Notorious R.O.B.

Oh my...

Back in November of 2010, I wrote about Move’s acquisition of ListHub and what it might mean for “Syndication Quality”. I thought then that the reason why Move acquired ListHub was strategic — to control the source of listing data, in order to impose on its main competitors the same restrictions that Move had on operating REALTOR.com:

There was little doubt in my mind when the acquisition was announced that what Move was doing was a strategic maneuver to neutralize some of the advantages that its big competitors had — freedom to do whatever they wanted with the data, given the widespread ignorance of brokers and agents on intellectual property issues.  Having spoken to Messrs. Berkowitz and Samuelson, as well as other players in the drama, I have confirmed that this is indeed the mutual vision of the Move and ListHub teams.

“Let’s see how Trulia and Zillow compete if they have to live up to our standards of data protection and data integrity” might be something Move executives never actually said, but I rather think they are thinking it.

Well, it only took a year and a half, but I believe we’re starting to see the strategy be implemented:

ListHub, the largest syndicator of real estate listings and website analytics, today announced the launch of the ListHub Preferred Publisher Program. Real estate brokers syndicating listings through ListHub’s Preferred Publisher Program can now quickly identify preferred publishers and publisher rules, rate publisher websites and access reports through the control panel. The new features bring greater transparency, control and protection to real estate brokers as they syndicate listings to multiple publishers. ListHub is operated by Move, Inc., (Nasdaq: MOVE), the leader in online real estate.

Earlier this week, prior to the press release, I had the rare opportunity to get a demo from Luke Glass, General Manager, and Mark Wise, VP Operations and Technology, of ListHub of these new features, and to ask them some questions about what they were doing. Well, what they’re doing is a small step, but it is one fraught with real significance for real estate data policy.

There are two things in the new ListHub that work together to create the significance. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Read the rest of this entry »

Oh jeez, not another post on syndication and IDX...

It’s late, and I’m fairly certain that this horse I’m about to pound on some more is long since departed for greener pastures in the hereafter… but hey, what the hell, right?

So by now all readers of Notorious ROB have seen the latest developments in the Syndication Serenade:

• Metrolist pulls IDX from Diverse Solutions, a unit of Zillow
• Sandicor Puts In New Rules for Syndication
• Northeast Florida MLS Stops All Syndication, Throws It Back to Brokers

This carousel is making me dizzy!

The responses from the peanut gallery are… well, predictable. You have the lamentations of the Transparency Mafia, the chortling of the KillZillThrill Cult, various declarations of how bass-ackwards the real estate industry is, and people who just love that the MLS is “fighting back”, and so on and so forth.

And yet, no one appears to be picking up on the most important trend here. So let me beat this dead horse one more time: brokers, REALTORS, vendors, Romans, friends, countrymen… it’s time to start making your plans for the post-IDX world.

Read the rest of this entry »

The average denizen of the RE.net cybercafe — that includes you, since you’re reading this on a blog — knows that the hot topic du jour is syndication. I wrote about it here and here already, but frankly, have been talking about this issue for quite some time. And influential bloggers like Jay Thompson and Kris Berg have weighed in, and Facebook groups are all over this issue.

And I’ve gotten a couple of phone calls, a number of emails, and Facebook messages and such debating my one critical issue with me. I wrote that the issue here isn’t syndication, which is more or less dead in its current form, but IDX. And that one cannot be against syndication but for IDX. Jay Thompson agreed, while Kris Berg (to take but one example) disagreed.

So I’d like to explore this connection more, to clarify why the distinction between syndication and IDX does not, and cannot, hold. And what that then means for the future of the industry, by connecting a couple of dots.

Read the rest of this entry »

Another brief update, before my day of continuous meetings begin….

Regarding my post yesterday on the syndication brouhaha brought on by Abbott Realty Group… first, you need to read Jay Thompson’s take on the subject. He takes longer to articulate the issue than I did, and I think more clearly than I have:

If you feel syndicators are harming consumers by making it difficult to contact listing agents, they you must, MUST, also keep  your listings out of IDX distribution. The exact same issue of not reaching the listing agent that seems to bother so many in syndication also exists in IDX.

Trust me, we get calls and emails – seven days a week – from people searching on this very site who think we are the listing agent for the property they are viewing. Every. Day.

Don’t get me wrong. I **LOVE** IDX. It’s the lifeblood of my prospect generation efforts. 6,742 IDX search registrations in 2011 is a great thing. But if one of your main arguments for pulling your listings out of syndication is because potential buyers are confused and can’t reach the listing agent, then you MUST also pull out of IDX. The same problem exists in both systems. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Pulling out of syndication but using IDX smacks of hypocrisy.

