Sep. 15, 2005
New Business Model
OK...let's tweak this a little:
A newly licensed broker sets up shop in AnyTown USA. Our new broker has no
listings and no buyers and comes up with an ingenious new business model.
1. He joins his local association of REALTORS and also the MLS so he has
access to the MLS for buyer leads he intends to generate.
2. He buys the Friday newspaper and selects the 250 most attractive
properties offered for sale in the newspaper (listings of other brokers) in
a number of different price ranges.
3. He runs a full page ad in the Sunday Newspaper (and he does this every
Sunday), showcasing 250 properties. He adds and removes listings every
Sunday based on properties advertised in the paper on the Friday preceding
his Sunday Ad.
4. Under each listing in his ad he states that the listing was provided
courtesy of the listing broker, with no contact information for the listing
broker.
5. He puts his web site address in the ad and states:
Search the MLS. All the Listings available to REALTORS in the MLS are
Available at www.AnyBrokerAnyTown.com.
6. In his ad he also states:
Sellers: "Why pay 5% to 6% to sell your home? List with me and I will place
your property in the MLS and on the Internet for $99 Flat Fee."
Buyer: "Buyer Rebates available, up to 1% of the purchase price of the home
goes to the buyer."
His theory is that interested buyers will call him and he can represent them
in a purchase, . He also believes that some people may not realize that he
is not the listing broker of all these properties and it may bring him
listing appointments. In addition, he'll get those home owners interested in
discounted services and he will list their properties for a flat fee of $99
and place the listing in the MLS.
He will also have more leads than he can handle (some are not really leads
but just "interested parties") and he plans to offer some of these extra
leads to brokers and agents he solicits through an e-mail campaign, for a
referral fee.
Comments?
Saul
My Comment is that it is UNETHICAL at least for me. I am one of those who
came into an area went into real estate and opened my own office. Never
would I have used someone else's work to promote myself or my office. I may
be a small fish but my personal code of ethics is at a higher standard than
the REALTORSR code of ethics. The only time I have used any listing other
than my own in a ad was a listing a fellow small fish broker had and I
needed to fill a full page ( I only had 5 homes and wanted to make the ad
symmetrical) I asked her for written permission from her and her client,
and put her company name and phone number under the section for that home
saying "this home is listed with ABC Realty 555-555-5555"
Donna Slemp
"Saul Klein" <Saul@InternetCrusade.com> wrote:
>2. He buys the Friday newspaper and selects the 250 most attractive
>properties offered for sale in the newspaper (listings of other brokers) in
>a number of different price ranges.
>
>3. He runs a full page ad in the Sunday Newspaper (and he does this every
>Sunday), showcasing 250 properties. He adds and removes listings every
>Sunday based on properties advertised in the paper on the Friday preceding
>his Sunday Ad.
Where does he get the right to reproduce the photos for these showcase listings? That's a direct copyright violation.
Does anyone else think that the end result of listing brokers losing the ownership of their MLS data would be that they would stop including anything more than absolutely minimal property info in the MLS? Thus making the broker's web site the place to go for photos, room sizes, features, etc.
Robert Helmbrecht
So what's the point of idx in the first place? It either brings you buyer
leads or it gives listing agents the bragging rights saying they've got the
listings. I've never understood what's in it for dominant broker A to allow
her listings to be seen on little guy broker B's website. What's in it for
broker A?
'Splain...
Ivan Ramos
Saul's note:
Dominant Brokers in a market who participate in IDX do so because they believe it is in their best interest to do so.
Saul
Dominant agent A sells the home, and gets the sales commission.
I say, go for it!
Laniah McMillan
At 04:03 PM 9/12/2005, you wrote:
>So what's the point of idx in the first place? It either brings you buyer
>leads or it gives listing agents the bragging rights saying they've got the
>listings. I've never understood what's in it for dominant broker A to allow
>her listings to be seen on little guy broker B's website. What's in it for
>broker A?
>
>'Splain...
>
>Ivan Ramos
It's called placing your seller clients interest before your
own. Who will argue that the more exposure the seller has the
better deal they can expect.
