The only person who should be flattered is me, that you’d bother to respond to my posts. You’re an actual expert on the subject; I’m just an opinionated blogger. Heh.

In any case, with respect to the “incentives” issue… the way I look at it is that MLSes have been under quite a bit of pressure over the past couple of years to “prove value” to its membership. Unfortunately, as per Michael Wurzer’s question, I don’t have any direct data — it’s all anecdotal, and hence, violates one of my own pet peeves. (I said I was far from perfect. ) In fact, I could use your input on that as well.

But business models such as Trulia and Google Base isn’t a threat only to brokerages and franchisors, right? It is also a threat to MLS, if all that the MLS provides is an exchange of data.

Syndication is a value-add that the MLS provides to agents to entice them to sign up for and continue to pay for membership. The other major value-add (these days) is “free leads” from the MLS’s own public-facing website.

Now… prior to the VOW policy, I would argue that it was unclear where the MLS stood in relation to all of the other players. If an MLS wanted to implement a VOW-powered website, but refused to share that with its members or other third party sites, I think a pretty good argument could be made that this was restraint of trade. With the DOJ sniffing around, it was to no one’s interest to make an issue of something like this.

With the new rules and new policy, it is now clear that everybody else is subject to the VOW rules. It isn’t clear whether Realtor.com is or is not subject to the new policy. But as you said yourself, the MLS itself is definitely NOT subject to the restrictions (or the protections) of the VOW policy.

Now the incentive, I believe, is strongly in favor of a public-facing website that features the best possible set of data available on the Internet: the VOW feed. But the MLS, and the MLS alone, can have such a site that is freed of the need to have customer signup. That naturally makes the MLS Public Site the best website for that particular area — better than any of its members, and better than any third party website.

If a topnotch public facing website costs a MLS $1m a year, but it means that the MLS is able to renew a higher percentage of its members, and attract new members in new areas, then that can only mean positive things for the MLS in question. These are private companies, after all, not governmental units.

There is no need to “upsell” services; the “upsell” is in the membership dues that sustain such a public-facing site. Members would, I think, derive far greater value — and more importantly, see themselves as deriving far greater value — from cost-free leads delivered from the MLS Public Site, than from just about anything else that the MLS currently provides them.

I don’t actually think this makes MLSes evil; I think it’s a smart business move, to ensure that one day, Google Base doesn’t become the de facto national MLS for real estate.

With respect to your second point — that listing brokers can OPT OUT of MLS public sites — is that by internal rules, or by operation of law? Because under the policy you’ve outlined, I can’t see how the listing broker can opt out of a VOW. All that the MLS is doing is implementing the VOW feed, but without the signup requirement. If the listing broker is then getting leads cost-free from the MLS public site, I’m not even sure that the broker would complain, nevermind pull its listings.

@Michael,

IDX is one of the most successful programs MLSs have implemented; but will it continue to be, in the post-VOW Policy era? Brian appears to think not, and I happen to share that view. Idiosyncratic IDX rules cripple the utility of IDX.

I don’t disagree that it will be difficult to get IDX policies changed, but that’s where the possible impact of being the Only One able to do signup-free VOW will push things along. It will be the rare MLS committee that refuses to use that major competitive advantage.

As to #4… consumers will signup when they believe you’re providing them enough value. Things like saving searches is usually that value. Simply viewing listings information is usually not. Broker VOW sites will have to require signup before consumers can see anything; only the MLS VOW site does not. And there is a big gap between when a consumer is just looking for info, and when that consumer is ready to do things like saving listings.

-rsh

The only person who should be flattered is me, that you’d bother to respond to my posts. You’re an actual expert on the subject; I’m just an opinionated blogger. Heh.

In any case, with respect to the “incentives” issue… the way I look at it is that MLSes have been under quite a bit of pressure over the past couple of years to “prove value” to its membership. Unfortunately, as per Michael Wurzer’s question, I don’t have any direct data — it’s all anecdotal, and hence, violates one of my own pet peeves. (I said I was far from perfect. ) In fact, I could use your input on that as well.

But business models such as Trulia and Google Base isn’t a threat only to brokerages and franchisors, right? It is also a threat to MLS, if all that the MLS provides is an exchange of data.

Syndication is a value-add that the MLS provides to agents to entice them to sign up for and continue to pay for membership. The other major value-add (these days) is “free leads” from the MLS’s own public-facing website.

Now… prior to the VOW policy, I would argue that it was unclear where the MLS stood in relation to all of the other players. If an MLS wanted to implement a VOW-powered website, but refused to share that with its members or other third party sites, I think a pretty good argument could be made that this was restraint of trade. With the DOJ sniffing around, it was to no one’s interest to make an issue of something like this.

With the new rules and new policy, it is now clear that everybody else is subject to the VOW rules. It isn’t clear whether Realtor.com is or is not subject to the new policy. But as you said yourself, the MLS itself is definitely NOT subject to the restrictions (or the protections) of the VOW policy.

Now the incentive, I believe, is strongly in favor of a public-facing website that features the best possible set of data available on the Internet: the VOW feed. But the MLS, and the MLS alone, can have such a site that is freed of the need to have customer signup. That naturally makes the MLS Public Site the best website for that particular area — better than any of its members, and better than any third party website.

If a topnotch public facing website costs a MLS $1m a year, but it means that the MLS is able to renew a higher percentage of its members, and attract new members in new areas, then that can only mean positive things for the MLS in question. These are private companies, after all, not governmental units.

