The real estate news of the week is that Move and NAR have formally amended their operating agreement. I’m sure there are more details to be released pertaining to the dissemination, syndication and distribution of listings and properties submitted to R.com (Move, Inc.). Let the story unfold.
This article started as a comment here. It’s my list of random thoughts and observations about what could happen once we start giving a feed to third party aggregators.
I am still just one small voice of NAR, but I wonder how many agents feel the same way I do. Maybe I am a lone voice! I would hope not.
Soon, Realtors will not have the ability to decide the best marketing for their clients. As soon as you click submit on your local board website, your listing will be sent to R.com, who in turn will submit it to every syndication site they have an agreement with. What if you don’t want your listing on a particular site?
Too bad! Think Craigslist!
- In and of itself, Craigslist is not a bad site. I don’t know about you, but I receive at least 10-15 calls a month from someone who saw a home for rent there, listed by a scammer who wants them to send money to Africa or New York and then they will receive the keys. Now these type of scam listings are showing up on other sites. Syndication? Scrapers?
- If we know that almost 97% of listings are sold through the use of the MLS and another local broker, why do we care if our listings are on all these other sites. If we do a good job representing our clients property on a local level, do we need third party aggregators? I don’t think so. We need Brokers who know how to make their sites rank for their company and agents.
- As soon as all the third party aggregators have a complete list of all listings in the MLS, with a direct feed, how much do you think they will charge for you to be the *featured agent*? How much will Move (Realtor.com) charge now for the pleasure of having a showcased listing? Will these sites (with the exception of R.com)begin to charge for leads? How much are you willing to pay? 25%, 30%, 40%?
- Do you think these sites care about the accuracy of the data? They want the data, so they can be the source of the information, and then charge more to advertise there. And now, we want to give them accurate data, so they can do with it what they will. Be sure to read their terms of service.
- On any of these sites, you can and a link for similar properties. I once took a listing off a site, because the properties they suggested as similar were in no way similar. The similar properties made my property seemed overpriced. I know many homes are overpriced, but this one wasn’t. Even with a data feed, some details will not be accurate and will they have the freedom to add more data to the page.
These were my initial thoughts, but maybe it will be as others think and the third party aggregators will pay R.com for the feed and not charge agents. Somehow, I think they will want to monetize the data.
A few observations and conversations from the trenches:
- A few weeks ago I asked an agent who advertises on a few of these sites if she has seen a return on her investment. She said no, but she does it because her clients expect it. Two years ago, our clients didn’t know about Trulia and Zillow, but thanks to all those free widgets agents adorn their sites with, we have given them the power to be known. Same thing for R.com or any other site with a widget. I wonder what would happen if every agent across America took those free widgets off their sites? Would it diminish their rankings? Just a thought!
- My son called me a few nights ago and wanted some info about buying a home in Chino Hills in California. I went searching Google online and the top five results did not include an agent or a broker. They were third party aggregators who charge for premium listing status or leads. I was shocked!
- I checked a local competitor’s site who advertises the Zillow mortgage widget. In the source code, I see no less than five links back to the site. It’s really long code, so it could be more.
- Remember when all these sites were FREE?! In a conversation with someone who was creating a widget for agents, his comment was agents are stupid and will take anything that is FREE! He knew every widget displayed was a link back to him. Sadly, it worked and he will outrank his competitors.
Consider this- every widget on your site takes visitors OFF your site where they can and a link to your competitor. If should provide our site visitors the information we so freely give everywhere else and keep them on our site.
Until now, the data on most of these sites is inaccurate. They don’t update unless the agent goes in and updates. The game is about to change if they receive a direct feed from R.com.
Our local boards can stop this madness, if they disallow automatic syndication. My local board gives us the option to prohibit auto valuations. We can even prohibit the address from being displayed online, if we choose.
Every broker should figure this out:
A mentor once told me “use these companies for what they can do for you without giving them power to dominate you.” Every broker and/or agent should figure out how to do exactly that.
We work too hard to give away our content and knowledge for the benefit of a company who has no interest in whether or not we are successful. Will we shoot ourselves in the foot trying to be everywhere and if so, at what cost?
I am willing to admit I am wrong and no one really cares about paying outside companies for listings we provide. To me, there is really something wrong with that picture. It increases our costs and therefore, our clients.
