spreadsheet contain a property type column to define those fields particular to certain property types.

I think using Google Documents or some other web based spreadsheet would make sharing and publishing the information on sites like RETS.org much easier for everyone. Sharing is critical for getting input and feedback, and building consensus around the results. For example, if you think of a better idea for how to format the spreadsheet, you actually can edit the spreadsheet above and the changes will be saved. That’s pretty cool. Google Spreadsheets also can grant only specific people permission for editing.

So, does this approach work for groups to create and share standard fields in an effort to come up with widely adopted standard fields? One of the core objectives is to get as many fields commonly searchable across all MLSs as possible. Is that 50 fields? 100? More? If there aren’t many current fields, will MLSs be willing to change their current fields to adopt to new standards? Lots of questions here but I know there are many MLSs grappling with these exact problems right now and so this is the time to put keyboard to spreadsheet and define as many standard fields as possible.

Those reading the FBS Blog over the last few years will know that MLS data standards has been one of most frequent topics for my posts. I also spent a couple of years trying to lead the Real Estate Standards Organization (RESO) in that direction, with little effect. Thus, I went to the RESO meetings in Chicago this week with a lot of trepidation and even reservation that it would all be more of the same: no progress on data standards.

Indeed, there was a lot of the same discussion about why data standards will never happen (too much legacy data that will be lost, too expensive, too little incentive). Despite these perennial objections, however, there seems to be some good movement in the direction of standardizing MLS data. First, the Cove Group (a group of the biggest MLSs in the country) has decided that it would like to tackle data standards for their group. The members of the Cove Group are going to work among themselves to come up with their standard fields and then submit those into RESO as a change proposal to see if that can kick-start data standards.

This is a great step in the right direction, and I look forward to seeing what they develop. In fact, what I’d love to see happen is for the effort by the Cove Group to be open enough that other regional efforts already being undertaken can proceed at the same time with the same process so the results can be more easily coordinated into RETS. There are two simple things that would help achieve this objective: (1) RESO or the Cove Group should publicize the format in which they are going to publish the data standards once their work is complete; and (2) all groups should try to do their work out in the open on the web as much as possible so we can all track progress together.

During the meetings the last two days in Chicago, both of these topics were discussed a bit. First, the Cove Group representatives indicated they’d be using spreadsheets to collect, review and publish their standard fields. Second, yesterday RESO unveiled a new document management tool that will be used by the community to publish, review and comment on the RETS documentation. Currently, the document management tool isn’t yet live and so there isn’t any publicly accessible content, but, once live, all the docs will be available on the web. Also, currently the tool is primarily focused on the RETS specs, which contain little in the way of data standards, which often are best communicated in the form of a spreadsheet. Accordingly, I recommended to Chris McKeever and CRT that the tool be supplemented with the ability to include spreadsheets.

If the on-going work product of various regional groups could be published on the RESO web site through the document management tool, the likelihood that the efforts could be rolled together at the end would be much higher. Better yet, the spreadsheet formats each regional group is using should be the same. I know these are some basic issues, but I really think they’re important to making sure that the work of the various groups actually makes it into a cohesive national standard. For example, having the column headers the same so that the spreadsheets can be sorted easily in the same manner would be very helpful. In particular, how enumerations for fields are handled in terms of relationship to the primary field for easy viewing and sorting is important. Also, having a column identifying the source (regional effort or MLS) for the suggested field would be important.

Without some of these basic efforts at coordination and openness, there is a real risk that various groups will get pissy (oops, I mean proprietary) about their own work versus the work of the other groups. In contrast, if all the groups are working openly and in the same way toward the same goals, the result should be easier to coordinate. One easy way to coordinate and publicize the efforts would be to use Google or Zoho spreadsheets framed in RESO’s new document management tool. Here’s an example of how a Google spreadhseet can be framed in Confluence, which is the tool chosen by RESO for the document management function.

I fully understand that a lot of this data standards work will begin using Excel or other off-line spreadsheets, which is fine, but I’m strongly advocating that the off-line work be published for the entire community at as frequent of milestones as possible. The more transparent and open the work, the more people will be excited about participating with their own local/regional efforts.

So, that’s my pitch: openness and transparency as much as possible, please. The regional data standards efforts undergoing right now are fantastic and it would be even better to organize them into a cohesive national effort that help all the regional efforts work faster and together.

