Comments on: Missing the Forest for the Trees: the RPR License

By: Igots7.2socks

Igots7.2socks — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:20:17 +0000

If it walks like a pile o’ poo, looks like a pile o’ poo’’’smells like a pile o’ poo… Then it probably is… A pile of poo…
The problem there is… If you think that pile o’ poo stinks now… Just wait till you step in it… (While screaming... "Dangit RPR!")

Hmmm.. RPR Contract?
Many MLS peeps given their sold data or intend to .. Where? Realtor.com / Move.com
If you read the standard contract from that entity... Realtor.com can already take the data and pretty do with it what they see fit.. for profit..without revenue... Remember.. Realtor.com is NOT IDX... And if you look at the legal terms of that wide open contract.. You may just raise an eyebrow to that...
Couldn't Realtor.com just sell use rights to RPR? I mean.. they use MLS data for profit on a day-in, day-out basis as it is... Throwing TP CMA apps, redirecting listing agent's agents listings to those agents with deeper pockets....
My point being... RPR already seems like a waste of millions of dollars of Realtor members monies... But why bash RPR so badly when the other subsidiaries have already gotten away with it for years on a public platform... Eventually, the MLS animal will stop and figure out... "Hey... we tried to get our member's data out there for their benefit.. Now the MLS data is on over 20, 000 sites in the U.S. alone, leads are being resold to other agents by corporations that popped over night, fake MLS sites, foreclosure sites... You name it..

At some point, that MLS animal is going to wake up and realize what has been happening for the past two years specifically, then they will end up going old-school and sucking that data back in and using those $100k liquidated damage clauses in thousands of contracts circulating and data will be back on lockdown and we'll all be in the poor house until we can figure out another new tech word and gizmo to distribute MLS data for a profit with the MLS consent.... (Don't lie.. it happens all the time and we all know it, and it is legit, legal, and signed in ink... ) So back to the point... RPR may not be a waste being that it is for Realtor Member's only (Wait... All the MLS data.... What about all of these MLS Ops with SafeMLS (Ok I’m a fan, but not an employee..) or the RSA uhmm.. Hybrid solutions? Someone is bound to say “hey.. our data is unsecure.. do away with our secure logins and save us money..” Watch... It'tl happen) SO scratch that.. an open login platform that will help to end the secure MLS system (I mean really…. Why pay to secure data (that isn’t really secure to begin with) when RPR will place it on a pretty Barbie Doll meets the Geico Lizard GUI, and only require your MLS logon (or less) credentials… It makes no sense, it seeks to finalize undermining all the work and dollars that went into MLS security in the first place… So.. If it’s not secure…. If RPR can profit from the MLS data, if it potentially undermines steps used to increase the benefit to the member that actually pays dues and subscription fees…, RPS can’t compete, but it can “rent” data to 3rd party apps for enhancing their site (hey look at all that data for sale for mortgage companies… Won’t Freddie and Fannie be thrilled!! Wooo Hooo!)

The concerning thing about the post is that you lead to the fact that ehat is inbetween the lines is not important, and that is the only thing I disagree with… Actuially, it is very important.. Both to members who have spent millions, and to MLS peeps who will have their doors shut because of the drop in membership and termination of reciprocal agreements…. Technology was so far behind, for such a long time in the Real Estate world…. Eventually it causght up.. It caught up fast.. Super fast… Fast enough for us.. But way too fast for the MLS community… (You know some of these Execs heads are spinning from the years of we can do technology ourselves, to being in a market where the need someone with 10_ years of IT management across multiple platforms and a mini army of attorneys to boot.. But then again.. Those MLS operators that invested a technical staff, and dropped ass the bs that used to make an MLS look pretty, will probably be the one’s that are here in 20 years still.. Wait.. Oooo… That’s investing in technology… I like it!)
Anyway.. All of this data is all over the place… The MLS peeps are going to get a little freaked out when they figure out what has really happened in the past few years, and they are going to reel it all back in like they used to have it… I agree something needs to be out there like this… But it’s too soon.. the implications and political fall out to say the least are much more real worries that the t’s and I’s being properly marked on a data access agreement with the big dawg.. We can only assume that risk was weighed… And I agree.. Out o a big pile of bones, we throw a few at our customers on a residiual.. We make good money, they make a little bit each month and in turn we decreased marketing bucks… It was a win-win .. But to come right out and say no MLS.. No free money for you, when so MANY MLSs we talk to, now expect a check every month if we’re making money? Oh wait.. That’s Firsts model that is appealing to the corps that need the dough….. But I’ll wait for that story…