The “syndication debate” will not end with smacking down TruZiltor. It will ultimately end up being a debate about buyer agency, the purpose of the MLS, the purpose of data-sharing. I’ve been predicting we’ll be doing that by NAR Annual in November. Maybe it’ll happen sooner than that.

I think that’s a wonderful, needed debate within the industry. Bring it on, I say, and sooner the better.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been traveling — planes, taxis, automobiles — and blogging has been difficult. And I’m typing this out in a hotel lobby before my next meeting, so it can’t be my typical overlong post. But I had to comment and ask questions about the latest salvo in the 2012 Syndication Wars.

I predicted in my 2012 Predictions post that listing syndication would be the big issue this year. Sure enough, events do not disappoint. You have probably seen this announcement by Jim Abbot of Abbot Realty Group by now:

And by now, you’ve seen some industry reactions. For example, this post by Tara Steele over at AgentGenius (they go by AGBeat these days?). Or you can check out Inman News reporting on the story (premium content).

I only have a couple of brief comments and a couple of questions about this.

First, this sort of move by brokerages was entirely predictable… but did it have to be a brokerage named ARG that opens up the salvo in 2012? I suspect many people will be making that sound in the coming months.

Second, given the number of times that Mr. Abbott talks about how valuable the listing information is, just how important it is as “intellectual property”, and talks about how major publicly traded companies like Zillow and Realtor.com/Move could not survive without that intellectual property… am I the only non-REALTOR out there listening to that and wondering, “Hey, so all that information about my house is that valuable eh? Should I get any piece of all that valuable intellectual property action?”

Third, am I the only one that found it interesting that Mr. Abbott draws a fairly clear distinction between “our clients” and buyers? Of course, he does mention several times that if you’re looking to buy a house, that you should call Abbot Realty Group. But in a few moments, he makes it pretty clear that his clients are the home sellers, not necessarily the home buyers. This becomes relevant because…

The fourth, and most important point… actually, let’s make that a question. Listen to the message behind his outrage in the middle there (around the 4 minute mark). Listen to the substance of the complaint. Listen to him talk about irresponsible agents who don’t know the neighborhood, the development, sometimes steers the buyer into a property/area they do know, etc. The issue boils down to this critical phrase: “If you want honest, accurate information about a property, talk to the source.” Someone explain to me how that critical phrase does not apply with 100% force to IDX, please?

This is not the end of the syndication issue, and I’m out of time. So I’ll end this here, some 1800 words short of my average. But if you’d like, take a crack at answering that question, please. Inquiring minds wanna know.

-rsh

The Syndication Hole

One of the most fun things about coming to a NAR event — whether Mid-Year or Annual — is the ability to connect previously unconnected dots and have an A-HA! moment. I had one such moment yesterday in the legal seminar put on by NAR. I thought I’d jot down a few thoughts, as the MLS Policy Committee meeting is tomorrow, and this particular issue should be discussed and adjudicated there.

I’ve written about the current MLS IDX Policy language before, noting that the key term is “control”. I believe that the latest version adds some clarification along the lines of “control means that you can comply with the IDX policy”. It’s a bit circular, but I get the idea.

Then yesterday, I’m attending the legal seminar where Gregg Larson presents to the assembled legal counsels for hundreds of Associations and MLS’s on the topic of syndication. And I have an A-HA moment.

Seems to me that there is a giant hole in the IDX policy, and it’s called syndication. We’re gonna need a far tighter definition of “control” to plug that particular hole.

Read the rest of this entry »

Back in September, when Move, Inc. (which operates Realtor.com, among other units) acquired ListHub, the leading syndicator of listings, there were a number of opinions and speculations on why Move would buy a syndicator of all things.  Given that Move gets a direct feed of all MLS listings under the NAR Operating Agreement, it didn’t make much sense to buy a supplier of listings.

I thought then that I knew the real strategic motivation behind Move’s acquisition, and how we’d eventually see it play out.  But I didn’t write anything about the acquisition at the time because I felt I was in possession of information I should treat as confidential, given how I acquired it.  Well, at NAR yesterday, I got a few minutes to speak with Steve Berkowitz, the new CEO of Move, as well as Errol Samuelson, President of Realtor.com, more “on the record” so to speak.  I confirmed most of my hypotheses, and learned a bit more about how Move intends to utilize its latest asset.

Short version: Move, with ListHub, will be creating and enforcing syndication standards across the industry that will both increase data protection for brokers and agents, and provide Move with a competitive advantage (or at least remove the competitive disadvantage) vis a vis other publishers, such as Trulia and Zillow.

Read the rest of this entry »