Thomas A. Early
Saul's note:
Lots of people would argue that point Tom. How does allowing people who do not qualify to buy the property benefit the seller? Might that not cause a security issue?
Do you only serve your client as a buyer broker if you show them every single property that is on the market. The argument about maximum exposure to the world being the only way to serve a seller client is ridiculous and unfounded. (Notice I didn't say you are ridiculous).
Do brokers who do not advertise in all the newspapers in the country fail to serve their clients? Do brokers who are fortunate enough to live in a market with 2 newspapers fail to serve their client if they only advertise in one of those newspapers?
Brokers are hired to market the property, which includes deciding the best places to advertise and how to expose the property. If the broker doesn't do their job, they are replace or sued.
Saul
Can I, as a listing broker, allow another broker the right to advertise my
listings in the local paper, and deny another broker the right to advertise
those same listings in the same newspaper?
Why would I give one permission and not another? Maybe I trust one and not
the other. Maybe I believe one is ethical, and not the other. Forget the
"why" for a moment, just think about the question and give me your answer.
Saul
Yes! Since I am ultimately responsible for all disseminated information,
regarding the property, I should be able to choose whether or not I want to
give permission and to whom, with the owners permission also. Why can't we
have marketing partners?
Kathy Skrzypiec
What's wrong with this picture? Let me count the ways...
it depends on if you mean from a legal point (which varies from state to
state) or the COE or just from an ethical point of view.
Personally, I abhor Brokers who get their business by touting the fact that
they are being ripped off by other Brokers. You see it on web sites
everywhere. . . I've got a lot of canned content on mine, but have been
trying to go through it page by page to make sure it doesn't diss our
Industry.
If you have to talk bad about someone to get business, then you have
violated the COE and every Mother's wisdom in the world: "If you can't say
something nice, don't say anything at all".
You don't hear other professions talking bad about their co-workers, why is
it that agents do it? There should be more ethics here, and that NAR
mandated ethics course apparently had no effect, but if there were
penalties, I'll bet you'd see some changes.
Paula Bean
In the soon to be abandoned IDX model this type of advertising would be
allowed on the Internet although I think that the pitch for business
(especially the part about being "ripped off") is over the top (I am not
sure if it violates the COE but I would not run such an ad). However, I do
not think that this display of other Broker's listings is acceptable for use
in a newspaper: what do you think?
For me, the bigger concern is allowing a Broker to charge a flat fee to
place listings on the MLS. I am not sure how the DOJ would view this but I
think that all MLS-listed properties (if not all Realtor-listed or real
estate-listed) should be subject to some clear standards as far as minimum
delivery of service. To be truly competitive, let's put what we do for our
fees before the public so that they can make an informed "apples to apples"
decision rather than potentially falling into the trap of assuming that we
are all alike and using the difference in commission as the sole
differentiator.
I have no problem with different business delivery/ service models but I
have a big problem with any type of discount being offered where the public
is not CLEARLY made aware of how and why that discount is being offered.
Andrew Wetzel
I actually see this as no different than the agent who sends out a whole
slew of sold properties under their own banner and they were neither a buyer's
or a listing broker for any. Yet it appears to the general public that they
have been very successful in this area.
In Colorado, it is clearly a violation if they don't not include language
that clearly indicates these were not listed, nor sold by the advertising
company. Our IDX also mandates the listing company and contact information be on
the front page of the IDX listing in the MLS. When it is in the paper as
you suggested Saul, there is no agreement from the listing agent allowing him
to advertise other's listings. Unless this new broker doesn't care about his
ethics and fellow agents, he should get permission from each agent and
include language that his company is not the listing company. Since that is not the
way it was advertised, and there was no permission (presummably), IMHO, he
is in violation. At the very least, he has shown his true colors and I would
certainly use that against him sitting in front of my potential clients, "If
he violates other peoples trust, how will you be able to trust him?"
I also think it would be different if he had the listing agents permission,
advertised they were not his listings and then ran the ad as potential Buyer's
Agent for any of these listings. "Call for your free representation..."
But since he is also including the language about selling your home for
discount commissions, he's really cutting off his nose despite his face.