Someday, someone will say, “what’s a Realtor?”
rob aubrey
September 19, 2010 at 12:59 pm
It is time for local boards to secede from the NAR and create a local association. The name Realtor doesn’t mean anything to the public. The public doesn’t know what the word means and frankly they don’t really care. #justsaying
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Rob – Thanks for your comment! It appears local boards will have the final say about whether R.com is allowed to syndicate their listings. Let’s hope they use wisdom and consult their brokers before allowing the data to be sent out without discretion.
Its A Me Mario
September 19, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Its time to stop thinking your clients use your site. The data is all over the place, and probably presented in better formats with more additional detail than most agents sites can or will ever be able to achieve. This is the whole reason why the Trulias and ZIllows were able to get seeded with millions of dollars.
Clients use your site before they even meet you, to determine who you are before picking up the phone or emailing. This is why blogging and other forms of content enriched social media has pushed certain agents to the top. Its not because they have listings on their site.
If this were the car industry, would every car slaesman have their own site promoting the exact same inventory? There are over 1.5 million property websites out there. What makes any one stand out above the rest? Nothing! Its the content that shows who you are that is the true value to the client, and keeps them wanting to work with you.
Bob
September 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“This is why blogging and other forms of content enriched social media has pushed certain agents to the top.”
Wrong.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Mario –
Clients do use my site – I happen to have good site. My point is, any agent or broker could do the same, instead of giving it to other sites to make money off our work. It may be cost prohibitive for many agents to have a dynamic site, but brokers and boards should step up and make it happen, instead of allowing other sites to do it.
Fred Romano
September 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Paula, not to be rude, but you have a cookie cutter design – dime a dozen, sorry.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Fred – may be, but it ranks and clients like the detail display. No offense taken, I am working on better. BTW – love yours!
Fred Romano
September 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Thanks – WordPress is the best, I do my own site design tweaks. Sometimes I think I am more of a web designer than broker. Oh well – It gets the job done and it’s a lot less expensive.
I know it takes time to rank well, and my site is only online since February 2010. I am more focused on having a site that makes me money than blogging, but SEO is always on my mind when posting any content.
Bruce Lemieux
September 19, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I’ve always admired Paula’s site. It’s navigation is very clean and clear without distractions on 95% of other sites out there. It has homes at the front-and-center — which is what consumers want. And it’s a PR4. Not too shabby.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Thanks Bruce!
Laughing Guy
September 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Seriously, Fred? Your site is horrendous compared to the original premium WP theme you’re using (interestingly enough, dubbed the “easiest wordpress theme for business”): nextelement.pandathemes.com/
You shouldn’t judge anyone for cookie cutter- you took a beautiful theme, hacked it into a choppy, sloppy, amateur site and then removed the modern color palette and resorted to the standard 1993 real estate colors plus a bonus green on the buttons because you likely couldn’t “design” well enough to match your theme. I tire of your judging people for their sites, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen you behave this way.
>>I know this is off topic, but I couldn’t stay quiet on this one.
Fred Romano
September 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Are you F’n kidding me? Are you on drugs? I made several dozen serious modifications to the original (boring grey) theme and serious changes under the hood due to poor coding and scripting from the author. You don’t even know what you are talking about!
I can’t believe you think my site looks amateurish! You need glasses man. Go and take a good look at the crappy sites many agents have.
The color mods were to match the logo colors, and many of the graphics were either purchased or designed by me. No need to attack me, I was not attacking the author. Lets see your website you anonymous loser! What are you hiding from…
Dan Connolly
September 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Wow Fred it looks like you can dish it out but can’t take it.
You can count on the fact when someone says “I don’t want to be rude but…” that something rude is bound to follow.
Homes In Pasadena
October 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Its the content that shows who you are that is the true value to the client, and keeps them wanting to work with you.”
Excellent! Why do so many people forget this???
Thank you for the article – Steven
Roland Estrada
September 19, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The only way I am charged for any sevice is if I decide to pay for it.
As for Craigslist, as an agent I would love to throw MLS listings on Craigslist and work all the buyer leads. As far as I’m concerned, if a listing agent is too lazy or not savvy enough to do Internet marketing, then I’ll do it. Agents should be grateful for the extra marketing.
Local boards should loosen up the ability to market other agent listings so long ad you disclose they are not your listings. The times are changing. Lead, follow or get out of the way!
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Roland –
I don’t pay for these services either; instead I make my listings rank in the top.
For the record, I’m not against Craig’s List, it just seems to be the site where most of the scams are advertised; although they are starting to show up on other sites.