But you see what is going on? People are upset.. People are even mad…. People are rambling, and there is a dark cloud in chitown.. Yeah.. the approach would have been much better, the marketing was definitely lacking… And whos flippin idea was it to drop “Oh.. we just spent millions of your member’s money on this internet product and we want all of your data by the way” in an Execs session at annual nar.. When I heard that on the trade floor.. I couldn’t stop laughing… Horrible market with no sign of recovery any time soon… Yep PERFECT time to announce a system that you could probably figure people wouldn’t buy into and tell them you spent millions of their dollars on it.. During a recision... Great timing...
I just bet that went over like a pancake on a cold stove..

This is gonna be a LONG and bumpy ride...

In the end, I do hope it benefits all parties, and everyone can come back and play together nicely on the playground... But I just don't see how this or any similar model is worth it (Don't most of these systems integarte tax numbers anyway?)
I do not see the benefit of it.. I honestly wish I did.. But I can't... If Real Estate weren't so regionalized we'd all be millionaires.. But it is, and as long as it is.. those regions need to keep doing their thing... Not anyone else... When I have tried in the past to force something on a customer, it always failed.. Now that I dangle a carrot.. the wabbit always eats.. Der twas no cawatt.. der tis no wabbit.... Shhhh.... Be vewwwy vewwwy qwyettt (day tawt day taw a rpr tat)

By: Igots7.2socks

Igots7.2socks — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:20:17 +0000

By: Is “Free” MLS Finally Here? « FBS Blog

Is “Free” MLS Finally Here? « FBS Blog — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:24:54 +0000

[...] propositions? In RPR’s case, Rob Hahn, MRIS’s new marketing director, says the cost is too much. In ListingBook’s case, the “cost” of the advertising depends on the image you [...]

By: bnix

bnix — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:47:57 +0000

Like Ken, I'm not here to debate the details as precisely as Michael, Marty, or Rob can do. But as a broker-owner and practicing agent, I do hope RPR comes to my market in participation with a local MLS. The way I see it.. the MLS gives it a try and if they don't like it, then don't renew after the initial 1 year trial. It's such a superior looking demo that I can't help but want my hands on it - now, not 2 years from now. It seems to be little risk with such a short-term commitment required to try it out. The main clause I'd be looking for if I were an MLS, is the right to get all my data back without any archives remaining on RPR should I decide to let my contract expire.

Also, I think the most important thing a local MLS does is create the agreement to share commissions with other agents. Maintaining local control of the data shared behind those agreements is essential, but pointless without the agreement to cooperate.

Finally, I applaud the public transparency and participation in conversations. It's refreshing to see from any company, especially one owned by such a large organization. To Ken's point, the data is mined by hard-working individuals. Which is all the reason more to enhance it and give it back to them as a valuable tool. Isn't this why we form associations in the first place, to get better together? If you don't like the benefits or membership, then drop out of the club. It's especially easy in my neck of the woods as we have privately owned MLS' that don't require NAR membership to participate. I pay my dues because the benefits outweigh the expenses. RPR should help this equation even more.

By: Ken Brand

Ken Brand — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:44:06 +0000

All of this is fascinating. I'm not wise in the ways of multi-dimensional, national data control conspiracy, aspiration and execution, I do understand why it's precious. I'm a feet on the street guy and I appreciate the illumination, point and counter point. Thank you.

The RPR transparency is freaking awesome. Oddly the cynic in me, the little voice in the background warns me of misdirection. I applaud it, but I fear it. Weird, but there you have it.

The thing for me is, I'd love to have all the Wiz Bang tools proposed. But, agent's have been sold down the river before. I think Realtor.com was a mistake, now if I don't want to look like a loser compared to my competitors, I have to pay to enhance my own data - that's not a benefit, it's a stick and a money suck.

Another sold down the river deal is Broker's throwing referral fees at relocation companies, another story of eating your own seed corn. Sign, I won't go down that stinky road.

Anytime some tells me, if we work together and you decide you don't like me, you can leave, and I promise not to compete (drink your milkshake) for a 1,000 days (And they are bigger, bader, smarter and richer), I'd be worrying about that. How about, drop dead, I'll drink my own milkshake, put a lid on it and encase it in steel.