In a post last week, I asked a pretty open-ended question: “Are the costs of an MLS [coverting to a standard format] worth the long-term benefits?”  I asked this question because we have several MLSs contemplating this very question now, and I thought it might be interesting for them to hear some outside perspectives.  We received some great comments on that post, and in this post I want to put some more meat on the bone by outlining in more detail the potential cost savings for regionalizing MLS data.

Importantly, there are several ways to regionalize MLS data and so I think the first requirement is defining the objectives (benefits) of regionalizing.  Once the benefits are quantified, then the costs of the potential solutions can better be judged and the “bottom line” or ROI of the entire effort will hopefully be clearer.

Benefits of Regionalizing MLS Data

Some of the oft-sited reasons for regionalization are:

• Eliminate or reduce duplicate listing entry, which often means learning and complying with different rules for listing entry;
• Eliminate or reduce the payment of fees to belong to more than one MLS;
• Eliminate or reduce the costs associated with managing disparate IDX feeds and IDX rules; and
• Increase the exposure of listings to more MLS members.

The next step is to quantify these costs or opportunities.

The above are some of the key cost savings and efficiencies that can be gained by regionalizing or standardizing the data processing for an MLS. Perhaps there are others I’ve missed or different ways to estimate the savings. Please let me know in the comments. Also, if you have numbers for your area you’d like to share as real-world examples instead of my made up examples, that would be very interesting.

Costs of Regionalizing

Once you have an estimate on the annual savings, you can then begin to compare those savings to the cost of getting there.  The cost, who pays, and how likely the solution is to produce the savings identified above will depend on the strategy you choose for harmonizing the data. I’ll be addressing these different approaches in a follow-up post, so stay tuned.  When we’re done, we should have a decent model for MLSs to assess the costs and benefits (or the “bottom line”) of regionalizing their MLS data formats.

Saul Klein of Point2 has posed a question at InternetCrusade as to what ” 5 things MLSs must do to remain relevant to the Real Estate Industry over the next 5 years?”  When I first started the FBS Blog, my first substantive post was similarly entitled “Death of the MLS?“  That question was perhaps more rhetorical than Saul’s, but the point was essentially the same — many people are questioning the relevance of MLSs in today’s web world.  One of my main purposes in starting the FBS Blog was to provide a counter to this drum beat, because the relevance of MLSs seems pretty clear to me.

To that end, let me quote at length from my seminal post Death of the MLS?:

Before delving into the three doom and gloom scenarios (bias showing through), some background on the MLS model and its value proposition may be helpful.  Whenever someone asks me what I do for a living and they aren’t familiar with the concept of an MLS, I tell them that it’s sort of like the stock exchange for real estate.  The MLS facilitates the definition, if not the creation, of a market for real estate.  Now, I know this analogy is far from perfect, but I think the idea of a market is critical to this discussion.  What is the market being served by the MLS?  Is it the market for real estate services?  Is it the market for real estate?  Is it the market for real estate advertising?  Some other market?  Does the MLS serve the purposes of competition in any of these markets?  How?

From my days in college studying economics, I recall there were some pre-requisites to “perfect competition” in a market:

Many buyers and sellers.

The products are basically the same (homogenous).

Perfect and complete information — buyers and sellers are on equal footing.

Low barriers to entry into the market, mobility of resources.

Predictability, usually established by some legal framework to uphold promises.

Of course, there isn’t a “perfect” market anywhere (some agricultural commodity markets come close, but that’s about it).  Rather, these conditions present a continuum towards perfection.  Looking back to pre-MLS, it’s pretty clear that the MLS helped foster many of these core requirements of competition in the real estate market itself.  The MLS brought more buyers and sellers together, provided more information about the products, lowered barriers to entry into the market, and provided predictability for real estate agents, buyers and sellers regarding how they could work together.  Much the same could be said for how the MLS impacted the market for real estate services.  Buyers, sellers and their agents knew much more about what each party was bringing to the table in the real estate transaction as a result of the MLS.  Moreover, the MLS “leveled the playing field” (eased entry) in the real estate services market, which is another reason many complain about the MLS today.  Many feel that competition is best experienced head to head, with as many barriers as possible.  By providing technology, education, lock boxes, and other services at a lower cost to the average agent, the MLS lowered a lot of barriers.

Interestingly enough, back in the present, those prognosticating or wishing for the death of the MLS feel that the quest for perfection is now being impeded by the MLS.  The MLS is alleged to have rules that get in the way of new entrants, who don’t want to play by those rules.  The MLS is claimed to be preventing the free flow of information.  The MLS supposedly is restricting the number of buyer and sellers.  If true, these actions would indeed be anti-competitive.  The question is whether the claims are true or not.  In what market is it true?  If the MLS didn’t exist, would these factors be fostered more or less?  Would a national or super-regional MLS improve the competitive environment?  Under what circumstances?