Although an advocate of indexed listings, I don’t agree you should be able to advertise my listings on any site. There has to be attribution to the listing agent. Additionally, there may be clients who do not want their listings syndicated everywhere, for whatever reason.
Bob Wilson
September 19, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“Local boards should loosen up the ability to market other agent listings so long ad you disclose they are not your listings.”
Wrong.
Get your own listings, instead of leaving them for all the “lazy” agents.
Fred Romano
September 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Bob, I kind of agree. I think IDX is bad because it allows any Joe Schmoe agent to get leads on YOUR listings. I think syndication is good AS LONG AS the listing agent (or company) gets the leads back to them.
I am all for Realtor.com syndicating listing data to 3rd parties, but I want the link back to my website for FREE, not requiring some “premium upgrade” out of my pocket – That’s the scam Move Inc will pull on us, I think, unfortunately, and that will suck.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:51 pm
That’s the scam of all the syndication sites. You supply the data and then pay to have it included in full with attribution. It’s like your explanation of the IDX. Any Joe Schmoe agent, who pays to have their name as a *featured agent* will get the lead from YOUR listing.
I’m okay with another agent using their ability, talent and skill to procure a buyer for my listing. I’m not okay when we sell our data to every Joe Schmoe syndication site and then have to pay for the right to have a link back to the source of the data.
Bob Wilson
September 19, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Fred I think you misunderstood me. I have NO issues with IDX. I was referring to his characterizations of lazy listing agents.
As for the slam on Paula’s site, that was just moronic on your part.
Fremont REALTOR
September 19, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Realtor.com should be forced to include all our photos and virtural tour links for free if provided or not allowed to take any of our data. I don’t know who at NAR is making these decisions, that obviously are not for REALTORS best interest.
I would like to see a California wide MLS, with no feeds to realtor.com.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Fremont – Then they could not make money from our listings or data.
JP
September 19, 2010 at 4:12 pm
A Realtor is just and Agent, right?
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Hi JP –
One can be a real estate agent and not a Realtor. A Realtor has to have membership in the local board and the National Association of Realtors. In order to have access to all the data of the MLS, a licensed agent has to be a member of the local board, making them a Realtor.
Bruce Lemieux
September 19, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I think this is a great summary of the risks. Still, I’m sure my opinion on this topic won’t be shared by many here.
This Would Benefit Consumers
Forget what’s best for the agent – consumers would definitely benefit if Trulia/Zillow had access to accurate listing data. It is impossible for these companies to accurately aggregate listing data without an MLS-based source. These companies have a track record for innovation, yet their houses are built on crap data. Consumers chase down listings long sold, these companies provide inaccurate market stats, etc. Let these providers pay to provide a much better customer experience.
This Would Benefit Our Sellers
I want my listings to be accurately represented on as many sites as possible. If buyers are on Zillow/Trulia – which they are – I want my listings to be there and be accurate. This would do that. I can’t imagine why an agent would take action to limit their listings to buyers. Our primary job to our clients is to sell their home – not to get buyer leads.
But Won’t Other Agents Profit From My Listing?
My site has an IDX (that I pay for), and I get calls on others listings. Buyers call other agents/brokers about my listings on their IDX-based sites. Zillow/Trulia will have to follow IDX rules, so this is no different than the status-quo.
Move Will Have to Add More Value to R.com
Move may have the most to lose with these deals. They make money to ‘showcase listings’ and sell ‘featured agent’ slots. Zillow and Trulia are competitors for our business, and the pool of available dollars doesn’t go up with this change. ***The site that provides the best consumer experience and provides the most value will get more consumers***. Will I continue to pay my annual ‘showcase’ fee if Trulia starts eating R.com’s lunch? I don’t think so (Have I been wasting money showcasing listings all these years? Probably)
Better data benefits our consumers, therefore we ultimately benefit. Let them pay for listing data, follow all IDX rules, then let the best national listing aggregator win.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Bruce – If they had to follow the same IDX rules as we do, there may be some merit to having the listings there. For now, I don’t see it. I hope I’m wrong. It seems, the agents and the boards who have been providing this data for as long as R.com has been around, are the ones being fleeced.
If they were not going to benefit monetarily, why would they pay for the data. I assume they could sell ads, but who wants to go to a site full of ads? It creates a disruption to the natural flow of the data.
Agents have always profited from other agents listings. Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, I believe we should get back to the cooperative nature of the IDX and control our own data and destiny. The client would ultimately benefit.