National, ginormous, world wide, super big - generally equals, hey you little insignificant guy, you with the tiny 1 in 1.2million voice, we don't hear you so well, and if we do, you don't really matter mutch (1 in 1,200,000). Although my local association is large, 1 out of 20K is better than 1 in 1.2 million.

Last, I'm glad that big shots and investors can monazite and presumably make millions from the sweat and tear stained listing work of 1.2 million agents, in exchange we all get cool new tools that make us look (quack) the same.

After rereading my comment, it sounds like I'm in a bad mood. I'm not, it just seems like more of the same. How people smarter and richer than Jane Doe can take her listing information and get rich while she wrestles with the kids homework, her husbands company downsizing, paying the bills and chasing new data (listings) for the borg.

I sincerely do appreciate all this sharing and openness.

Thanks.

By: robhahn

robhahn — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:05 +0000

True, they could do all of those things. And the local board (or whoever owns said MLS) can fire the executives for incompetence or whatever. If the board doesn't do it, you can elect new board members.

What do you do if RPR does the same? Say our friends Marty, Dale, Reggie and others all leave and new people are brought in, and they go buy a private jet, pay themselves $1M per year, host lavish parties and golf outings, and otherwise behave like Nancy Pelosi does with taxpayer dollars. What do you do then? You don't control who sits on the Board of RPR; you have no say, except through your vote as a member of NAR. You could vote in new NAR board members or such who promise to cleanup the situation at RPR, but now you're talking about a national campaign as opposed to a local one. (I actually have no idea what the governance structure at NAR is, not being a REALTOR.)

Local governance is pretty important, whether we're talking about RPR or actual government officials, if 'we the people' want to have a say.

-rsh

By: Justin Britt

Justin Britt — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:03:10 +0000

"What else would the local MLS do with extra money in their pocket but do stuff to benefit members?"

Umm...

1) Have huge travel budgets in excess of $100K/yr
2) Create a real estate website to compete against their members and then try and sell advertising back to them.
3) Skim money off the top
4) Use money to try and sell their MLS software to others instead of working on becoming RETS compliant.

True, this is only happening with 1 of the 3 local MLS operating in Hawaii, but it is happening.

By the way, I'm in favor of RPR.

By: RESage

RESage — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:34:55 +0000

I believe that Rob's comment about governance, or the lack thereof with respect to RPR, is one of the most insightful comments.

If I tie that to the non-compete clause and the definition of Multiple Listing Service, along with Rob's other insightful comment about the MLS being more than just a data entry portal then I have to wonder about RPR's ability to create other ancillary services (read: other MLS revenue sources) like faxing services, forms (recall that Zipforms is the official NAR forms provider and NAR has an ownership interest in it and the RELAY TMS), statistics, agent websites, etc...

RPR may not become an MLS on the one hand, but it could by any other definition.

By: Michael Wurzer

Michael Wurzer — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:50:19 +0000

Rob:

>>Does that make software completely irrelevant? <<

No, but the idea (perhaps idealized) is that switching to competitive software (not having lock-in) would be easier. Also, this is the ideal time to move hard on standards, because RPR actually needs them in the short-term and everyone else needs them in the long-term to ensure competition. In the short-term, there will be no mass migration of users from MLS system to RPR, simply because of inertia and knowledge. Users have their customers set up in the MLS, with portals, etc. If there were standards, it would make it easier to move customers to the best system.

>>Is the idea that you can so precisely define the contractual language for that data so as to make the assets really not worth very much?<<

No, the idea is to make it clear what actually is being exchanged so that the value of the transaction can be assessed by everyone.

>>As for the refusal to do any revenue or profit-sharing, I have to confess I'm just puzzled on this one. It just doesn't compute for me. But I probably don't know all the facts on that one.<<

Me, either. Similarly, I remain confused by the disconnect between the actual license agreement and what's been said by Marty and others. They are very clear but somehow that clarity does not make it to the license agreement, and that's odd. Though I don't practice law any more, I did once and I know that when your client is as clear as Marty, getting that clarity into the agreement isn't that hard so I'm confused as to why that is the case here. Perhaps it's just the speed at which RPR is trying to move but I also think trying to preserve a lot of freedom for future development leads to the ambiguity and raises the locality and control issues you mention.

By: robhahn

robhahn — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:53:56 +0000

D'oh!

-rsh