Perhaps the best thing about our real estate system is the cooperation between brokerages via the multiple listing system. Rather than the poor consumer going from brokerage to brokerage they are free to pick and agent to represent them and know that the majority of the listings are on the MLS and public facing sites like Yahoo, Realtor.com, and Google. Why force a consumer to work with an agent before they are ready to?

I would like to comment on your following quote:

“If you’re using someone else’s listings to fish for business, then yeah, I could see why you might feel pretty passionate about having all of the information available. It occurs to me that those who castigate listing agents for not putting all of the data “out there” are all in non-charity organizations trying to make a dollar.”

IDX is NOT about fishing for business with someone else’s listings. It is about the free exchange of listings between cooperating members which best serve there needs. Anyone that has tried to buy real estate in Manhattan should understand how bad that is for the consumer and good for the “gatekeepers.”

Any listing agent who does not allow listing data out for everyone to view is doing a terrible disservice to the Seller (Client). I have been in this business for too many years to know you will never know where your buyer will come from.

The other point I want to make is by not sharing the listing information and exposing it to fire, many listing agents are trying to double end (dual agency) which is defiantly not in the interest of the consumer. A cozy dual agent transaction may leave thousands of dollars of profit on the table.

Rob, I really think you should rethink you statement, you have really missed the mark!

I don’t have an Inman account and cannot read comments there, so I hope I am not duplicating the rant.

Perhaps the best thing about our real estate system is the cooperation between brokerages via the multiple listing system. Rather than the poor consumer going from brokerage to brokerage they are free to pick and agent to represent them and know that the majority of the listings are on the MLS and public facing sites like Yahoo, Realtor.com, and Google. Why force a consumer to work with an agent before they are ready to?

I would like to comment on your following quote:

“If you’re using someone else’s listings to fish for business, then yeah, I could see why you might feel pretty passionate about having all of the information available. It occurs to me that those who castigate listing agents for not putting all of the data “out there” are all in non-charity organizations trying to make a dollar.”

IDX is NOT about fishing for business with someone else’s listings. It is about the free exchange of listings between cooperating members which best serve there needs. Anyone that has tried to buy real estate in Manhattan should understand how bad that is for the consumer and good for the “gatekeepers.”

Any listing agent who does not allow listing data out for everyone to view is doing a terrible disservice to the Seller (Client). I have been in this business for too many years to know you will never know where your buyer will come from.

The other point I want to make is by not sharing the listing information and exposing it to fire, many listing agents are trying to double end (dual agency) which is defiantly not in the interest of the consumer. A cozy dual agent transaction may leave thousands of dollars of profit on the table.

Rob, I really think you should rethink you statement, you have really missed the mark!

I don’t have an Inman account and cannot read comments there, so I hope I am not duplicating the rant.

Interestingly enough, I believe your article on Inman is a good analog for why forcing registration is a bad idea. I’m sure the discussion that happened was fascinating, however, I’m not willing to ‘register’ to see it when an equally interesting conversation is happening here and <a href="http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=9601"elsewhere with no barrier.

Given the financial pressure delineated in your earlier series, it’s tempting to took to ‘forced registration’ or ‘aggressive lead capture’ as a means to drive return on internet marketing investment. My advice is to do so carefully. I see aggressive lead capture, as a classic case of putting short-term financials ahead of long-term business-building fundamentals. I much prefer the approach of presenting lots of options for users to ‘self-select’ as your client. In the meantime, let them see as much information as possible, free of giving up their privacy.

There are plenty of valid reasons for users to register and give you contact info in exchange for real benefits (that they can’t get without doing so). Saved searches, favorites, hiding listings they don’t want to see, sold data that can’t be shared due to MLS rules without a VOW registration, new listing alerts, etc.

I would argue that it should be a brokers goal to get as many users as possible to register for these services – and then treat that list like the gold it is. It’s the most under-utilized asset any brokerage has, and far more profitable to work than the list of folks asking “what’s the address?”.

Interestingly enough, I believe your article on Inman is a good analog for why forcing registration is a bad idea. I’m sure the discussion that happened was fascinating, however, I’m not willing to ‘register’ to see it when an equally interesting conversation is happening here and <a href="http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=9601"elsewhere with no barrier.

Given the financial pressure delineated in your earlier series, it’s tempting to took to ‘forced registration’ or ‘aggressive lead capture’ as a means to drive return on internet marketing investment. My advice is to do so carefully. I see aggressive lead capture, as a classic case of putting short-term financials ahead of long-term business-building fundamentals. I much prefer the approach of presenting lots of options for users to ‘self-select’ as your client. In the meantime, let them see as much information as possible, free of giving up their privacy.

There are plenty of valid reasons for users to register and give you contact info in exchange for real benefits (that they can’t get without doing so). Saved searches, favorites, hiding listings they don’t want to see, sold data that can’t be shared due to MLS rules without a VOW registration, new listing alerts, etc.

I would argue that it should be a brokers goal to get as many users as possible to register for these services – and then treat that list like the gold it is. It’s the most under-utilized asset any brokerage has, and far more profitable to work than the list of folks asking “what’s the address?”.

Agency laws (including fiduciary duty) are state laws, enacted by legislatures and signed by governors, not rules drafted by state Real Estate Boards. Such legislatures and governors are not “controlled by Realtors,” and would probably not look kindly on lobbying to reduce (at least perceived) consumer protection by relieving brokers of their fiduciary duty, especially not in the current political climate.

But forget the laws and regulations for a minute. The only reason brokers and agents have this “valuable data”–that you say they should protect and use to benefit themselves–is because they promised a seller that they would broadcast that exact data as far and wide as possible to market their home. They only get the listing (and hence the “data”) by committing–usually in person and on paper–to marketing the listing in every venue they can, as hard as they can. “Our incentives are aligned,” they say, “my goal is to sell your house for as much as possible.”

Without that commitment: no listing and no data. If you were honest that you wanted to use their listing as bait for your buyer representation business (putting full information in Trulia, but not in IDX, for example), you would get laughed out of your listing presentation.

So the only way this works is what’s happening now. Use listings as bait, but either hope seller clients don’t find out, or explain it away (“We get far more inquiries by leaving the address off on other brokers’ sites. But, strangely, Trulia works just the opposite.”)…Guy

Agency laws (including fiduciary duty) are state laws, enacted by legislatures and signed by governors, not rules drafted by state Real Estate Boards. Such legislatures and governors are not “controlled by Realtors,” and would probably not look kindly on lobbying to reduce (at least perceived) consumer protection by relieving brokers of their fiduciary duty, especially not in the current political climate.

But forget the laws and regulations for a minute. The only reason brokers and agents have this “valuable data”–that you say they should protect and use to benefit themselves–is because they promised a seller that they would broadcast that exact data as far and wide as possible to market their home. They only get the listing (and hence the “data”) by committing–usually in person and on paper–to marketing the listing in every venue they can, as hard as they can. “Our incentives are aligned,” they say, “my goal is to sell your house for as much as possible.”

Without that commitment: no listing and no data. If you were honest that you wanted to use their listing as bait for your buyer representation business (putting full information in Trulia, but not in IDX, for example), you would get laughed out of your listing presentation.

So the only way this works is what’s happening now. Use listings as bait, but either hope seller clients don’t find out, or explain it away (“We get far more inquiries by leaving the address off on other brokers’ sites. But, strangely, Trulia works just the opposite.”)…Guy