Matt Cohen from Clareity Consulting has produced a white paper “to generate discussion on possible MLS system future features by providing a big picture view of the changing relationship of real estate professionals with each other and with consumers, the changing relationship of local and regional MLSs with each other, and to illustrate, at least at a high level, how these changes may be either enabled or reflected technically in the MLS system of the future.”

Of course, this is right up our alley here at the FBS Blog, so I’m psyched I finally feel like I have something of substance to write about again.  I’m going to focus on a couple of the ideas floated by Matt, because I think they are related and pose some of the most interesting possibilities.  (I’m definitely stretching the ideas Matt proposed to my own needs, so don’t blame him for my crazy ideas. )

Widgets-Broker Tools-RETS

Three of the ideas Matt has put forward are widgets, broker tools and expanding use of RETS.  I’m going to put my own spin on these ideas and try to relate them together as my contribution to the discussion.

I love the idea of MLS widgets and Matt’s are great examples.  What I most like about widgets is that they often rely upon APIs (application programming interfaces) that allow for other developers to modify the tools or even create their own.  For example, at the core of many widgets is the use of some sort of syndication (RSS/Atom) feed.  The data is made available through the syndication feed and the widget re-purposes or figures out a clever way to display the data.

This type of creativity relates directly to developing better broker tools.  If brokers (or their developers) had access to easy to use MLS APIs, they could develop all sorts of cool things.   RETS, of course, is an API to the MLS system but it’s not terribly easy to use and is what Robbie Paplin would say is pretty close to the metal.  In other words, RETS provides access to the data and images from the MLS system but pretty much everything else is up to the developer.

What I think is the future are RESTful MLS systems with excellent APIs that allow for all kinds of new ideas and developments by brokers to allow them to differentiate themselves.  Brokers could then develop widgets and all sorts of other cool stuff.  I think this also is the right vision for the NAR’s Gateway/TREC/[new name coming soon].  From Mark Lesswing’s comment on my last post about the Gateway, NAR can’t develop another public-facing search engine outside of Realtor.com, but I don’t think that would prohibit [New Name] from developing an API that would allow brokers to do that.  Then imagine an API that not only does listing searches but also exposes through simple requests all sorts of statistics, graphs, heat maps and what otherwise would be complex data-warehousing type queries.  Bloggers with a bit of coding skills would be in heaven, creating all sorts of market analyses for their customers and the public.

The key to all of this, however, is developing the API with an excellent permission model.  The MLS aggregation is built on cooperation among competitors and the type of creative freedom fostered by a more open API needs to work within that model of cooperation.   However, I’m convinced it can be done and that such tools would re-empower brokers to compete at an even higher level.  I’m also convinced that fostering such competition is the role of the MLS and that cooperation is a necessary part of that competition.

I’ve never written a post like this before, and it’s definitely not your typical “we’re hiring” post because one of the positions we’re looking to fill is on our Board of Directors.  See, you don’t often see that on a web site or blog, do you?

Currently, our Board of Directors consists of me, my dad (FBS’s founder) and Patty Wolter, a vice president at FBS.  I would like to completely reinvent our Board to make it stronger and more active.  Ideally from my perspective, we’d end up with five directors with at least two coming from outside FBS.  Finding a good outside director, however, has proven very challenging.  I’ve been looking for about two years and just haven’t found the right mix.  We want someone who has at least some familiarity with the MLS or real estate sales industry, but most of the people we know like that are our clients and so there are some potential conflicts in trying to bring one of them on board.  We also want someone willing to challenge us and our strategic plans, hopefully honing them further.  We’re definitely not looking for someone to just go with the flow.

One of the interesting things I’ve mentioned here before is that FBS is 100% owned by our employees through our Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).  This creates an even greater need for outside directors and a strong Board.  Currently, I am the ESOP Trustee (and so vote all the shares), Chairman of the Board and the President.  That’s too many hats.  Even simple things like my compensation become complicated in this environment.  So, we’re looking to strengthen the Board and provide us some strong leadership.   Know anyone who might be interested?

We’re also looking for a code installation and testing expert.  Code management and installation is being handled now by Greg Kilwein, our Chief Software Architect, but it’s become too big of a part of his duties and so we want to create a separate position for this.  We also expect this position to provide code reviews and testing.  We currently use Surround SCM from Seapine for code management but experience with CVS or other code management systems is fine, too.  Working knowledge of Javascript and general web technologies is important, and being an expert is even better.

