Business News

Third party real estate listing companies, too big to fail?

“After three years of carefully examining internal metrics for the sites where our listings appeared, I categorically state the following – neither the home seller who has hired us to represent their property, or the potential home buyer, is remotely well served by listing syndicators. And here’s why – these sites are nothing more than slick advertising platforms.”

Published

10 years ago

January 27, 2012

Tara Steele

Broker makes a public statement

In a public declaration, San Diego-based Abbot Realty Group (ARG) President and Managing Broker, Jim Abbott released a video on YouTube explaining why their brokerage will no longer permit third party syndication sites like Trulia, Realtor.com and Zillow to syndicate their listings, but will continue to syndicate company listings to their local MLS, Sandicor. ARG’s announcement is the latest in a string of similar developments.

Abbot stated, “After three years of carefully examining internal metrics for the sites where our listings appeared, I categorically state the following – neither the home seller who has hired us to represent their property, or the potential home buyer, is remotely well served by listing syndicators. And here’s why – these sites are nothing more than slick advertising platforms. They often use fear and peer pressure to induce agents and brokers to sign costly long-term contracts for their lead generation services. Our industry is vigorously regulated by local, state and federal governments to protect the public, yet listing syndicators have no legal responsibility for the accuracy of the data they display.”

“We demand, however, that any marketing plan produce tangible results, not meaningless hits in cyberspace,” he later added.

Other brokers pull listings

Last fall, AGBeat broke the story that 75 big brokers were rumored to be considering refusal of syndication of their listings, suspecting that others would also follow. ARG’s plea for industry professionals to consider their own syndication and for buyers and sellers to do their homework is a more tangible, public-facing and viral proclamation than other brokers have delivered to date.

The Realty Alliance President and CEO, Craig Cheatham told AGBeat, “If you see any trend among real estate brokerages in the coming months it should be traced to predictable industry reaction to overall trends in the offerings and business rules of MLSs and outside vendors.”

Each broker in The Realty Alliance – and likely elsewhere – will be analyzing their own returns in 2012 as Abbott did to consider whether their brokerages, consumers and agents are better served or not by syndicating their listings.

Milwaukee brokerage Shorewest pulled their real estate listings from syndication last fall. WAV Group Partner, Victor Lund told AGBeat, “As you can see by the graph – Shorewest is the #1 website in their market, and they do not syndicate – proving that brokers and agents do not need to syndicate to drive traffic and leads on their listings. In fact, this may argue that the opposite is true – if you do not syndicate, you provide consumers with an incentive to visit your broker or agent website to find the cheeze. In this case, the cheeze is listing accuracy, comprehensive listing inventory, and most of all, the service of a real estate professional.”

Media companies respond

In early January, AGBeat reached out to Zillow and Realtor.com who chose not to comment on brokers pulling listings from syndication, but Trulia’s company spokesperson, Ken Shuman said, “The accessibility of open and accurate listing information benefits everyone in the home buying and selling process–consumers, agents and brokers. We know that Trulia has a transaction-ready consumer audience and we are confident that brokers and agents who syndicate their listings to Trulia have a greater opportunity to meet new clients and close more transactions.”

Cheatham’s and Abbott’s comments reveal that it is likely that more brokers will join the movement to pull listings, adding to the string of recent announcements. Several real estate listing companies made comments off of the record that revealed a common sentiment of denial, while one blatantly noted that they do not wish for this to be a news story at all. When pressed, one third party syndicator told AGBeat that they would approach each brokerage relationship independently and had already begun the process of speaking with brokers privately, and if necessary, would take their appeal to their own audience.

Related Topics:MLS News Real Estate

Up Next

Third party real estate sites’ alleged black hat SEO tactics

Don't Miss

theBrokerList for commercial real estate professionals

Tara Steele

Tara Steele is the News Director at The American Genius, covering entrepreneur, real estate, technology news and everything in between. If you'd like to reach Tara with a question, comment, press release or hot news tip, simply click the link below.

62 Comments

Joe Virnig

January 27, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Good for Jim, I've made this argument in the past. Many MLSs have allowed syndication of all their listings. At our MLS in Ventura County hasn't been implemented syndication because we were trying to negotiate, "opt-in" so brokers could chose to include listings but the two major syndicators only wanted to work with "opt-out". I'm not sure MLSs should be involved in pushing listings to syndication sites at all.

Reply
- John Rowles
  
  January 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm
  
  Its the industry's own fault that the listing syndicators exist in the first place.
  
  NAR could have acted in its member's best interest by organizing Internet listing distribution in a way that benefits consumers and the agents/brokers who actually go out and do the the work to get and publish listings, but instead they chose to double dip by selling out the Realtor.com name.
  