Bruce Lemieux
September 19, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“If they were not going to benefit monetarily, why would they pay for the data. ” That’s the key question, isn’t it? To make this investment worthwhile, the aggregator *must* add superior consumer value to drive traffic — and that won’t be by adding tons of ads. If they don’t provide a superior customer experience, they won’t get consumers and they won’t get a return on their investment.
I think this will be a test of the true nature of Zillow and Trulia. Both present themselves as great consumer advocates, yet at the same time, they *knowingly* provide a database of listings ***that they know isn’t close to being accurate!*** So at their core, is their goal to build a profitable business by being innovators and consumer advocates? Or, do they simply want to make money by attracting eyeballs with the singular goal of selling ads. If selling ads is their only mission, then they absolutely won’t buy accurate listing data – it wouldn’t make any financial sense to do so. They only need lots of listing data – accurate or not – to accomplish that goal, and they already have that.
Paula Henry
September 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Bruce – I don’t believe for a moment they will sell ads. They want the [accurate] data so they can be the source of the information. In order to make money, they will charge the agents who supplied the data originally. This is just my guess, based on the current model.
This is where I have a problem. We work to procure a client, and then we give all of our knowledge away answering questions and blogging on other platforms, when we could save our selves (and our clients) a ton of money by staying the original source. Our brokers and boards could easily accomplish what the aggregators have done.
Drew Meyers - YouReach Media
September 20, 2010 at 5:10 am
“Our brokers and boards could easily accomplish what the aggregators have done.”
Why haven’t they then?
Paula Henry
September 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Drew – They are too busy fighting amongst themselves. This was actually presented as a challenge to do so.
Drew Meyers - YouReach Media
September 21, 2010 at 8:41 am
Agree, but it’s also the fact that doing what the aggregators have done is not easy or free. Zillow (& other portals like it) spend a LOT of money building their sites. Website design and development is not and never will be Brokers and boards core competency, so they are always going to lag behind the portals who have dollars and manpower working on their web presences every single day.
Paula Henry
September 21, 2010 at 9:26 am
Drew – I know it is neither easy or free, but still – I stand on the principle of not selling ourselves out. In my heart, I know the boards and NAR will never stand up for the agents doing the work; it’s all about the money or the lack of vision, I’m not sure which; maybe both.
I’m not saying Trulia and Zillow didn’t build great sites; only that they could be replicated as an advantage to the agent and consumer without giving away the data. Wishful thinking; maybe!
Sorry -we ran out of room here, so this may appear before your response.
Jim Gatos
September 19, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Who cares? Just list! List and all your troubles will go away.
The only problem I see is now; I may be told I HAVE To “enhance” my listings; that way all the feed aggregators will have ALL the pictures and contact information with my name and multiple photos..
Again, sometimes I think NAR has it in for it’s members.. LOL
Ruthmarie Hicks
September 20, 2010 at 1:45 am
One of the big problems we are having around here is that some of the aggregators have managed to exploit indexable IDX and the sites that are really just aggregators trolling for agents so they can get their cut are propagating like bunnies. And I don’t mean to be cute about it – its a serious problem.
Punch in any address that has been on the MLS in the last few months and you get a pages of crap from google. Web page after web page of listings that appear to be scraped somehow from indexed IDX. Some even “invite the agent” to participate for a hefty cut of course. Its a MESS and unless it can be controlled to benefit agents alone – there is going to be tremendous push-back to control this type of IDX or get rid of it. I see no point in joining the parade. You need to go through two full pages of this nonsense to even find an agent site. A few brokerages have jumped on the bandwagon – but I hear that the big franchises charge a hefty 30-40% to sell back these leads. It’s ludicrous.
Paula Henry
September 20, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Ruthmarie – It is unfortunate agents can’t rank in your area for their own listings. I’m not sure I believe it is because of indexed IDX. Most of the aggregators were indexing addresses, even if they weren’t listed, long before we had indexable IDX. Some were even scraping the listings.
This is exactly one reason I challenged agents inability to index. One of the problems I observed at the time was R.com (among others) being allowed to index and agents could not. I know some don’t agree with indexable IDX. Truth is, the aggregators are winning that game because we are so bad at it. Regardless of whether we have indexed listings or not, they will. I am just not willing to pay them or give them back links to make them stronger in the searches.
Call me or email me and I will tell you how to rank for your own listings, above the aggregators. You can find my information on my website.