Lastly, we’re considering hiring some product managers.  To date, Greg and I have been driving much of the development and specification process but we now have too many developers to make that efficient and I’m turning into the Pointy Haired Boss, which doesn’t make me happy.  So, we’re considering hiring some people for me to bug with all the new features I hear our customers asking for and they can then translate those dreamy visions into nice specs for the developers (or tell me in a kind or not-so-kind way that my visions are too dreamy).  I say “considering” regarding this position, because we haven’t committed to hiring someone 100% but I’m pretty confident that if the ideal candidate came forward, we’d pull the trigger.

If you or anyone you know might be interested in any of these positions, let me know at mwurzer at gmail dot com.

Next week is the NAR Mid-Year meetings in D.C.  The FBS crew will be there and would love to meet up.  We’re having a reception from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday at the Omni in the Embassy Room, East Conference Center.  Stop by for some refreshments!  Also, if you’d like to meet privately, let me know and we’ll set up a time at our suite at the Omni or we can schedule something at the trade show booth as well.

There’s a lot to talk about: new flexmls Web releases,  the FBS Summit coming up in June, public facing MLS web sites, RETS, syndication, and so much more.  I’m really looking forward to the meetings and hope to have some posts here at the FBS Blog ahead of that time.

Each morning I’m in town, I stop at my mom’s for coffee an hour before work.  Mostly we chit-chat and usually have the Today show on in the background.  Many times during our chats some question or other will come up to which we don’t know the answer and so I’ll take out my Treo and Google for the answer.  This morning, Matt Lauer posed his annual question about where in the world he’ll be next with a riddle:  An anagram of a synonym of a homophone of an even prime number.  My mom quickly said, “see if that thing knows the answer.”  I was skeptical but to indulge her curiousity I queried for “prime number homophone” and the first two results in the response were pages from Yahoo! Answers, with exactly what we wanted to know: Laos, is where in the world Matt Lauer will be next.

We both were amazed by this: Within an hour of Mr. Lauer posing the riddle from Amsterdam,  someone from who knows where typed the riddle into Yahoo!, someone (many, actually) else answered the question, and Google indexed the result, allowing me to find it a mere minutes later on my phone from my mother’s living room in Fargo, ND.  Wisdom of crowds, web 2.0, or whatever else you want it call it, that’s incredibly cool.

Go read this to glimpse why the web is changing us.

Glenn Roberts of Inman News has a great article about MLS policy on short sales today that I expect many of our clients will find useful or at least interesting.

—-

On a completely separate note, posting has been light here at the FBS Blog lately, mostly because nothing has been piquing my interest.  I’ve been busy, too, of course, but that usually helps me post more, not less.  Anyway, I suspect posting frequency will pick up again soon.  In the meantime, read the excellent Inman article and let me know if you have any comments.

Last week at the RETS trimester meeting, a draft of a syndication data format was approved by the general session.  A brief history:

• On January 2, I wrote an open letter encouraging data standards in syndication.
• Several companies were already working on this issue and agreed to meet with me at Inman in New York.
• Following this meeting, the Real Estate Standards Organization (RESO) created a Syndication Workgroup, which quickly drew participation from all the key players.
• The Workgroup, being led by Paul Stusiak from Falcon Technologies, met many times in person over the last two months hammering out the fields to be included in the draft.  (Thanks to Yahoo!, MLSListings, and others who contributed office space for the meetings.)
• The hard work of this Workgroup was approved by the RESO general session last week.

There remains some work to do with the specification, including ensuring that the spec is consistent with the full RESO Schema.  Also, the specification currently is expressed in XML/schema and the workgroup also may flatten it out and express it in a comma-delimited or other format more easily read by non-specialists.   There also need to be some tweaks to allow for hit tracking from the various syndication destinations.  Nonetheless, the concensus was to have some companies move forward with using the specification to better determine where improvements need to be made, with the expectation that the specification will be finalized at the August trimester meeting of the RESO in Chicago.

Personally, I’m very pleased with this result and thankful to all those who’ve worked hard on the specification.   The workgroup met nearly every week in person for the last month or so to get it done, and, knowing how hard travel is these days, that’s a great commitment.  Having a standard for syndication is going to be a great improvement in efficiency for distribution of listings to advertising sites and this is a major step forward in the realization of such a standard.