  Then there are the MLSs. 950+ fiefdoms whose #1 priority is to justify their existence (and their fees) in the digital age by kowtowing to the anti-competitive whims of their own dues paying members.
  
  The idiotic rules and practices that emerge (Can't show DOM. Can't show price changes. Can't "append" a listing with a AVM or user comments. Can't do this, Can't do that…) gave the ZIllows and the Trulias all the daylight they needed to do the one thing the "industry" *still* can't do: Design a user experience that puts what the CONSUMER wants ahead of what "the industry" wants.
  
  THAT is why the syndicators ate the industry's lunch. You created the monster, and now the monster has enough VC and IPO cash that it doesn't even have to pretend that they are worried about a couple of brokers growing a set 10 years too late.
  
  Reply
  - Ken Brand
    
    January 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    
    Yep. But I hope it's not too late? We'll see. Reminds me of how the RELO business was lost.
    
    Reply
  - Chris
    
    January 30, 2012 at 8:05 pm
    
    Spot on…
    
    Reply
Gary Little

January 27, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Great video. Everyone should make the time to watch it. Abbott makes some compelling points.

Reply
Matt Wilkins

January 27, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Interesting move. It will be an interesting future to see whether or not buyers skip over properties they do not see on these sites or go in search of ALL properties on the market whether by themselves or through the services of buyer broker representation.

Reply
Mike Sparr - Goomzee.com

January 27, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Thanks for sharing. Agreed that many portals may be too big to fail but the question Matt W. asked is spot on: will buyers be aware of missing listings and skip over, or do they just "surf" these sites for ideas and then reach out to their REALTOR when really serious to search the MLS.

Reply
Sheila Rasak

January 28, 2012 at 12:48 am

Do we have the names of the major players who left the game?

Reply
Mark Brian

January 28, 2012 at 11:14 am

I have asked buyers what site they are using to search homes and the answer is always the same: several different ones. Wish the majority of replies was "your website" but the truth is the consumers want to search a variety of sites.

Getting ready to launch a new website so I have been getting as much feedback and input from clients as possible. One thing I have noticed is they know they CANNOT trust some of the websites mentioned yet they continue to use them…..

Reply
Bill Lyons

January 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm

We are a site that displays syndicated listings but we do it different. We do not allow any advertising from other real estate agents on the listing detail page and we provide SEO backlinks to the brokers site. We respect the data and aim to help Realtors grow their business with relevant key real estate indicators

Reply
Tom Johnson

January 28, 2012 at 2:34 pm

Stuffed full of IPO cash, the syndicators can pay the brokers 'privately' in their private discussions.

Reply
- Benn Rosales
  
  January 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm
  
  all three are very well financially positioned, but not all three are public…
  
  Reply
Andy Piper

January 29, 2012 at 10:39 am

People that think they can make quality real estate decisions using Trulia and Zillow are mistaken. The data is useful but limited. I give them a lot of credit for what they have done. At least these companies give the leads back to the listing agent – Reator.com requires you to pay for an upgrade package or else…. They give the leads to someone in your market that does pay for the upgrade. Not cool at all.

From a consumer's perpective, the more places their property is seen, the better – Consumers should demand open data sharing of their listings.

Reply
Benn Rosales

January 29, 2012 at 5:18 pm

I hope these brokers aren't making decisions based on hitwise data and use sources like comscore to back up their positioning. It's so rare that anyone quotes hitwise as a source.

Reply
Matt

January 30, 2012 at 12:55 am

Everyone should read counter points by Jay Thompson – Phoenix Real Estate Guy. He made very compelling counter arguments.

1. Third party sites have stolen nothing, the listings are freely given to them
2. MLS data is also inaccurate and out of date…the issue is with data entry, not display
3. IDX websites are even worse offenders when it comes to both a) having another agent get leads of "your" listings and b) confusion over who the listing agent is. Most clients I know think Im the listing agent for all the properties I send the, from my IDX website
4. We're adults. No one's holding a gun to your head to buy anything. Agents make the same choice when deciding to market their home in the local newspaper…there's no long contract there, just an incredibly high one-time fee
5. Syndication sites show the data their given – if it's inflated it's because an agent didn't take it off. Why would you expect someone to take down your free marketing if you didn't tell them it was no longer available?
6. A scammer can use the MLS site just as easily to defraud someone…it's just very few people visit those MLS sites
7. At the end of the day, the Home seller chooses what happens with their listing data…they don't have to hire a broker who doesn't syndicate

Reply
Ed Boscarino

January 30, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Thank You Jim Abbott for taking the effort to expose a problem that has been on my mind for sometime. Not knowing the full extent of how third party information prospers I had been concerned about the reasoning why it was given out.