Cheri A. Long
Lenn Harley writes:
>Saul's note:
>DOJ in its lawsuit against NAR is suggesting there be no opt out for
>Internet Display. Isn't that the same thing as advertising another
>broker's listing without the listing broker's permission?
>Saul
I believe that brokers give permission for IDX display when they enter a
listing, unless they have opted out of the system, which few have.
I don't believe that broker (1) would give permission for broker (2) to lift
their newspaper ads and use them to advertise the other, broker (2)
services.
IDX is unique as a database.
Lenn Harley
Homefinders.com
Serving home buyers in Maryland and Virginia
Saul's note:
A couple of clarifying points Lenn...IDX had an Opt In and an Opt Out
Method. MLSs could choose how they set up IDX.
Opt Out was the model where the MLS would assume all brokers granted
permission to all the other brokers and if a broker did not want their
listings displayed on other broker's web sites, the dissenting broker had to
"Opt Out." Those MLSs that began with this method started their IDX with
100% of the listings in the IDX system and IDX has worked well in those
markets with few brokers "Opting Out."
Opt In was the model where the MLS assumed all brokers did not want to grant
permission and if brokers wanted to grant permission, the broker needed to
"Opt In." Those MLSs that began with this method started their IDX with 0%
of the listings in the IDX system and had a hard time getting participation
and IDX has been much less successful in those markets.
Question: If a broker would not give permission for broker (2) to lift their
newspaper ads and use them to advertise the other, broker (2) services, why
would they allow a broker to do it on the Internet?
And that is were we get into the discussion of how listings should be
allowed to be used on the Internet...no different than they would be allowed
in the newspaper maybe?
Saul
May be no sharing of the listings in the news paper and no sharing of the listings on the internet to make it fair. WOW let's go one step further and not allow another broker to use any of our data/listings and go back being like UK estate agents and each office handle its own listings and the public will have to go to each of the hundereds of offices to find the house that is best for them or cruise neighborhoods to find signs and call on each and every sign. Brokers might like it with double dip on every listing and minimal newspaper or magazine ads.
I am not sure this would serve the public in todays fast electronic world. Sure would bring back the neighborhood specialist. May be it would increase FSBO percentage and FSBO web sites would rule. Now who needs a real estate broker when the best exposure is on the FSBO web site? Next we will all go back and live in caves or mud huts and not worry about all this.
Next question!!!
Bob MacCuspie e-PRO
New Business Model - Response, not my proposal just some food for thought on Saul's question.
1. As always "we" (all of us in NAR) have a problem of difining what our services are and what one gets for what we do. In the listing model where the ad says $99 the listing must carry a selling side fee to get sold or the likelyhood of a sale is close to nil unless an EBA with a buyer willing to pay the selling side fee comes along. Just how many buyers are ready to pay the selling side fee? Yes the selling side sales person could negotitate al lower price to reflect the fee, but in this market not a likely outcome. So again we face a situation of comparing apples and oranges.
2. As to the 1% rebate to sellers it is a viable model in a market where the main body of real estate brokers put in 3% to the selling side. We have a rebate half the commission broker here so at 1 1/2 % he is surviving in this hot market based on the main body of brokers and builders feeding him the 3% to selling side opportunities and a hot market. What happens if the feed stream of 3% co-op fees stops? This model becomes obsolete.
3. What if the market divided into two groups of exclusive listing agents (ELS's) and EBA's and each had to charge their own fee either as a % or flat fee? All cooperating fees would be zero and buyers and sellers would pay for what they want and get. May be the "ala carte" model would make a real appearance and rather than negotitate fee one would negotitate what services one needs in a transaction. May be in this new world wide market we are offering more than the marketplace wants. May be the sellers want to hire lawyers when the deals go south to solve the problems we currently solve or better yet prevent from happening.
