Contrary to unpopular belief, Realtors in the Bloodhound Blog pool care about consumers. Oh, I know it’s hard to buy because YOU once had a Realtor not call you back or because you read one single article that got heated, or because the For Sale sign is still crooked in your neighbor’s yard. I am not a Realtor, so I write from a consumer’s point of view.
From the consumer perspective, I feel that I can safely say that no one at Bloodhound lacks passion- be it lenders, Realtors, brokers or regular Joes (or Sallys) like me. There are a few Realtors that are not well informed, far behind the curve and still regurgitating the “buy/sell now, the market is hot hot hot” crap from their Intro to Real Estate classes. None of those people are reading or writing for the BHB.
If you read the nearly 2,000 articles written on the Bloodhound Blog, you’ll note that almost all of them are consumer focused even if the analysis upsets the few old school “buy/sell now, the market is hot hot hot” stragglers by implying that the consumer comes first. The Bloodhound Blog stands for the consumer, not just in words printed on a screen but by perpetuating the idea that the industry should stay informed, and by that sharing of ideas creating a better informed Realtor or lender that in turn has protected their clients from the rare “buy/sell now, the market is hot hot hot” junk.
OF COURSE Realtors are also focused on their business (marketing, SEO, etc); without that task in the list of “To Dos” there would be no product to offer the clients that are supposed to be protected against an ignorant Realtor. Not focusing on business would, in essence, be not focusing on the consumer; therefore, the idea that an article about marketing as not consumer based is bunk.
I don’t care about those “hot hot hot” Realtors- they may be doing just fine. What is upsetting is that anyone could possibly come into the den of Bloodhound and opine that everyone in the industry (including those that write for and comment on BHB who are passionate about their quest to improve the industry for the consumers) is solely concerned with their income and ignorant to consumers’ needs. In the millions of hours logged in writing, commenting on and reading the BHB, there is no evidence to prove that THAT is what Bloodhound is about… this is not a commercial venue, it is a learning venue and to imply otherwise is disgusting.
*******
Simply use the search tool on the right to search for Zillow, Customer Service, Redfin, Dual Agency, or Best Practices, or, browse the categories also on the right to see hundreds upon hundreds of consumer-focused articles.
BR says:
Well said.
August 13, 2007 — 11:51 am
Bruce Hahn says:
I agree that Realtors in the Bloodhound Blog pool care about consumers. They are an exceptional group. So do most other Realtors, but those facts notwithstanding, the real estate profession as an institution often advocates anti-consumer legislation and regulations.
I am referring to efforts by real estate organizations (including MLSs) at the federal, state and local levels that seek to limit the dissemination of homeowners listings and/or create barriers to nontraditional business models that are appropriate for many consumers, such as list only brokers and brokers who offer rebates.
Those efforts have lead to lawsuits by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission and condemnation by business oriented media (the Wall Street Journal) as well as consumer oriented media (60 minutes, etc.). Their efforts have also been condemned by consumer organizations such as the Consumer Federation of America and my own organization.
It is a shame that the reputation of the real estate profession is being tainted by those efforts. Realistically, the new business models will likely end up only with a small collective market share even if they are allowed to prosper, and talented traditional Realtors will most likely hardly notice any impact on their businesses.
August 13, 2007 — 12:41 pm
Lani Anglin says:
Please don’t confuse Realtors with the few brokers that make up the National Association of Realtors that push legislation on “Realtors’ behalf,” not that this has anything to do with the above article. But thanks for your comment.
August 13, 2007 — 12:50 pm
Greg Swann says:
We have a wide variety of viewpoints here, so I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but we have published some hard-hitting posts on issues like anti-competitive legislation and over-reaching MLS rules. I’m more radical than most here, so I’m opposed to pretty much everything the NAR stands for. A number of us are campaigning to have the real estate sales commission split among the seller and the buyer, the kind of reform only insiders can promote. Even so, the Realtors here are all in traditional face-to-face real estate sales. Outsiders might characterize us as traditionalists, but, believe me, the true traditionalists don’t see us that way at all.
August 13, 2007 — 12:51 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Once upon a time, an organization was created by those licensed to sell real estate. They called it the Board of Realtors. The next piece of business was to figure a way to organize all the brokers’ listings into one location, in order to make it easier for the MEMBERS of this PRIVATE organization to better serve their clients.