Much of the furor regarding the MLS lately is over the role the MLS should or should not play in the market for real estate advertising.  The lawsuit by the DOJ against the NAR mostly involves real estate advertising.  Many of those who complain about the rules and regulations of the MLS are those wanting better, cheaper, faster access to the MLS data so they can advertise it on the Internet.  Is the MLS fostering this market or making it less competitive?  Is the aggregation of the data possible on the same scale without the MLS?

Of course, this was written before the settlement of the NAR/DOJ litigation over VOWs. Also, during the last 18 months, there have been several large regionalization efforts, but the majority of the efforts are focused on data exchange or sharing among MLSs, not broad consolidation. So, the value proposition of the local MLS seems to me to remain strong, providing for more efficient data exchange, lock box systems, and more to create the local real estate market. I don’t see that changing any time soon, do you?

During the CMLS conference a few weeks ago, the now perennial topics of raging regionals, syndication,  parcel based MLS systems, and consumer facing MLS sites were still hot.  I’ve covered these topics at length here on the FBS Blog for the last year or so but just started thinking about another, seemingly mundane issue that runs through all these issues, namely the best way to organize (and, therefore, search) MLS data geographically.

This issue impacts all the hot topics being faced by MLSs today: (1) regionalization and cross-MLS data sharing directly raise the questions of boundaries and geographies; (2) syndication of listings should be done in a consistent manner and the geographic data points are critical; (3) parcel maps are key to accurate geographic positioning; and (4) consumers want the easiest way to find properties in the areas in which they’re interested, and they want to see statistics and other data organized around those same areas, which requires solid and shared definitions.

Let me provide some examples to highlight the challenges.  First, many MLSs have created their own “ares” or “regions” to make organizing and searching data easier.  Here’s an example MLS area map from our customer in Santa Barbara.

MLS Defined Areas

The advantage of MLS defined areas is that they are easily learned by the agents and often represent the market fairly well.  One of the disadvantages of MLS defined areas is that markets change, and maintaining the areas and the consistency of the data has historically been difficult.  Also, as shown in the image below, the MLS defined areas raise the continual problem of the outer boundaries of the MLS.  Lastly, there is some concern that MLSs defining boundaries or areas is a potential fair housing issue.

Outer Boundaries of MLS

Notice how when the map is zoomed out, the boundaries of the MLS become apparent and the issues of cross-MLS data sharing via the MLS defined areas raises all sorts of challenges.

To address some of these issues, many consumer facing web sites focus on city or zip code as the key geographic criteria, primarily because those are most familiar to consumers.  The challenge with city and zip code is that they are just too broad and often bear no relationship to the actual real estate markets within the city or zip code as shown above in the first image where the zip code actually is split across two different MLS defined areas.

Zip Codes Are Too Big and Not Market Defined

To combat the problem of zip codes and cities being too big and the boundary limits and constantly changing nature of MLS defined areas, some MLSs have gone to a “grid” format that simply carves up the geography into squares or rectangles.

Map Grids Provide Consistency and Scalability But Are Not Descriptive of the Actual Market

These grids are very useful because they can easily be extended to new areas with consistency, but the problem is they do not describe the actual market, which has twists and turns every which direction and those twists and turns often mean tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in median home prices. Accordingly, market analysis is not useful based on a grid system and the grid system isn’t easily used by consumers.

New Mapping Technology Allows Custom Areas

To address some of the limitations above, some MLS systems and consumer web sites allow users to draw directly on the map to define exactly the area in which they are interested.  There are several limitations to this approach in most systems: (1) many agents and most consumers don’t want to or don’t know the detailed boundaries of the true market areas; (2) the areas that are drawn are not shared with others who may want to use them as well so users can learn from each other; and (3) they aren’t consistent enough to enable gathering of statistics and other data for agents and consumers.

Yet another approach has been to gather neighborhood boundaries.  Two companies working on collecting this type of data are Maponics and Urban Mapping.  In addition, Zillow has put forward some neighborhood files as open source files for contributions from many.

What I’ve been thinking about recently is how we might be able to create a massive win-win for MLSs, agents and consumers by enabling the real estate professionals to contribute neighborhood information directly into efforts like those linked above.  The result could be a nationwide set of neighborhood boundaries that accurately define the market areas and allow for easier organization and searching of MLS data and presentation of market statistics.