4. Sure Mr Seller you can have a listing in the MLS for $XX and a multilock for $AAA and a sign for $BBB etc,, but NO agency, NO representation, negotitation for a fee or an hourly rate like other professional services. No more commissions only if we succeed in a sale, we now get paid by the hour or service provided. Does the seller really want a flyer or home brochure at a real $ cost to him/her? No newspaper ads, no magazine ads, just a sign and the MLS via the internet and that's it. No more CMA's let the appraiser do it for $300 or so, or let the seller pick any price they want because as a ELA services provider we are paid up front and if the home sits unsold because of over pricing all the ELA does is offer more paid up front services. Now the EBA's job just got a bit harder in trying to negotitate with a seller direct about getting down to a reasonable selling price.
>From here it looks like with the scene Saul put forth we could see some interesting changes in our industry with or without the DOJ situation. May be we need to consider changing the real estate model as it has been for decades and offer what the public wants, a choice such as the "ala carte," stop feeding the other models the easy life, and let the public find out what the real value of an experienced real estate professional is worth.
Bob MacCuspie e-PRO
If two brokers make an agreement to cooperate and share listing advertising rights then it could be acceptable. On the other hand when "several" brokers make an agreement to share information and exclude the "not up to standards" broker(s) it could be looked at by DOJ as anti competitive action vs the excluded broker(s). To solve this problem we made the MLS operations separate from the board and allowed membership in MLS to anyone who is willing to pay the fee, basically.
Today we have REALTOR.com which is available to everyone to look at and choose the REALTOR(R) of choice or even a non REALTOR(R) broker.
Bob MacCuspie e-PRO
Stefon,
You are being inconsistent. Why wouldn't you advertise another broker's
listings? Is it because the listing doesn't belong to you and because =
the
listing broker has exclusive rights to profit from the fruits of his =
labor
on in obtaining that listing? Advertising on the web is exactly the =
same.
Why should a broker lose his rights to his listings just because he put =
it
on the MLS? The MLS is a means to offer compensation to other brokers =
to
ask for their assistance in selling a property, it's not a release of =
that
listing to all of the MLS members for the advancement of their business.
Can an opt-out provision be used by an entity anti-competitively?
Probably. And that's when the DOJ should step in. Not before. The
listings either belong to the broker or they don't. The DOJ is asking =
the
courts to use the offer of cooperation in the MLS as a blanket mechanism =
to
take ownership away from the listing brokers. That's wrong.
> offered for sale. When you tell your membership that it is OK to
> effectively prohibit firms such as mine from participating in the=20
> marketplace by not allowing us to display MLS listings on our=20
> websites, you=20
> are engaging in anti-competitive behavior which is most=20
> certainly not in the=20
> best interests of the marketplace or the consumer.
Nobody is asking you (or me) not to participate in the market. They're
just saying that you have to find your customers without using their =
hard
work.
What about a company that takes hundreds of listings and does not put =
them
on the MLS at all, but puts them on their own web site? I think we can =
all
agree that it's probably not in the best interest of the consumer, =
right?
And if it is anti-competitive, then someone better tell that 2.5% =
company
with green and purple signs and a huge marketing budget that the DOJ =
might
be coming after them next!
Greg
> -----Original Message-----=0A=
> =0A=
> ". . . I can see how someone with no listings would like to use the =0A=
> listing information to draw buyers for themselves, but why should =0A=
> listing brokers be forced to allow competitors to use the fruit of =0A=
> their business model to enhance a competitors. I say they should not, =0A=
> unless the listing broker consents. License law in all states I know =0A=
> of recognizes the value of listing data and forbids other brokers from =0A=
> advertising the listing of another broker without the listing broker's =0A=
> permission (all the states should be lining up with NAR against the =
DOJ on this)."=0A=
> =0A=
> Saul,=0A=
=0A=
Just a small point here: =0A=
=0A=
Isn't the ida of an MLS to help a listing broker sell their listings =
through the *cooperation* of other brokers? I wonder how many listings =
that are put on MLS are sold by the listing agent? 30%, 20%, 10% or LESS =
perhaps? The bottom line is that by utilizing the *Networking* model of =
the MLS, a broker is asking other brokers to sell their listings for =
them, and as such, the cooperating brokers are in effect in a =
partnership with the listing broker and as such should be able to =
advertise, market and do anything necessary to bring a qualified buyer =
to the listing broker. Let's face it, most listing agents depend on =
other agents from other offices to show and sell their properties. What =
would we do (cooperating agents, EBA's) without the ability to =
*Advertise* MLS listings. =0A=
=0A=
Maybe I should dust off my golf clubs :-)=0A=
=0A=
"Some people are very generous. They are constantly giving away their =
friends".=0A=
If any of your friends need real estate assistance you can give them to =
me with confidence they will receive the highest degree of professional =
service.=0A=
I love referrals,=0A=
Lou Sansevero
Saul suggests:A newly licensed broker sets up shop in AnyTown USA. Our new broker has no listings and no buyers and comes up with an ingenious new business model.