Once the data standard is finalized, my expectation is that a transport/update standard also will evolve to ensure that there is a standard method for ensuring that the standard data is kept up to date easily on all sites.

Arizona Regional MLS has set up a new blog called NewARMLS.com.  Though one of the key topics on the blog is the conversion to the flexmls Web system, Bob Bemis, ARMLS’s CEO, appears to be looking to use this platform for a long time to come to engage members on a wide variety of issues as evidenced by recent posts on short sales and inappropriate words in remarks or directions.

I think this use of a blog by an MLS is a great way to engage members and provide news updates both by e-mail and feed readers.  Of course, blogging also offers a way for members to provide feedback to the MLS. For anyone reading this who has influence over the agenda at CMLS or the Clareity MLS Workshop, you might want to consider putting together a “how to” session for MLSs to get started with blogging, because I think this is going to prove to be a great resource for MLSs who embrace it.

P.S.  I think this also is likely to make the agenda for our FBS Summit, at least in one of the tracks for those MLSs interested in learning about blogging to improve their membership communications.

Paul Chaney has a great post today about quality over quantity in blogging.  The best part, I think, is the end, where Paul says, “Plus, there’s good old RSS.”  The idea that you need to keep posting all the time to keep people “coming back” seems silly these days.  Give them a way to know when there’s something new, and they’ll come back when you’re ready.  Post a bunch of crap and they won’t.

The Gateway/TREC/TBD discussions are heating up again, sort of.  Re-visiting the topic seems timely with the latest iteration of the NAR PAG report recently “released” and the trimester RETS meetings in Philadelphia next week.

My take is this: The NAR may well have the cart before the horse.  So far, the NAR’s PAG seems to have focused on defining a “system” for aggregation but the TREC documents avoid the fundamental question of the terms of use on which brokers and MLSs will agree to share data.  Here’s a quote from the document:

Existing MLSs are encouraged, but not required to, participate in TREC.

Those MLSs that participate agree that the information they provide will be available to all REALTORS® and MLS participants and subscribers.

Then, further down, the document says:

Using TREC will not require REALTORS, MLS participants or subscribers, or MLSs to relinquish any of their intellectual property rights.

These two statements seem inconsistent, because an MLS or broker submitting data to TREC will be required to license that data to all other TREC subscribers and such a license is a transfer of intellectual property rights.  This apparent conflict is just one of many key questions, however, regarding the terms of use for the data submitted to TREC.

The document also stresses that the data will not be publicly accessible.  Yet, at the same time, the “Statement of Inevitability” at the beginning of the document lists the proliferation of “[c]onsumer-focused real estate websites” as one of the reasons TREC is necessary — to keep Realtors “at the center of the real estate transaction.”  At this level, not only does the concept feel like the cart before the horse but also like trying to put the horse back in the barn, just as they’ve started to run free. 

This brings us back to the core issue: What are the terms of use on which brokers and MLSs will allow others to use their data?  TREC tries answering this question only in the most narrow terms (broker/agent to broker/agent, in private, behind a walled garden) but the web insists on asking a much bigger question involving not just brokers and agents but consumers and third-party aggregators and so many others.  As the links above show, brokers are already answering these questions for themselves by sending listing data here and there but not yet everywhere, which creates the very real likelihood that TREC will be too late to the party.

Of course, NAR is hamstrung in fostering the necessary dialog about usage of listing data on the web by the DOJ litigation.  Also, in spite of the insistence that it isn’t any such thing, TREC very well may be the first gingerly step in the direction of addressing the question of how listing data should be used on the web.  Rather than being the cart before the horse, an actual implementation of a national aggregation may be exactly what is needed — and all NAR can do for now — to incubate the discussion.  For this, I applaud the work of the PAG. 

Like the NAR PAG, I believe this is a defining moment for real estate data on the web and I encourage the NAR to consider how it can re-visit the big issue of sharing listing data on the web.  That’s what the consumers want, not having to go through an agent to access the data.  For example, one of the best uses of TREC data would be for an agent or broker to create a publicly accessible web site to engage their customers.  Yet, that seems off the table.  I’m pretty certain the NAR PAG would have loved to create a more sweeping plan involving both public and private access, but felt it wasn’t possible.  The result is the proposal focuses on implementing a closed system instead of creating a foundation on which others can build systems. 