Best,
Paula
Paula Henry
September 21, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Ruthmarie – I found the attached link today while looking for homes in Indianapolis and wanted to share it with you. It proves the fact that indexed IDX is not the sole reason agents can not rank for their own listings. This is just one example and there are many more. The link also proves my stance that these aggregators care little about accurate data; they only want to own the space for every address out there. Let me restate – they do care, because once they have the data, they won’t have empty address pages like this one.
https://www.trulia.com/property-sitemap/IN/Plainfield/46168/Amberleigh_Drive/
The only reason they can rank for these addresses is because we have given them the ability to do so by providing back links and authority. You and I could never get this many pages to rank or index, because we do not have the page rank authority.
If we take away their back links (widgets), they will lose authority.
Drew Meyers - YouReach Media
September 20, 2010 at 5:07 am
“Do you think these sites care about the accuracy of the data? They want the data, so they can be the source of the information, and then charge more to advertise there. And now, we want to give them accurate data, so they can do with it what they will. Be sure to read their terms of service.”
This is a myth. People always (and still do) used to think Zillow didn’t care about data accuracy. On the contrary – while I was there, we spent an immense immense amount of time cleaning up data and improving accuracy. The bottom line is that none of these portal sites would have a business without consumers. And consumers want accurate data or else they will go elsewhere.
Bob Wilson
September 20, 2010 at 1:38 pm
That is true to a point, but Zillow and Trulia were both willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. They could have had better quality data from the start if they had been more particular about how they got it.
Zillow has been far better at quality control from the beginning than Trulia though. Trulia started by scraping IDX feeds, then they comingled the foreclosure data that wasnt close to accurate, as it represented distressed property to actually be on the market, which isnt always the case.
Paula Henry
September 20, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Drew – I just had someone call me last week; an investor who thought he was getting a great deal, based on Zillow’s valuation of a property he was interested in. Had he bought that particular home at the price it was offered (private sale), he would have been upside down by over 50%. He said, you mean the Zillow data is wrong! I smiled!
Even when some of the data is wrong, it’s inaccurate. Zestimates in my area are way off.
The bottom line is, none of these portal sites would have business if agents and boards didn’t give their data away. I believe that *elsewhere* should be a local site, where the data is the most accurate and updated.
We can both agree, consumers deserve the most accurate data they can get.
Drew Meyers - YouReach Media
September 21, 2010 at 7:39 am
“The bottom line is, none of these portal sites would have business if agents and boards didn’t give their data away.”
Did you know Zillow had 4 million uniques a month before there was ever a single listing on the site?
Paula Henry
September 21, 2010 at 7:51 am
Based on inaccurate Zestimates? I lived in Arizona at the time and remember having to tell clients their home was not worth what Zillow claimed or in some cases, it was worth more. Still happens today!
Property Marbella
September 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
Hi Paula,
Sorry to say it, but many – many local real estates web sites is so bad, no SEO at all. Of course they can’t get any good position in the SERP.
A local site must have for every properties they have on site a strong H1 title with all important information ex; area, urbanization, street, type, (apartment, villa, house, ect) and also in the description of the property have SEO ex; repeat the Title keywords 3 time each. Work with this 2 small rules and you going to be number 1 very soon in the SERP.
Jacksonville Real Estate - Brad Officer
September 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I’ve never really heard of an agent getting anything from all those featured agent deals…..and trust me, I’ve asked. I’ve never even had a leads for sale company prove the ROI. So I ask, does it really matter if they scrape our data or get a direct feed of the data?
If there are agents out there willing to purchase the featured agent spot or pay for leads, as independent competitive business people do we really care? Won’t those agents just go out of business faster, making more room for us?
At the end of the day, sellers need someone to sell their home and more often than not, buyers need help buying.
By the way, my site: bradofficer.com , is plain and simple, but man does it get the job done!
Paula Henry
September 20, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Thanks! I agree many real estate websites rank poorly in the SEO department or are coded poorly; many are all about *me*, when all the visitor wants is to look at homes. If they find what they are looking for initially, then they may care about you.
Agents, brokers and boards need to step-up their game and give the consumer what they want.
Paula Henry
September 20, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Brad – (Ooops, that was for Marbella 🙂 If no one cares, then they can’t be surprised when the aggregators are the only sites visible to the consumer. While everyone goes out of business, someone will get more business, it just may not be the ones who provided the data originally.
I’m not here to judge anyone’s website, I’m glad yours works for you!