You asked for comments, Saul.
You are obviously drawing an analogy with what goes on in some company websites.
I'll agree that there are some inequities that result, whether the advertising
is in the newspaper (which in the Denver area would be illegal with specific
permission from the listing broker) or on the internet, where there is a blanket permission through IDx or such.)
I'm a one person company, a part of an organization of small brokerages. As
such, my job as a listing agent is to get as many people interested in my
seller's properties, whether or not they come from Joe Smith real estate down the street, or clientaggregator.com. I'll still get paid for my services, and the more people I have "out there" beating the drum for my listings, the happier I am.
Anne
Excerpted from Saul's post:
"He joins his local association of REALTORS and also the MLS...He runs a
full page ad in the Newspaper...showcasing properties...Under each listing
in his ad he states that the listing was provided courtesy of the listing
broker, with no contact information for the listing broker...In his ad he
also states:
"Why pay full fare to sell your home? Massive commission discounts
available. If you are not listed with me, YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH and BEING
RIPPED OFF BY YOUR BROKER."
His theory is that interested buyers will call him and he can represent them
in the purchase. What's wrong with this picture?"
***
The challenge of this industry is to find the correct resolution to "What's
wrong with this picture?" From the DOJ and the consumer standpoint, what's
RIGHT with this picture is the opportunity for Joe Public to pay less than
the rate Realtor's dictate is correct and appropriate. What resolution
resolves the issue for both Realtors and the public's right to competition
in the marketplace with regard to cost of service?
Secondly, if you insert the EBA model into the above excerpt with all facts
the same except "Why would you want to call the "Seller's Broker" when you
can have separate and full representation at the same price?" you have
another question to answer. What "boycotts" the discounter also "boycotts"
the EBA, as they both use other Broker's listings to promote a model that
urges you not to use the company who listed the property.
Is there an answer that is fair to the listing company/agent, provides an
open marketplace with regard to commissions charged consumers, and allows
the Exclusive Buyer Agent to promote the benefits of separate
representation? Is your response part of the solution or simply an attempt
to keep your finger in the hole in the dike for as long as you can.
Ardell DellaLoggia
>Do you consider my having YOUR listing on my web site as STOLEN? tOMe<
To date, the Realtor organization has considered it a courtesy or "by
permission of" the listing company for one to advertise oneself by using
another company's listings. Those outside of the Realtor organization have
not considered this internal courtesy arrangement, and so are confused by
the Realtor argument against anyone using listing info as they choose
without approval. Even within the industry there are discrepancies as
listing "agents" give permission when, in fact, the Broker should be, and
usually is not, consulted.
The house of cards is toppling. We created a system that supported the
traditional business model and frankly, "set" fees nationally. The DOJ is
not incorrect in seeing a problem with the system from the consumers'
perspective. It is incumbent upon the movers and shakers of this industry
to promote a solution that is fair to all. To date, our systems have only
supported the full service, traditional, full fee business model.
I once suggested to Early (maybe twice ;-) that he not be a Realtor as his
business model does not "fit" with the Realtor organization's objectives. I
put my money where my mouth is in that I have followed my own advice. I set
my fees on a case by case basis and I am very cognizant of the consumers'
right to choose their form of representation among the various options
available to them. I am not a "discounter" or "single agency shop" by
definition, I simply allow the possibility for the consumer to choose from
all options. That is really all the public wants and deserves. The DOJ
will come up with the wrong answer...can we come up with the right one?