They figured this would speed sales, promote the idea of professional help, etc. It’s worked maniacally well.
Who benefitted, besides the brokers who thought of it in the first place? Their clients, now known in the PC world as consumers.
Suddenly the world says they DESERVE access as some sort of birthright.
You want a different model? Build one yourself. But don’t come to me whining about how brokers are screwing the system because we not giving away what’s worked for half a century.
Efforts by the DOJ, and any other efforts by the so-called public are nothing short of legalized thievery, under the guise of what’s ‘right for the consumer’.
You want to seize our golden info, go ahead. You want to put a gun to our head through gov’t action, be my guest. But don’t hide the fact you’re a thief by talking about the consumer. It simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
You’re not ENTITLED to any of our info. You’re entitled to what info we think is best for the folks who pay us. If that includes offering MLS access via websites – so be it. MLS’s all over the country are making individual decisions to do what they think is best for them and their paying clients. Things change, and probably we’ll end up doing what many are discussing on these very pages.
But please – don’t insult my intelligence and embarrass yourself by trying to appear as anything but a cheap purse snatcher. You want what we have, and you’ll do whatever it takes to get it.
You do what’s good for your business, and we’ll do what’s good for ours.
So, go ahead and hit MLS’s over the head with your club, take the value they’ve built for decades, and call it a good deed for consumers.
You’re still thieves.
August 13, 2007 — 5:06 pm
BR says:
here here… well said… standing ovation… applause… bakes a cake and sticks a fork in Jeff… I just heard the fat (opps, pleasantly plump) lady sing.
August 13, 2007 — 5:21 pm
Kris Berg says:
Lani, Great post.
Jeff, Great tirade. I totally get what you are saying, yet believe that horse is already out of the barn, and it was the agents and brokerages who held the barn door open. We did this through IDX agreements and through voluntarily submitted our listings to every new seach portal du jour “to better serve our clients” (and, by the way, to make our websites more attractive to the online would-be buyer or seller, thus generating “leads”), and one could argue we initiated the stampede with our “own” Realtor.com. Like it or not, Brokers may own the listings, but the listing information is now in the public domain. As a profession (I have been chided for using the word “industry”), we have a choice. We can either bury our heads in the sand and pray for a do-over, or we can refocus on the value that we have always brought to the consumer, which is a lot more about intellectual property and a lot, lot less about some listing input form.
August 13, 2007 — 6:19 pm
Jeff Brown says:
All true Kris, all true. I sure feel a lot better though. 🙂
August 13, 2007 — 7:10 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
I love it when Jeff gets on a soap box!
August 13, 2007 — 9:17 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Yeah, yeah – somebody else take a turn – please?
August 13, 2007 — 9:22 pm
Michael Cook says:
Why does it seem like I always have the conflicting view?
Lani, first, great article. As usual the comments have morphed into some other topic, no where near relating to your article, but that is what makes this site great.
Jeff,
I have never heard such unreasonable things come from such a reasonable person. I know that we have talked about this before, but help me understand how the MLS is some kind of properitary information. If it was so properitary, then how would the variety of sites providing similiar information exsist. Furthermore, the information you receive to “help” your clients, would be much more of a help if it was available for every eye to see. I am not rocket scientist, but it would seem like the more people able to access a listing, the better (thats not my argument, that comes directly from the Department of Justice). Call me crazy (I am sure you will), but what purpose does having a private MLS serve to help your client sell his/her house faster?
Personally, I think this is one syptom of a huge issue with real estate agents. Again, I am an outside observer looking in, so take this with a grain of salt, but the inability to adjust to a changing market place is literally killing the business of realtors and real estate agents. While Redfin and other sites have not created the magic bullet yet, it is coming. Spending time fighting the DOJ and other organizations over the MLS only serves to lower realtors reputations in the eyes of the consumer and open up even more of a window for others to take your business.
Showing yourself as a horder of information vs. a helpful consultant relentlessly working for your customers best deal, on serves to diminish your relativeness in the future of the industry. The former makes consumers think they can save money by using an alternative, while the latter would make realtors indispensable regardless wide open MLS access (look at IBM’s great transition from hardware maker to consultant for more info).
Finally, trying to protect general public information makes me as a consumer wonder what else do realtors have to offer? As someone in the business, I know good realtors provide great services, but if I was outside the business it would look like horse carriage makers trying to take sole access to dirt roads when the first cars start coming off the line. Good luck with that fight.