Missy Caulk
September 21, 2010 at 7:42 am
Paula, in reference to your comment and Drew’s comment on Board’s not sending the data to R.com, and they could.
Of course they “could.”
But, they “won’t”.
Most of the folks sitting around that Board of Directors table, have no clue. I have brought this up from time to time during my 6 year tenure. They roll their eyes. Heck we even sold our IDX feed to AnnArbor dot com when they went from print to internet for 1500.00.
They made that back x’s ten on one Sunday ad, our data, sold to us. I argued until I was blue in the face, then they brought the big guys in, I argued more. I told them they were only going to do the Realtor dot com thing, they didn’t listen. They voted, I lost. Or shall we say…the listing agents lost.
Heck they wanted to sell us a place to put our RSS feed, are you kidding me????
Their attitude was they have the data anyway. Until that mindset is gone we are not going to see anything happen. So I blog away and somehow manage to be on Page 1 of Google for all my keywords I want to be, except condo’s.
The business arrangement with Move was flawed from the beginning and it appears to only going to get worse. Now in saying that about the business model, let me address the data.
I get calls, emails from both Zillow and Trulia from consumers weekly. Many times if not most it is on houses, already sold, expired, withdrawn where the feed they were pulling from was not updated by the listing agent.
So IF it is going to be done, then I would rather the data be accurate for the consumer.
Just last night we had a buyer send us 5 homes, all were gone except one that had a contract on it.
Paula Henry
September 21, 2010 at 8:18 am
Missy – I fight this battle, as well; homes no longer active – I’ve even had requests for homes I could not find as ever being active; don’t know where they came from.
I do want the consumer to have accurate data and if some agent paying Zillow or Trulia to be the “featured” agent, brings the buyer, I really don’t care. I just believe our boards and brokers could do the same thing without giving away the data. I can only guess someone is making a ton of money from the data we provide; someone besides us.
I would gladly pay more in board dues to see my board create a dynamic site that rivals R.com, Trulia and Zillow, with the leads going back to the brokers or agents.
Here’s what I see for our boards and NAR. If they continue to give away the data and feed sites like these, many will let go of the REALTOR badge and forego the dues. Why would I pay board dues when I can have a presence on many sites as a preferred agent, create my own listings there and not be bound by the rules and regulations of an association who does not seem to care about their dues paying members. I’ve actually talked with a few independent brokers who have already done this.
Here, the local newspaper was charging agents $40.00 a month to have their listings on their site. They reduced it to $10.00, so they could get more agents providing the data. At first, I thought it would be good publicity for my clients, but now, they are ranking right up there with the other aggregators. With or without my 10 listings, they will continue to rank; all these sites will, until our boards and NAR decide we are worth more than our data.
Paula Henry
September 21, 2010 at 11:29 am
**UPDATE **
Much quicker than anyone anticipated; well maybe not. I’m certain it was in the works.
MOVE.com has acquired Listing HUB, in an effort to streamline the syndication process for brokers, agents and MLS’s.
https://news.move.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=192403&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1473218&highlight
Fred Romano
September 21, 2010 at 2:47 pm
WOW! This is BIGGGGG NEWS.
Teresa Boardman
September 22, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Nice article Paula. You won’t find any of those widgets on my sites and I don’t see a need to have my listings on some of these sites but am forced to. Our listings are like currency and they mark a ton of money for third party sites who will in turn charge us to be featured so we can display our own listings with more photos. I wish everyone would just say no to third party sites.
Paula Henry
September 23, 2010 at 6:27 am
Thanks Teresa! No widgets for me either! We have been sold a bill of goods, with everyone telling us how wonderful these sites are and then we discover how much they want to charge us to be featured. Once they get a data feed, their costs will probably go up.
A couple of years ago, I actually signed up as for TruliaPro for a year, didn’t see anything from that. I also did the Showcase Listing for a while when I was in AZ; nothing from that either. They did not add value for me.
Until everyone says no to widgets and third party aggregators, we will continue to see our listings make money for everyone else. Everyone except us and our clients.
Leslie Ebersole
September 26, 2010 at 12:50 am
Thanks for your comment on my AR posts. Quite a comment stream here. I can see when you got the ListHub announcment, I saw it about 10:30 Thurs pm and put out the first post by 12:30. the second post came from reading back through the Move analyst calls and NAR/RPR releases over the past week, which is fascinating. Murky, but fascinating,