What I think would be useful is for NAR to foster a discussion among brokers, agents and MLSs regarding the Open Web and what that means for real estate.  This same discussion is occurring right now with regard to the web as a whole, and Brad Neuberg recently suggested: “If we take the long term view, how can we give the web an open enough infrastructure to evolve over time and meet each generations needs, while maintaining its structure enough to actually mean something and stay true to its promise, similar to the U.S. Constitution?”  He emphasizes that this isn’t so much about specific technology but rather the general philosophy: “if we define the Open Web in terms of [specific] technologies, then we risk losing sight of what makes the web special and being able to have the intellectual nimbleness to evolve the infrastructure of the web. . . .  We will be fighting yesterdays battle while allowing new, proprietary technologies to take over if we focus on technologies rather than philosophy.”

This is where I think NAR can provide leadership, by fostering discussions around how aggregated real estate data can be made most valuable in an ever changing world.  IDX has been and remains one of the best tools available to agents and brokers for engage with customers on the web today.  Is it time to revisit the IDX policies of old?  Are the same questions and controversies that arose over VOWs in the DOJ litigation still a concern?  Or is it now possible to redefine IDX in a way to make it even more useful?  These questions are left unanswered by TREC, for good reason no doubt, but I think they remain the core questions.

We’ve been hearing from several clients recently about challenges communicating with members.  Most are using e-mail but the problems with spam, filters, spam filters, and the delete key are making e-mail less and less effective.   Inside many MLS systems, there is a dashboard that allows the MLS to display messages, but that’s not reliable either — most just blow right by the message board.  So, I’m writing this post to the agents out there — what would be the best way for the MLS to communicate with you?

FBS recently implemented the ability for agents to leave messages for each other listings and we’ll soon be offering notification options, where each member will be able to specify e-mail, Atom/RSS, and hopefully SMS for different message types.  Could such an internal messaging system work for MLS communications?   Another MLS has come up with the idea of having users enter a separate e-mail addres just for MLS communication, which won’t be published anywhere else.  Do you think that would work?  What other ideas do you have?

Here’s our new baby.  Though already weighing in at hundreds of pounds, we’re excited to watch it get even bigger!

Dustin and The Notorious R.O.B. are discussing the pros and cons of on-line comments about specific listings.  This is a good extension of my posts from a week or so ago about how consumers choose agents.  The basic question I was asking in those posts (how do consumers choose agents today?) is the question I think is most important here: How do consumers discuss listings today?

The question being addressed by Rob Hahn (The Notorious R.O.B.) in MLS, Cluetrain, and Social Web — One Step At A Time, Gingerly is a little different, namely how should an MLS allow public comments about listings.  Rob gives good advice when he says “take one step at a time, very gingerly.”  This is good advice because I think the question being anwered (Rob didn’t pose the question he’s answering it) is wrong or at least premature.  As stated above, I think the better question is, how do conversations about listings occur today?

I suggest this question because I see the first gingerly step as modeling on-line conversations about listings the same way such conversations occur off-line today.  The Cluetrain makes the points that “markets are conversations” and the Internet enables new types of conversations, but also critical to the Cluetrain ethos is that the conversations need to be authentic.  I take this to mean, cut the sales talk, and tell me the truth!  Because many corporations and sales people are really bad at being authentic, much of the Cluetrain talks about how the Internet is allowing people to learn the truth by having conversations around and outside of the standard communication channels.  No longer is the slick sales person the only way you’re going to get information about your next purchase.  Now you can Google whatever you want and learn more about the product than the sales person likely knows. You can engage with other consumers who’ve purchased that same product and you can hear their experiences, good or bad, and get informed by them directly.

Importantly, however, the value of recommendations from others about generic products is far different than recommendations about a home.  First, the most obvious difference is that there are not many people who have experience with any particular home.  Often, a home has been owned by only a few families.  The most authentic conversations could be those with the owners, perhaps the previous owners, and the neighbors, but, unlike on-line recommendations for generic products, these aren’t conversations likely to happen off-line and so I question whether these conversations would develop on-line either.

The next tier would be conversations with other buyers who visited the home and wanted to share their opinions regarding the home.  Importantly, I think “visited the home” is key here, because this, again, is a pretty narrow set.  We’re not talking about some unknown person calling himself Bugs Bunny trolling through a web site and looking at pictures of the house and offering their opinion. Again, this is where conversations about homes are different than generic products.  The sphere of authentic knowledge or facts necessarily is far more limited.