What do you think is the best approach to organizing listing data geographically?

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.”

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,’ â€ he said. “It’s the sure way to your demise.”

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?

The Gateway/TREC/TBD discussions are heating up again, sort of.  Re-visiting the topic seems timely with the latest iteration of the NAR PAG report recently “released” and the trimester RETS meetings in Philadelphia next week.

My take is this: The NAR may well have the cart before the horse.  So far, the NAR’s PAG seems to have focused on defining a “system” for aggregation but the TREC documents avoid the fundamental question of the terms of use on which brokers and MLSs will agree to share data.  Here’s a quote from the document:

Existing MLSs are encouraged, but not required to, participate in TREC.

Those MLSs that participate agree that the information they provide will be available to all REALTORS® and MLS participants and subscribers.

Then, further down, the document says:

Using TREC will not require REALTORS, MLS participants or subscribers, or MLSs to relinquish any of their intellectual property rights.

These two statements seem inconsistent, because an MLS or broker submitting data to TREC will be required to license that data to all other TREC subscribers and such a license is a transfer of intellectual property rights.  This apparent conflict is just one of many key questions, however, regarding the terms of use for the data submitted to TREC.

The document also stresses that the data will not be publicly accessible.  Yet, at the same time, the “Statement of Inevitability” at the beginning of the document lists the proliferation of “[c]onsumer-focused real estate websites” as one of the reasons TREC is necessary — to keep Realtors “at the center of the real estate transaction.” At this level, not only does the concept feel like the cart before the horse but also like trying to put the horse back in the barn, just as they’ve started to run free.

This brings us back to the core issue: What are the terms of use on which brokers and MLSs will allow others to use their data? TREC tries answering this question only in the most narrow terms (broker/agent to broker/agent, in private, behind a walled garden) but the web insists on asking a much bigger question involving not just brokers and agents but consumers and third-party aggregators and so many others. As the links above show, brokers are already answering these questions for themselves by sending listing data here and there but not yet everywhere, which creates the very real likelihood that TREC will be too late to the party.

Of course, NAR is hamstrung in fostering the necessary dialog about usage of listing data on the web by the DOJ litigation. Also, in spite of the insistence that it isn’t any such thing, TREC very well may be the first gingerly step in the direction of addressing the question of how listing data should be used on the web. Rather than being the cart before the horse, an actual implementation of a national aggregation may be exactly what is needed — and all NAR can do for now — to incubate the discussion. For this, I applaud the work of the PAG.

Like the NAR PAG, I believe this is a defining moment for real estate data on the web and I encourage the NAR to consider how it can re-visit the big issue of sharing listing data on the web. That’s what the consumers want, not having to go through an agent to access the data. For example, one of the best uses of TREC data would be for an agent or broker to create a publicly accessible web site to engage their customers. Yet, that seems off the table. I’m pretty certain the NAR PAG would have loved to create a more sweeping plan involving both public and private access, but felt it wasn’t possible. The result is the proposal focuses on implementing a closed system instead of creating a foundation on which others can build systems.

What I think would be useful is for NAR to foster a discussion among brokers, agents and MLSs regarding the Open Web and what that means for real estate. This same discussion is occurring right now with regard to the web as a whole, and Brad Neuberg recently suggested: “If we take the long term view, how can we give the web an open enough infrastructure to evolve over time and meet each generations needs, while maintaining its structure enough to actually mean something and stay true to its promise, similar to the U.S. Constitution?” He emphasizes that this isn’t so much about specific technology but rather the general philosophy: “if we define the Open Web in terms of [specific] technologies, then we risk losing sight of what makes the web special and being able to have the intellectual nimbleness to evolve the infrastructure of the web. . . . We will be fighting yesterdays battle while allowing new, proprietary technologies to take over if we focus on technologies rather than philosophy.”

This is where I think NAR can provide leadership, by fostering discussions around how aggregated real estate data can be made most valuable in an ever changing world. IDX has been and remains one of the best tools available to agents and brokers for engage with customers on the web today. Is it time to revisit the IDX policies of old? Are the same questions and controversies that arose over VOWs in the DOJ litigation still a concern? Or is it now possible to redefine IDX in a way to make it even more useful? These questions are left unanswered by TREC, for good reason no doubt, but I think they remain the core questions.

I’ve been at the Clareity MLS Workshop in Scottsdale for the last few days and yesterday was the first day of sessions. There were sessions on:

• MLS regionalization efforts in California and Minnesota;
• NAR’s nascent Real Estate Channel or TREC (formerly known as Gateway);
• Syndication of listings; and
• Public-facing MLS listing search sites.