Ardell DellaLoggia
Thank you, Pam.
Thank you for being honest & forthright with us.
Thank you for highlighting the motivation behind most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of an open IDX or VOW. You said it perfectly right there in paragraph 2 of your remarks. I'll quote, so no one has to go look. "If we don't have IDX and only the listing agent can advertise listings, then I don't see any point in there being buyer's agents. Buyers are only attracted by property information and listings."
The crux of the matter is the advertising value of a listing. You acknowledge, which many others seem unwilling to do, the fact that advertising the listings of another company is the only way you can attract business. Some people will disagree with that, and perhaps they are right. If you advertise the advisory service which you sell, and advertise it well, in a way that will make people see its value, wouldn't they come to you for that service? Once you & they have agreed to a agreement of some kind, you should certainly be allowed to show them every single property listed on the MLS.
Now, my question to you and to all other proponents of this policy is why should any broker be allowed to use the valuable asset (listing) of another broker for their own benefit, without the permission of or remuneration to, the broker that created the product? Bear in mind, please, that I am not suggesting, nor have I seen anyone else suggest, that listings shouldn't be shared with all MLS participants for the purpose or showing & selling to your buyer clients. The only restriction I am suggesting is one on ADVERTISING with those properties.
I know this is sort of changing the subject a little, and I should start a different thread, but it's very related, so I'll leave it here for now.
This is the sort of advertising that I think would work for an agent with no listings to advertise.
Do you think this advertising concept would work for you? For an EBA? Or for any REALTOR who wants to attract buyers?
An ad (web page, e-mail, newspaper ad, postcard, whatever) features a picture of a nice house. Maybe a happy family standing in front of it. (Many of us agree that, since it's all about the real estate, we need to feature real estate to get them to even look at the ad.)
The text says "I helped Mr. & Mrs. Jones buy their dream house.
As their Buyer Agent, I helped them identify neighborhoods & homes that would be right for them. I'm a member of 3 different Realtor Boards, so I was able to show them all the homes for sale on all the local MLSs.
I educated them & prepared them for the home buying process.
My experience, knowledge of the market, & negotiating skill helped them buy the best house for them, without overpaying.
I worked with them to ensure that the transaction stayed together, all the way to closing.
I can do the same for you.
If you're considering buying a house in Anytown, you should call me first."
What do you think?
Bill Keegan
OK...let's tweak this a little.....
Saul, Saul , Saul, you silly man....The point is he doesn't have permission
to advertise those properties. In the IDX model, the listing agent name and
contact information is a part of the information given when the public looks
at the listings. In the paper or other media forms, that information should
be printed for EACH and EVERY listing he was NOT a part of. Just like when
someone else does an Open House on one of my listings. They HOST the Open
House. I share my listings and encourage others to expose my listing if they
would like to do an OH. Several actually have sold from the OH.
But the point is that "Mr. I got my License and Need an Ingenious [but in no
way is this a new idea] Business Model" is going to need to get clients
without slamming other agents, stealing their listings without permission and
then leading people to believe a listing can go in the MLS for $99. Paying out
other agent commissions may make him leave the industry sooner than his model
provided....Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea afterall! AND if he
rebates 1% back to clients, he better darn well disclose that to the lender,
agents and seller and get it in writing. Better be on the HUD.
When I taught Real Estate School, I always taught the newbies to picture
themselves standing in front of the judge and finish this sentence..."Your
Honor, I just ..."
Cheri A. Long
In our area, I have never seen an EBA send a flyer, postcard, publish an ad,
etc., that published properties. Their ads promote their niche: exclusive
buyer representation. The only place I have seen other agent's listings on
an EBA site is through the Broker Reciprocity program which allows the buyer
client to use an EBA site to access the MLS. That is no different than any
of the other brokerages which pay their annual fee to participate in the
same service thereby giving permission to have their listings shown on all
broker reciprocity sites. In our area again, it is a breach of the MLS
regulations to publish someone else's listing under your company name either
on a flyer, newspaper ad, postcard, etc., and is enforced by the MLS "Nazis"
(That's what he called himself!).