Importantly, conversations about the neighborhood and general vicinity are far different than conversations about a particular home.  More people can have experienced the neighborhood and developed authentic and useful opinions than about a particular home.  Again, the Cluetrain is about finding or creating new pathways to the truth and that’s a far different thing than changing the definition of truth to include a bunch of opinions from people who really have no basis for providing an opinion about a particular home.

You may have noticed by now that I’ve been using the term “home” a lot because I think it’s critical to remember that we are talking about someone’s home here.    This is very personal.  Authentic conversations respect that.  I believe this is one of the core values an agent brings to the table for buyers and sellers; they are able to be respectful of the personal attachments each party may have and insulate them from conversations that may be hurtful.  This doesn’t mean hiding the truth from them, but simply being understanding of their very deep and personal feelings about their home — treating them as human beings and not a punching bag, which I think is what the Cluetrain is all about.

I do think there are great opportunities for authentic conversations on-line about particular listings and, as Rob suggests, starting gingerly is best.  Some of these conversations are already occurring on-line through showing systems that allow the agents to share comments with each other and their clients from particular showings.  Expanding on these systems is an obvious way to extend the conversation.  What other ways do you think authentic conversations can be created about specific listings?

who makes the rules.

Id’ hire Mariana, with or without an on-line recommendation.

In Part I, I discussed how (and if) consumers’ search for listings is related to their selection of an agent.   Questions were raised about whether leads from listings are converting to customers, especially from an MLS listing portal like HAR.com or any site that promotes the listing agent, given the challenge of single-agent dual agency and (or any listing agent).  What does the consumer want?  What is their natural decision-making path to selecting an agent?

According to the NAR 2007 Survey of Home Buyers and Sellers, “Forty-one percent of sellers found their agent as a result of a referral, while 23 percent used the agent in a previous home purchase. Similarly, 43 percent of buyers relied on referrals to find an agent, while 17 percent of repeat buyers used an agent from a previous transaction.”  In a year earlier survey, “7 percent [of buyers] found an agent on the Internet.”  These stats would need to have changed dramatically to avoid the conclusion that consumers don’t choose agents based from listing searches or from the Internet at all.   Rather, as then NAR President Pat Coombs said, “Real estate is very much a face-to-face people business”.

At the same time, the web undoubtedly is providing new ways for people to meet each other and the value of a relationship is often being tested by data.  More sites are exposing consumer reviews, pricing, and other data to the consumer to help them make decisions about which agent to choose.  There are sites like HomeGain,  Homethinking, Agent Scoreboard, Agentopolis, and Incredible Agent that provide a variety of agent search capabilities.   Some sites, like HomeGain, provide ways to compare agents on criteria like commission rates, years of experience, and consumer feedback.  Others, like Homethinking, focus on productivity statistics, like homes sold and price ranges.

With little question, sites that provide more information to consumers are a good thing.  Consumers clearly are looking for short-cuts to decide which agent to choose and, as noted above, the current short-cut is the personal referral, born of trust, whether deserved or not.  The efficiency of the personal referral appears hard to beat.  With just a few words, backed by personal trust, your friend or relative is able to communicate a wealth of complex information into a decision.

As web 2.0 companies slice and dice the data, however, I wonder if that efficiency can be matched?  Is there an algorithm that will truly help consumers find the right agent?  The 2006 NAR survey referenced above found “the most important factors in choosing an agent for buyers are honesty and integrity, followed by the agent’s reputation. Other important qualities buyers value in an agent include knowledge of the purchase process and responsiveness. For sellers, the most important factor in choosing an agent is reputation, followed by honesty and trustworthiness.”  Given this, one would think sites providing consumer feedback about their experience with an agent would be very valuable, but does the wisdom of crowds math apply when the number of referrals an agent may get on-line in any given time-period is pretty low?  Will one or more sites gain enough critical mass that this data can be aggregated in a meaningful way?

Perhaps more importantly, is it possible to synthesize this data into a “score” or “rank” in order to provide the consumer with a recommendation?  This is what I’ll refer to as the tyranny of the ordered list.  Whatever the method is for the agent search, the output is an ordered list, with someone coming out an top, just like we see with Google search results.  The search algorithm is designed to bring the “best” match to the top.   Even leaving aside the fact that many of the sites linked above have revenue models that create conflicts of interest to place certain agents near the top of the search results (or at least to the side like Google AdWords), the reality is that matching a specific consumer’s needs to a specific agent’s qualifications remains ridiculously complex.