There were other sessions on security and web site privacy policies as well, but I won’t be covering those here.

John Mosey from RMLS-MN and Art Carter from CARETS conducted a session on the data consolidation efforts they are pursuing in their areas (Minnesota and California, respectively). As Art described the CARETS approach, they are creating a new listing repository to which all of the participating MLSs will send their data. Users also will have the option to upload listings directly to the repository. Each MLS will then be able to download the entire dataset to present it back to their users. In fact, the only access to the data will be through one of the MLS systems; there will not be front-end provided by CARETS, it is only a repository of the data.

In creating the one data set, Art described how they had to “kill some hamsters.” If you think of the fields in the current disparate data sets from each MLS as a bunch of hamsters in a cage, you have two choices of how to combine those hamsters: you can either build a bigger cage or you can kill some of the hamsters and only keep the best ones. CARETS chose to kill some of the hamsters and created a data set that is best of all the systems for their area.

John Mosey from RMLS-MN spoke next and described how he would rather be stripped naked, dipped in honey and covered with red fire ants than ever try to merge another MLS into RMLS-MN after his failed attempt with the Southeast Minnesota Association of REALTORS. Instead, John’s approach now is to follow a model similar to CARETS only using his Northstar database instead. John repeatedly lamented the fact that RMLS-MN represents 80% of the agents (or something like that) in Minnesota and yet has all the headaches of dealing with the smaller MLSs outside his area.

I think Gregg Larson had the best advice of all regarding regionalization, data sharing, etc., when he said that every market area is different. Sometimes data sharing makes sense, sometimes a repository makes sense, and the key is to consider the objectives you are trying to achieve and weigh those against the costs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Out in the hallways between sessions, I had conversations with several who were wondering exactly the same thing — what are the objectives being sought in these efforts? Clearly, trying to eliminate duplicate entry and providing easier data access for overlapping markets are laudable goals, but where is the value for less overlapping markets? There is a real sense, expressed well over at agentgenius this last week, that one unstated objective of the rush to data consolidation in some markets may very well be to consolidate power.

John and Art were followed by Chris McKeever from the Center for REALTOR Technology (CRT), who described the NAR’s plans to create what they’re currently calling The Real Estate Channel (TREC) and what used to be called the Gateway. As Chris described it, TREC is going to be very much like CARETS, except that no listings will be directly entered into the system, they will only received from local MLSs. NAR also intends to purchase/license public records to build a parcel-based system like Zillow’s. Maybe they should just buy Zillow instead? Nah, that wouldn’t work, because NAR intends for this to be open to agents only, not consumers. I’ve said before and I’ll say again, NAR could make something of this by simply focusing on creating a standard for a universal property ID to let the web organize the information. NAR could create a non-profit that could be the ICANN for property IDs, and that would be valuable for tying together the efforts of those publishing real estate info on the web. Trying to cram everything into one silo is never going to happen.

Next up was Saul Klein from Point2, Mark Tepper from Homescape, and Marty Frame from Cyberhomes, all of which were advocating syndication of listings to their or other sites. Saul’s pitch was that the listing is a marketing asset and should be promoted all over the web, similar to how agents use yard signs to promote the listing and themselves. Marty Frame had a very interesting discussion about how Cyberhomes is working on focusing their web site experience to the various stages homeowners, buyers and sellers experience, as opposed to treating all users the same. All of these speakers were very focused on the need to collect and analyze user activity data to improve the experience for users and to understand the return on investment (ROI) from syndication. In other words, focus on which sites provide the best leads from your ads.

The next panel included Bob Hale from HAR.com, Jim Harrison from MLSlistings.com, and Jenny Natale from MLSLI.com, all of which operate public facing MLS web sites. The message was clear: MLS web sites do not compete against broker sites for traffic. Instead, MLS web sites can drive enormous traffic to broker sites. Bob Hale presented a ton of stats from Media Metrix showing that in market after market across the country, broker web sites rarely rank highly in terms of traffic . In contrast, public facing MLS sites almost always rank highly, even more than popular sites like Realtor.com and others.

Those were the big highlights for me from the first day. Kudos to Gregg, Matt, Tina and the entire Clareity team for putting on a great conference.

Oh, wait, I almost forgot, Gregg gave the FBS Blog a Clareity award for being the best blog on MLS issues. Gregg also said he thought blogging was the most over-hyped technology for 2007.