Incorrect information, too much information and how it is used disturbs me and should also disturb home sellers as well if they knew the extent of what it means to them.

My first concern was the address. Too many times i have noticed prospective buyers or people knocking on doors as i was there to show the property to legitimate buyers. When no one answers the door these people walk around to the back and are checking things out. Whatever that means.

We all want greater exposure for our listings but if it doesn't work well forgetaboutit. We tried it and it does not work. Tweek it or better yet eliminate it. Real Estate is a local business in most cases and local people know how to get the information when they want it. Getting to the correct information fast and local is a benefit to all concerned.

Local Boards and Local MLS, NJAR in my state, NAR officials have failed to see the problem or do anything to protect the public or Realtors. Initially, it may have sounded like a good idea but, they have failed to monitor.

The IDX may also need monitoring. What do they do with this private, personal information. Are they satisfied with the fee's they charge us or are they selling the info.

Reply
azhomesforsale

May 23, 2012 at 9:32 pm

Make this simple, and lets focus on Zillow. Zillow sales two spaces by impressions per zip codes. Imagine two realtors bought both zip codes. Then assume there is 200 to 500 homes for sale in that zip code. Do you think those two agents have some magical control on the homes sold or listed? Zillow would want you to think so, so truth be told they do not. They will get a handful of buyer leads, which were going to go to somebody and buy some home. The Zillow agents have a vested interest to see these buyers through to the highest level of customer experience. I wish Zillow would take out the junk and just list active, but the site is not bad at all. To each is their own wanting to remove the inventory from Zillow and similar sites.

Reply

Business News

Removing remote work options creates a new caste system

(BUSINESS) Remote work has created a democratization of sorts in the workforce, and companies desperate to nix the options could take a hit.

Published

6 days ago

September 14, 2021

Jack Lloyd, Staff Writer

Many companies are mandating a return to the office after over a year of allowing employees to work remotely, and, according to a recent study, over half of workers surveyed say they won’t stand for it. As remote work becomes more normalized for all levels of employment, it is crucial that employers retain the option for employees to work in this capacity wherever possible – even if it means employing nontraditional methods.

Harvard Business Review references something called “the democratizing effect of remote work” – the great equalizing that took place during stay-at-home orders nationwide.

In short, this philosophy entails workers having their needs met while continuing to fulfill their contracts of employment. Theoretically, this is a win-win situation.

But employers have their own predilections toward in-house operations, with remote flexibility often being reserved for the highest-ranking officials while “lower” employees are expected to commute. It’s a business model with which we’re exceptionally familiar; why change?

The answer to that question may be employee-driven, as many employees cite a preference for hybrid or remote work environments post-pandemic. “Employees are leaving workplaces that don’t suit their needs anymore,” cites HBR.

Many of those needs are emotional, too. Non-white employees and female employees face a higher level of discrimination in the workplace than their white and/or male counterparts; Black employees, in particular, reported stressful work conditions, with HBR citing that only three percent of Black employees demonstrated an interest in returning to an in-office environment (as opposed to 21 percent of white employees).

Allowing stressed and oppressed employees to work from home can improve their mental health, stress levels, and even their “feelings of belonging at their organization” in the case of Black employees.

Outside of race and gender, the publication also stresses the negative effects that mandating a return after allowing for remote work will have: “Creating a new caste system where elites have anywhere jobs and non-elites are shackled to the office full time is a recipe for high attrition among employees who often have a lot of firm-specific knowledge that is valuable to their employers.”

The less-subtle breakdown is this: If companies that are capable of offering remote work want to retain employees, they need to offer some remote options.

We saw the effects of employees in frontline occupations refusing to show up to work because of poor wages and working conditions earlier this year. It isn’t outside of the realm of feasibility to expect the next major workforce shortage to impact corporations as well.

If the solution is as simple as letting employees work from home a few days per week or permanently (especially if their productivity doesn’t suffer), that’s a pretty small price to pay for continued prosperity.

Business News

The case for nixing your company happy hour forever

(BUSINESS) Happy hour is designed to bond teams and offer a perk, but the design is outdated to benefit few workers – let’s just get rid of the practice.

Published

2 weeks ago

September 9, 2021

Dawn Brotherton, Staff Writer

The world of work has forever changed from the pandemic. Melinda Gates hopes that COVID-19 makes society get serious about gender equality. Some people are wondering how many people really want to return to the office at all. There are questions about providing customer service, not to reduce costs to the business, but because shoppers don’t want help in the store.

Let’s tackle another tradition in the office – the happy hour. Wondering if employees really want happy hours? Do they even help?