Are these ranking sites really helping consumers?  They are providing more data but is the data useful?  The power of a ranked list is daunting, because it provides an easy short-cut.  Why look at agent two or three when there is a number one?  Yet is that ranking really anything more than arbitrary given the complex factors involved?  Does the ordered or ranked list cut off due diligence when it really should just begin?

Perhaps the natural path for agent selection on-line is through social networking.  From general sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace to real estate specific sites like Trulia, Zillow, PropertyQube, ActiveRain and many, many others, the opportunities to meet people on-line is growing at a rapid rate.  To this end, however, I think many are seeing panaceas where none exist.  Just the other day, Dustin linked to a post from Curbed about a consumer being freaked out by their agent trying to befriend them on Facebook.

In this regard, the social networking tools Trulia and Zillow have provided surrounding listing content seem like a promising way for agents to build trust among consumers, but that brings us right back to the tyranny of the ordered list.  Jonathon Dalton and Jay Thompson have been posting for some time about the ranking Trulia provides (or provided?) based on the highest number of answers, which resulted in a bunch of agents providing lots of answers of questionable quality in areas they knew little or nothing about.

In the end, modeling the consumer selection of an agent on-line is tricky business at best, and the personal referral is likely to dominate for some time to come, and, in many ways, I think this is a good thing.  I consider, for example, brokers like Jay Thompson who just went independent and is building a great brand on-line through his blog and other sites the cream of the crop as to how an agent can communicate their value proposition to consumers.  That value proposition will be very difficult, if not impossible, to measure or rank, but the web makes it possible for consumers to connect anyway.

I was talking on the phone the other day with Alex Chang from Roost and, through a broad-ranging discussion, we touched on the question of how consumers select an agent.   I’m very interested in honing in on how listing search is relevant to agent selection.  I mentioned that last week when I was at the Clareity MLS Workshop, someone flashed a statistic that said 68% (or something lke that) of agent selections were by referral from someone the consumer knew (parent, sibling, friend, co-worker, etc.).

Upon reflection, that statistic wasn’t too surprising, because that’s how so many decisions are made.  When I moved to Fargo from Minneapolis ten years ago, I selected an agent in Fargo from a referral from my brother.  Think about this: I was coming to work for an MLS software vendor used by all the agents in Fargo, such that I had available to me all the data I could ever want on the productivity of every agent and yet my decision was made based on a referral from my brother.  Why is that?  We’re all looking for short-cuts.  There is so much information available to us today that we need short-cuts, a way to synthesize the data and tell us what to do.  If the 68% statistic is accurate, apparently those we already know and trust are just such a short-cut.

The last few days, I’ve been discussing with Greg Swann, Mike Farmer and others the value of a “seal of approval” as a short-cut for consumers.  Greg’s theory is that we need an Underwriter’s Laboratory for real estate agents.  Brian Boero from 1000Watt Blog agrees and adds the possibility that agent review sites like Homethinking, Agent Scoreboard or Incredible Agents might help fill the gap, too.   The commonality of these endeavors (let’s call them “agent search” or “agent recommendation systems”) is to provide the consumer a short-cut to deciding which agent to choose, as well as providing the agents a path (network) to the consumers.

In many ways, agent recommendation systems are the essence of the web movement, exposing more information to individuals and giving them more control.   The questions I want to pose in this post, however, are two: (1) is agent recommendation related to listing search; and (2) is agent recommendation likely to be ineffective or maybe even too effective.  I’m going to discuss the first question in this post and the second question in a later post.

Let’s go back to the beginning of the post, where it was posited that a large number agent selections are made by recommendation from people we know.  In light of this, listing search would seem to be quite separated from agent search.  If a consumer is looking for listings, have they already found an agent or are they wanting to find listings first and then find the agent?  Perhaps more important, is there a path from listing search to agent selection?  In many ways, the two seem in conflict, because the listing search is going to identify listing agents representing the seller and not the buyer.  (VAR Buzz has been conducting a great discussion on single-agent dual agency, showing the inherent conflicts in that practice.)