There is no need to “upsell” services; the “upsell” is in the membership dues that sustain such a public-facing site. Members would, I think, derive far greater value — and more importantly, see themselves as deriving far greater value — from cost-free leads delivered from the MLS Public Site, than from just about anything else that the MLS currently provides them.

I don’t actually think this makes MLSes evil; I think it’s a smart business move, to ensure that one day, Google Base doesn’t become the de facto national MLS for real estate.

With respect to your second point — that listing brokers can OPT OUT of MLS public sites — is that by internal rules, or by operation of law? Because under the policy you’ve outlined, I can’t see how the listing broker can opt out of a VOW. All that the MLS is doing is implementing the VOW feed, but without the signup requirement. If the listing broker is then getting leads cost-free from the MLS public site, I’m not even sure that the broker would complain, nevermind pull its listings.

@Michael,

IDX is one of the most successful programs MLSs have implemented; but will it continue to be, in the post-VOW Policy era? Brian appears to think not, and I happen to share that view. Idiosyncratic IDX rules cripple the utility of IDX.

I don’t disagree that it will be difficult to get IDX policies changed, but that’s where the possible impact of being the Only One able to do signup-free VOW will push things along. It will be the rare MLS committee that refuses to use that major competitive advantage.

As to #4… consumers will signup when they believe you’re providing them enough value. Things like saving searches is usually that value. Simply viewing listings information is usually not. Broker VOW sites will have to require signup before consumers can see anything; only the MLS VOW site does not. And there is a big gap between when a consumer is just looking for info, and when that consumer is ready to do things like saving listings.

-rsh

The only person who should be flattered is me, that you’d bother to respond to my posts. You’re an actual expert on the subject; I’m just an opinionated blogger. Heh.

In any case, with respect to the “incentives” issue… the way I look at it is that MLSes have been under quite a bit of pressure over the past couple of years to “prove value” to its membership. Unfortunately, as per Michael Wurzer’s question, I don’t have any direct data — it’s all anecdotal, and hence, violates one of my own pet peeves. (I said I was far from perfect. ) In fact, I could use your input on that as well.

But business models such as Trulia and Google Base isn’t a threat only to brokerages and franchisors, right? It is also a threat to MLS, if all that the MLS provides is an exchange of data.

Syndication is a value-add that the MLS provides to agents to entice them to sign up for and continue to pay for membership. The other major value-add (these days) is “free leads” from the MLS’s own public-facing website.

Now… prior to the VOW policy, I would argue that it was unclear where the MLS stood in relation to all of the other players. If an MLS wanted to implement a VOW-powered website, but refused to share that with its members or other third party sites, I think a pretty good argument could be made that this was restraint of trade. With the DOJ sniffing around, it was to no one’s interest to make an issue of something like this.

With the new rules and new policy, it is now clear that everybody else is subject to the VOW rules. It isn’t clear whether Realtor.com is or is not subject to the new policy. But as you said yourself, the MLS itself is definitely NOT subject to the restrictions (or the protections) of the VOW policy.

Now the incentive, I believe, is strongly in favor of a public-facing website that features the best possible set of data available on the Internet: the VOW feed. But the MLS, and the MLS alone, can have such a site that is freed of the need to have customer signup. That naturally makes the MLS Public Site the best website for that particular area — better than any of its members, and better than any third party website.

If a topnotch public facing website costs a MLS $1m a year, but it means that the MLS is able to renew a higher percentage of its members, and attract new members in new areas, then that can only mean positive things for the MLS in question. These are private companies, after all, not governmental units.

There is no need to “upsell” services; the “upsell” is in the membership dues that sustain such a public-facing site. Members would, I think, derive far greater value — and more importantly, see themselves as deriving far greater value — from cost-free leads delivered from the MLS Public Site, than from just about anything else that the MLS currently provides them.

I don’t actually think this makes MLSes evil; I think it’s a smart business move, to ensure that one day, Google Base doesn’t become the de facto national MLS for real estate.

With respect to your second point — that listing brokers can OPT OUT of MLS public sites — is that by internal rules, or by operation of law? Because under the policy you’ve outlined, I can’t see how the listing broker can opt out of a VOW. All that the MLS is doing is implementing the VOW feed, but without the signup requirement. If the listing broker is then getting leads cost-free from the MLS public site, I’m not even sure that the broker would complain, nevermind pull its listings.

@Michael,

IDX is one of the most successful programs MLSs have implemented; but will it continue to be, in the post-VOW Policy era? Brian appears to think not, and I happen to share that view. Idiosyncratic IDX rules cripple the utility of IDX.

I don’t disagree that it will be difficult to get IDX policies changed, but that’s where the possible impact of being the Only One able to do signup-free VOW will push things along. It will be the rare MLS committee that refuses to use that major competitive advantage.

As to #4… consumers will signup when they believe you’re providing them enough value. Things like saving searches is usually that value. Simply viewing listings information is usually not. Broker VOW sites will have to require signup before consumers can see anything; only the MLS VOW site does not. And there is a big gap between when a consumer is just looking for info, and when that consumer is ready to do things like saving listings.

-rsh

1. What data do you have that MLS members are leaving MLSs for reasons other than leaving the business? That claim seems anecdotal at best and false at worst.

2. IDX is one of the most successful programs MLSs have implemented, and the members love it and want more of it. Cynical or not, reducing this service would not be in the best interest of the MLS.

3. Also, the IDX policies exist and that means a lot in the MLS world. Just spend a little time trying to get an MLS committee to change a policy, and you’ll see that the likelihood of change is low.

4. The relative ease of logging versus not ignores that you already have to login even on MLS sites to save searches, etc.