Definition

Mashup -- a web site or application that combines content from more than one source into an integrated web presentation.

Question:

Imagine that on my web site, through an IDX or VOW Feed, I display your listing and, on the same web site (and the same "page) I have a Zillow Zestimate with a value of your listing, substantially lower than the listed price. Got the picture?

Should you, as the listing broker, be allowed to "opt out" and not allow me to display your listing on my web site in this manner?

Should you, as the listing broker, be allowed to "opt out" and not allow me to display your listing on my web site in this manner, and continue to allow other brokers who are members of our MLS the right to display my listing on their web site (selective opt out)?

Could it be viewed as a disservice to the seller for you to allow their home to be displayed on the same web site that indicates a value of the listing less than the listing price?

There is a home listed for sale today that carries a listing price of $7,499,000 on a web site (shown below) and on the same web site (and the same web "page"), is a Zestimate of the home showing a value of about $4,597,332, almost $3 million less than the listed price. Screen shots of both are shown below. This demonstrates the potential of marketing mishaps that can be controlled at the broker level. Note: The brokerage that is running the ad is NOT the listing brokerage.

In this case, is it legitimate for the listing broker to ask that the listing be excluded from the feed to the broker displaying the listing with an indicator that the value is less than the listed price?

This is an actual situation and is an example of a mash-up, a website or application that combines content from more than one source into an integrated web presentation. As we move into the future, there will undoubtedly be other reasons that warrant the right of a broker to "opt out," and in some cases, selectively "opt out."

If a broker opt out can be shown to violate anti trust laws, the U.S. Dept. of Justice should of course pursue the offending broker ... but for the DOJ to attempt to prohibit the right of a broker to opt out is pure nonsense.

This example is not an indictment of Zillow as I believe Zillow's data will improve over time, but it illustrates how technology can present us with new challenges where hard and fast rules by the government do not serve the consumer or the practitioner. The government should be spending our tax dollars on more important issues, and not litigating with the National Assn. of REALTORS®.

(Saul Klein is CEO of Real Estate Electronic Publishing Company, home of RealTown.)

Comments

RE: Saul Klein Speaks Out on 'Opting Out and Mashups'

Comment by: Anonymous

- Feb 27, 2007 12:15:25 PM

Regarding Saul's mash-up hypothetical:

Saul, does your hypothetical contemplate that the Zestimate would appear on the same page as the listing or that it would appear elsewhere on the displaying broker's web site? What about other kinds of content? For example, some folks have discussed permitting consumers visiting a site to comment on a listing on the site.

Is the solution to the problem you identified a listing by listing listing broker opt-out? In other words, should a listing broker get to decide not just which other brokers' sites her listing shows up on, but to decide which of her listings show up on which other brokers' web sites? For example, Listing broker A might say listing A1 goes to Brokers B, D, and M; listing A2 goes to Brokers A, B, and D; listing A3 goes to all Brokers; etc.

Such an environment raises at least two concerns: It might create an impression of listing broker self-serving -- you can say nice things about my listings, but if you say bad things, I'll stop letting you have them. It creates an enforcement morass:

How are we going track all these permissions and whether they are being complied with?

Interested in your comments.

RE: Saul Klein Speaks Out on 'Opting Out and Mashups'

Comment by: Saul Klein

- Feb 27, 2007 12:17:40 PM

First, the situation I mentioned is not a hypothetical ... it has actually occurred.

Second, yes, the listed price and the Zestimate appear on the same page. Why not let brokers decide where their listings should appear on the Internet and with whom they want to be marketing partners? Why not let brokers make the decisions themselves to opt in or out? As for policing and enforcement, that is an issue between DOJ and listing brokers. Let the DOJ chase and prosecute those who they believe are violating the law. Our job is not to make policing and enforcement easy for the government by restricting the rights of many for the few who may illegally use the opt out provision. When schooled in antitrust, most brokers and agents do the right thing ... not all, but my experience is that they often over react to antitrust concerns, erring on the side of caution.

As for consumer ratings on sites, might dishonest buyer prospects get their friends (or created identities by themselves) to negatively rate a house to give a buyer negotiating leverage or to scare off other buyers? Should a seller have the right not to have his or her listing appear on such a site? Who does it protect to require that brokers and their sellers let all member of the MLS display the listings, regardless of their web site practices?

So, imo, opting out should be a business decision of a broker and their principal, and not mandated by the DOJ, because all the reasons a seller or broker may want to opt out have not been invented yet ...s o why try to regulate and enforce on a "universal level" based on our understanding of the www and real estate as they function today?

It seems like misplaced government energy and resources to me. Let the market take care of this.

To avoid the problems created by those who break the law and drive faster than the speed limit, let's make driving illegal.

There, took care of that issue...next?

Saul

RE: Saul Klein Speaks Out on 'Opting Out and Mashups'

Comment by: Jeff Launiere, P.A., e-PRO

- Feb 28, 2007 3:35:16 AM

Information is only knowledge if the information is accurate. I had a listing where when I checked it on one of the value estimate websites the value given was $100,000 under what my CMA showed. The problem was the comps the site gave were from another suddivision than the one the listing was in. This it appeared was because the other subdivision backed up to the one the home was in. Their system apparently looked at distance rather than the same subdivision even though there were plenty of comps in the subdivision. Unfortunately, the subdivision it compared against was a much lower priced subdivision. If it became the norm for buyers to look at these so called estimate of values, they may lose the homes in this subdiivision because they would offer way too low. On the other hand they may make too large of an offer at the subdivision next to this one. This could also be a disservice to our sellers. I may know that the estimates are from the wrong subdivision, the buyer may not.

Unfortunately,

RE: Saul Klein Speaks Out on 'Opting Out and Mashups'

Comment by: Mike Knox

- Feb 28, 2007 9:36:20 AM

I totally agree with you Saul. For the DOJ to jump into a situation where multitudes of various situations have not occured yet, is ludicrous. The broker has to be responsible for the use or misuse of his/her listings; therefore, must enforce by opting out. Another example of government beauracrocy and interference which is not called for. Maybe, some offenders are shaking the DOJ tree to promote their own interests in the market place. I also feel that a generic service such as Zwillow is not nearly as competent as a good Realtor doing his own research and coming up with a better picture of a properties worth by looking at all factors that Zwillow can't possibly consider. It seems that many of us are always looking for the easy way out.

RE: Saul Klein Speaks Out on 'Opting Out and Mashups'

Comment by: Paul Silver

- Feb 28, 2007 9:47:10 AM

Enforcement is not only a concern for the DOJ. In this scenario, the broker with the listing would have to search for all sites that show the listing, then select which he wants to allow to display the listing... then ensure that the display is halted in the event he wants NOT to display the listing on a particular site.

Also, there is an apparent conflict between the Board that owns the listing database and that provides that database to other sites, and the broker who "owns" the listing. If the board is paid to allow the display of all listings, and the site displaying the listing is paying, then either the board has to enforce the NO LIST choice by the broker with the listing, or the broker has to request the site with the NO Display listing to take that listing down... who is actually responsible for the NO List site having the data.

I think there is more to this than what has been said, and the rule of unintended consequences has some reasonable play here as well. Regardless, implementation and enforcement of this sort of thing is far more involved than it sounds.