Bonnie Erickson
Excerpted from Saul's post:
"He joins his local association of REALTORS and also the MLS...He runs a
full page ad in the Newspaper...showcasing properties...Under each listing
in his ad he states that the listing was provided courtesy of the listing
broker, with no contact information for the listing broker...In his ad he
also states:
"Why pay full fare to sell your home? Massive commission discounts
available. If you are not listed with me, YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH and BEING
RIPPED OFF BY YOUR BROKER."
His theory is that interested buyers will call him and he can represent them
in the purchase. What's wrong with this picture?"
***
>From Ardell:
Secondly, if you insert the EBA model into the above excerpt with all facts
the same except "Why would you want to call the "Seller's Broker" when you
can have separate and full representation at the same price?" you have
another question to answer. What "boycotts" the discounter also "boycotts"
the EBA, as they both use other Broker's listings to promote a model that
urges you not to use the company who listed the property.
Is there an answer that is fair to the listing company/agent, provides an
open marketplace with regard to commissions charged consumers, and allows
the Exclusive Buyer Agent to promote the benefits of separate
representation? Is your response part of the solution or simply an attempt
to keep your finger in the hole in the dike for as long as you can.
Ardell DellaLoggia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie,
In the nearly 18 years my EBA company has been in operations, just as you
mentioned, we to have NEVER put a photo of a home for sale in any of our
marketing materials or ads. That also includes no FSBOs, or HUD repos for sale..
We have put photos of lots of homes we have successfully helped our clients
buy, and we included with those photos the total amount of documented savings
we were able to help our clients achieve, on each particular home purchase.
I have never felt that I needed to have photos of homes being offered for
sale in any of my marketing materials and I don't intend to ever use listed
homes in my marketing. But, I do feel I have as much right to display the MLS
listings on my web site as anyone else. I need this ability in order to have a
level playing field which will allow me to offer my help to prospects and
clients, just like everyone else.
It is obvious that our entire society is moving in the direction of the
Internet more and more very year with no end in sight. It is obvious to me that
the real estate industry, always looking for ways to increase profits, will
continue to cut the overhead of the traditional brick and mortar office, and
will do more and more business on the web as time rolls on. To be able to
compete I need to be able to offer my prospects and clients the ability to meet
with me on the web and do the same things we have done previously in the
traditional office setting. That includes sharing information about listed
homes for sale. Any attempt to limit who can and can not offer this new way of
doing business over the Internet, either directly or indirectly, restrains
trade and presents harm to the consumer.
And that in part is where the DOJ must be coming from.
Tom Hathaway
Is there an answer that is fair to the listing company/agent, provides an
open marketplace with regard to commissions charged consumers, and allows
the Exclusive Buyer Agent to promote the benefits of separate
representation? Is your response part of the solution or simply an attempt
to keep your finger in the hole in the dike for as long as you can.
Ardell,
I am going to tell Tom E. that he has been wrong about you girl. I
personally think that you not only hit the nail on the head with this post, but you
drove it home in one swing. But that is not to say that EBAs need the
listings to draw business as much as we want to be able to allow our clients to be
able to shop the inventory on our web sites just as they would be able to on
the other's web sites.
Tom Hathaway
Ardell wrote:
>>The DOJ
will come up with the wrong answer...can we come up with the right one?
Art offers:
I think we already have. We come up with what the consumer-buyer needs: a
home listed for sale. We create that work product, and we are wise to not
give it away to just anyone to use to enhance their own business,
particularly a business that may use a hostility to our own business as a
raison detre, or make use of our work product to attract people to their own
business, without compensation to the creators of the work product.
The consumer wants to buy and sell homes, and we have expertise in that
area. We bring buyers and sellers together. When we publish our work
product, we are advertising our work product. Companies control their work
product AND their advertising.
It's really that simple.
Art Houston
Submit Feedback
Member Login
Blogs Homepage
Featured Entries
Recent Entries
Recent Comments
Tags
My Starred Entries
Create A Blog
RSS Feed
Word of the Day
Ask the Experts
Question of the Day
Member Login
Join RealTown
Request Password
RealTown RSS Feed