Why do we even have happy hour?

Happy hour is a tradition that dates back to the early 20th century and the United States Navy. It was originally a weekly entertainment created to alleviate boredom on the U.S.S. Arkansas when sailors were at sea. The practice became popular in the Navy, but over time, the emphasis changed from entertainment to drinking. As drinking became less stigmatized after prohibition, employees began drinking at work and after work. Although happy hours declined in the 1970s and beyond, there was a resurgence in the 2000s.

Why do offices hold happy hour?

Hosting a happy hour is thought to help a team develop positive relationships and encourage employee engagement and productivity. Drink o’clock can be a time of celebration to help employees feel good about the work they’re doing.

Employees can interact with each other outside of the stress of work. It sounds pretty innocent, just getting together at the end of the workday at a local pub or bar, but it comes with a lot of issues.

Is it time to nix the work happy hour?

Happy hour can come with a lot of pressure for employees. Some people believe they have to attend in order to keep moving up in the job, because skipping out can be seen as not being a team player, and many who don’t show up to the “optional” happy hours are also the ones who didn’t get to schmooze with the bosses and thereby are not the ones who get promotions.

This disproportionately hurts women, who typically still have the majority of caregiving tasks in the family and can’t stay out drinking on weeknights.

Transportation issues or flexible schedules don’t lend themselves well to the traditional happy hour after work. And don’t forget the drinking atmosphere doesn’t appeal to everyone. There are many religious, cultural, and personal reasons for people to avoid alcohol, bars, and happy hour functions.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of liability issues for employers. Can your business risk an accident by an employee who went to happy hour and was a little buzzed when they left?

While we’re rethinking workplace traditions in the post-pandemic era, let’s think about how to get employees engaged. Maybe this outdated practice isn’t the best way to build your team anymore.

Business News

You absolutely don’t need to be a 100% match for a job to apply

(CAREER) Most people believe they should only apply for their dream job if they’re a perfect match, but studies say that’s the wrong approach.

Published

3 weeks ago

September 1, 2021

Elise Graham Kennedy

apply for a job even if not 100% a match

You don’t need to be a 100 percent match for a job to apply. You just don’t.

We’ve all seen the crazy job postings:

-Must be fluent in Mandarin
-Must be be full-stack coder
-Must also have real estate license
-Must be a rockstar ninja (uuugh)

After seeing endless open positions with specific requirements, it’s no wonder that so many job seekers become discouraged. How can anyone fit 100 percent of the requirements on the job listing? And actually, most people don’t. According to a recent study, you only need to meet ~70 percent of the job requirements to be a good fit for a job.

So you’re telling me a requirement isn’t actually a requirement?!

The study analyzed job postings and resumes for over 6,000 positions across 118 industries, and they found that applicants are just as likely to get an interview whether you meet 50 percent or 90 percent of the requirements.

Crazy, I know. That law of diminishing returns will eff you up.

But what about women? I wondered the same thing. Surprisingly, the interview data was in favor of women that meet less of the requirements. In fact, the study shows that as a female, the likelihood of getting an interview increases if you simply meet 30 percent of the requirements. Also, female applicants are just as likely to get an interview if they meet 40 percent versus 90 percent of the job requirements.

Before you start complaining that women have it better in the job search process, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Interestingly enough, 64 percent of the female users rejected at least one job where they matched 50 – 60 percent of the requirements, while only 37 percent of male users did. This leads us to believe there more implicit factors to take into consideration, like imposter syndrome throughout the interview process.

If you’re a recruiter or employer, this may seem like more work. But in an increasingly competitive job market for both employers and applicants, this presents an opportunity to get to know people for who they actually are, not just on paper. And resumes often do a poor job of reflecting that — especially the ever-important soft skills.

Key takeaways:

As we’ve gone through this study, here are a few practical action items for job seekers:

1. Apply for a lot of jobs to increase your number of interviews.

The study shows that increased interviews are a direct result of increased applications, not just picking and choosing what you think you’re a good fit for. Which brings us to our next point:

2. Go for those “stretch” roles — you never know what may come of it!

Send in a lot of applications, but don’t let that stop you from approaching the process thoughtfully. Recruiters can tell if you’ve skimped on the cover letter or your resume, and a thoughtful approach to the application process will be noticed and appreciated by recruiters, especially for those reach roles.

3. Don’t second-guess yourself.

We’re always our own worst critics, and according to this, we don’t need to be — especially throughout the job application process. Job hunting is stressful enough, so put on your most upbeat playlist (or Beyonce), say your affirmations, and go on with your bad self and start applying!

This story was first published here in December 2018.