RealTown's RealTalk

"You asked how it can be stopped. Easy. All the members have to do is cut their listing off from Realtor.com and have their local board/MLS put up a web site for the public. The solution could be fast, and would be far less expensive than what you all are currently paying Realtor.com per year. By the way, anytime something gets larger, the individuals involved loose more and more control. It does not matter if it is state wide or national. If it were I, I would be totally against a state wide MLS. It serves the best interest of just a very small percentage of the members and the majority end up loosing control. What will keep the Cal. statewide directors from eventually doing the same thing that NAR did, and turn the keys to the store over to another Move.Com?"
Tom Hathaway

Tom,

I think this is a great idea, with the problem being the unification of members.  Here in So Cal we have an 80% REO rate, so the listing agents love the fact that their bank owned properties are being listed on Realtor.com and other IDX type of websites.  How would you propose we even begin a movement to have the board cut their listings from Realtor.com?  And even if such a rule was put in place, what's to stop someone else from starting a similar website?  Please don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this but just don't see how it can be accomplished.


"MLS.com really isn't a portal to every state mls. Click on the various states. It appears to be owned by Homegain or the owners of Homegain, and clicking through various areas will either take you to what I'd expect to be a Homegain subscriber's IDX/VOW site, or to Homegain itself for inquiries to be sold to their subscribers.

Wasn't it THOUGHTFUL of NAR to PROTECT THE CONSUMER against any misrepresentation of MLS by DISALLOWING Realtors from using MLS in their domains?????

From Inman (November, 2007): http://www.inman.com/news/2007/11/1/nar-approves-voluntary-restrictions-use-mls-term
"The National Association of Realtors board of directors on Friday approved a provision that allows Realtor-affiliated multiple listing services to ban members' use of the terms "MLS" and "Multiple Listing Service" in Web site addresses, company names, e-mail addresses and in other marketing materials."

With this kind of support from our own trade organization, what is it EXACTLY we're paying our dues for?????? Those fine folks at HomeGain must be laughing all the way to the bank!!!!
JudiB


JudiB,

I agree with you that MLS.com is not truly a portal to every state MLS.  It's more like a portal to another agent with IDX, or as you said someone like Homegain.  Please forgive my statement if it was misleading.  

I am simply outraged at how the dot com era has open the floodgate for greed and non Realtors to capitalize on our industry. 


Kindest Regards,
 Troy Sage  
“Covering All Angles”
 
33449 Temecula Parkway
Temecula, CA 92592
DIRECT: (951) 834-2840
FAX: (951) 344-8210
EMAIL: teamsage@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.troysage.com
 

FSBO on Realtor.com

Wow, it's Monday morning and I've got to make calls and set appointments to sell real estate-anything positive.  I'm moving forward while trying to deal with this unsettling news.  If this is true, I'm disappointed in NAR.

Competition is necessary, but not at the expense of downgrading our profession.  The comments by Doug Healy of ForSaleByOwner.com about sellers avoiding the expensive fee of an agent commission and sellers saving an average of $13,000 certainly hurts real estate agents.  If sellers who have no agent affiliation are able to advertise their properties on Realtor.com, where's our professional distinction? (It is called Realtor.com, right?)

As a real estate professional for more than 25 years, I am constantly looking at different ways to make a profit.  A seller does the same thing.  We need to prove the value of our services.  Sellers need to sell, and we need to earn a commission. 

Thanks for the "heads-up".

Helen Hughes, Coldwell Banker Burnet, Edina MN hhughes@cbburnet.com

Direct 952-924-6226

Troy,
It seems to me it would be simple. Members of the board owned MLS would vote to either promote their listings locally or not. Since the cost would be a fraction of what they are currently paying I am fairly certain that if explained correctly, the vast majority would vote to restrict their local MLS from releasing the information in the local MLS to any other source. Then the information that would be included on the Board MLS to the general public would be limited so that all inquiries would have to be made either to the listing agent or another member of the local MLS. Any one who might be tempted to sell, or provide the information to a third party vendor would face a very large fine and expulsion from the MLS.

As I have said for years, serious buyers and sellers are going to go to the best source of the information, if it is available. In our case here in Memphis it would be to the Memphis Area Association of Realtors MLS. Just think, the consumer would not have to wade thorough all the banner ads, and junk that they now have to go through to get to the meat they want.

Essentially, we would be going back to having a MLS book, but it would be electronic instead of printed, and instead of making it against the rules to let consumers look through the book on their own, we would allow them to look at the electronic version.

Tom Hathaway