This raises a significant question about MLS listing portals that I’ve been pondering a lot lately.  During the Clareity conference last week, I was once again enamored  with Bob Hale’s presentation regarding HAR.com.  Chris McKeever from CRT was there, too, and he posted some details regarding the presentation.   Clearly, HAR.com is driving a lot of traffic back to listing broker sites.  The question I have, however, is what is happening to that traffic?  How does a listing agent convert a buyer inquiry on their listing into a client?  Presuming most are not practicing single-agent dual agency, the most obvious answer would be that they refer the inquiry off to another member of their firm.  Is that what the consumer wants?  I’d love to see more data about how leads from MLS portals convert to customers.

Listing search does seem related to agent search on IDX sites, where the site owner is promoting mostly listings that are not their own.  Yet, the question remains, is a consumer looking for an agent when they are looking for listings?  In other words, are they going to pick an agent from their IDX site?  This question is raised most prominently by Roost’s model of a national portal rotating IDX sites.  When a consumer goes to Roost, they are directed into an IDX portal of a particular broker and inquiries on specific listings are directed to that sponsoring broker’s web site.  So, the question becomes, will the consumer value the tools being provided by that broker enough to select them as their agent?  Rephrased again, will the click-throughs convert to leads and the leads to customers?  That question likely will be answered in the near-term as Roost and other IDX vendors collect data on these metrics, and I look forward to learning more.

Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers about how or whether listing search relates to agent selection.  The path certainly doesn’t seem direct and yet listing content remains the gold everyone seeks.  The question is what is the most natural path for the consumer to take from listings to agent selection, or are the two really distinct?

Tomorrow, I’ll turn to the second topic I raised above, namely whether agent search or recommendation sites are a more natural path for consumers to select an agent.  One tentative title I have for the post is The Tyranny of Ordered Lists.

Greg thinks I’m benighted (”being in a state of moral or intellectual darkness; unenlightened”) and is no longer participating in the discussion, but I think there is more to understand here, if only for myself.  Greg extols the virtues of capitalism over government correctly:

Socialism fails, Fascism fails, Progressivism fails because they are all attempts to supplant the sometimes-imperfect reason of the marketplace — the weighing of incentives and disincentives — with the consistently-perfect irrationality that is brute force.

My point, which Greg calls fear, is that substituting one “seal of approval” for another because the market will eventually correct one but supposedly not the other ignores the very real  and long-term impacts the “sometimes-imperfect” decisions of the market can have on people, especially when companies evolve into market-dominating positions.  The difference between the power of a government and a market-derived monopoly (which have many shades of market power) is not a bright line, despite that one is subject to a vote and the other the market.  Or, at least, the time to correct the sometimes-imperfect decisions of a company with market power can be so long as to make ignoring it (to turn Greg’s artful phrase) “childlike wishful thinking — endearing only in children, and, even then, only for a little while.”

Why wish for companies to be put in the position of judging others?  Merely because one believes a “seal of approval” is needed for the otherwise ignorant consumers who supposedly can’t think or ask questions for themselves?  A corporate “seal of approval” is needed to create a more perfect capitalism?  I disagree.  In fact, a “seal of approval”, wrought by humans and only corrected by markets in the longest of terms, is just as likely to create more disinformation as information.  Instead, I suggest buyers beware.  Think for yourselves, without relying on any imprimaturs for success.  In doing so, you’ll be pursuing and creating the truth of capitalism, which abhors king-makers of any kind and for any term.

Joel Burslem over at FoREM comments today on the news that Prudential is partnering with Trulia by saying:

It seems ironic though, with all these brokers now lining up in different camps to feed their listings to the big consumer search destinations on the Internet, that it’s ultimately the consumer that suffers from these alliances being formed.

If I’m trying to search for a house in Portland, I still have to have to go to multiple destinations (Frontdoor has X, Zillow has Y, Trulia has X & Y but no Z) just to get an accurate picture of the complete inventory available on the market.

I’m starting to think the broker feed model espoused by many RE2.0 search sites (despite their early technological lead on the search experience), may ultimately be a losing proposition . . .

Yeah, I agree and have said so several times over the last year.

I just realized that yesterday was the FBS Blog’s birthday.  230 posts; 1,040 comments;  69 categories; and about 400 subscribers by feed and e-mail.  Though I’ve only been blogging a year, it seems longer, like I’ve always been doing it, and I’m pretty sure that’s a good thing.  I didn’t really have any expectations when I started, but I’m happy with where we’re heading.