August 14, 2007 — 7:05 am
BR says:
With all do respect. The public information is public. The only things that are not public are the communications by those within the association, as well as items that are privy to the seller, such as total days on market.
Information such as feedback about listings transfered by e-key boxes etc. and other things that protect the consumer (the seller) are in place for good reason. In a negotiation, information can be the leverage that actually hurts that seller. You as an investor do not wear your bottom line on your sleve, why should our sellers?
Here is a very simplistic example. Google prides itself on makeing all information free and easialy accessable- however, googles algorythm is theirs. Just because folks access google daily gives us as a consumer no more right to it than the man in the moon. Their collection of data is open, the way in which it is collected is not. That is their product, they made it, it’s theirs. So yahoo could use a negative smear campaign to say that google is being unfair to consumers by not allowing yahoo access to the way in which google serves its clients.
It amazes me that you love the chili at chilis so much, but refuse to go to chilis because they will not give up their recipet- duh. Their chili is often times the draw and the reason to go there in the first place.
Knowing the actual sales price of a home in years past, knowing how much of a reduction a seller has taken is the sellers information, and in fact protection of the seller as a consumer. What’s left that is hidden? Commission? I think that is a no-brainer.
What Jeff has so well laid out there is a demand for mls access w/o becoming a member of the association. Because a company uses mls rules as a lift in public relations is nothing more than that, a smear tactic to gain public confidence. This is what you and other consumers are a victim of.
So if you look at the total sum, there really isn’t anything hidden from view. It’s a perception driven by tech boomers who want to display the same imformation in a another place other than the mls. You’re right, it happens every day. The information is public, but what Jeff is saying is that it was taken from the MLS by force using a very public form of demonizing Realtors. They want that chili recipet at all costs.
August 14, 2007 — 10:13 am
BR says:
-t heh recipe
August 14, 2007 — 11:40 am
Bruce Hahn says:
In fairness to the good points made by Gregg Swan I probably should have used the word “protectionist” rather than “traditional”. Indeed many traditional full service real estate brokers are opposed to the efforts of real estate organizations (including MLSs) at the federal, state and local levels that seek to prohibit or create barriers to nontraditional business models without any reasonable justification.
Jeff Brown has his facts wrong. In their antitrust cases the DoJ and the FTC have alleged that unjustified practices by some real estate organizations undermine or discriminate against other dues-paying members of those national, state or local real estate organizations who happen to employ non-traditional business models. They latter are the directly aggreived parties, and although Jeff Brown and other protectionists may disagree, the antitrust agencies believe that they have legitimate complaints.
This is not a unique vendetta by the antitrust agencies. These types of protectionist efforts by industry organizations have occurred in many other industries, and the federal antitrust organizations have stepped in to stop them as well.
Consumers are on the side of DoJ and FTC because they want choices and suffer indirectly when an industry trys to undermine or eliminate new types of competitors. They are puzzeled why some organizations in a profession that touts its allegience and fiduciciary duty to home buyers and sellers would take actions that are contrary to their interests.
In the end argueing over such things as who owns our listings misses the point. If a real estate professional truly wants to help us sell our homes they should WANT to disseminate our listings to as many potential buyers as possible, especially on the Internet since that’s where most are these days. They should do this not because potential buyers DESERVE access as some sort of birthright or because they are ENTITLED to any of your info., but because it is an important part of their fiduciary duty to their client.
Unfortunately, instead of hearing in the news more about innovative new ways and efforts by real estate professionals to help home buyers sell their homes, consumers are hearing more stories about efforts of real estate protectionists to squelch new tools that the industry should be embracing.
We need to get away from the confrontational environment that’s been created by the “these listings are MINE, ALL MINE!!” kind of attitude. What’s good for consumers should also be good for the real estate business. Some day we will hopefully return to the time when real estate professionals and consumers best interests are aligned. That can only happen when thoughtful leaders like many on this blog convince their protectionist peers to stop the kinds of efforts that continue to hurt the profession’s reputation.
August 14, 2007 — 1:19 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
Bruce, that’s all well and good and a lot of truth wrapped up in there. Do me a favor, try to find a top producing real estate agent that doesn’t try to disseminate their listings to every corner of earth. Why? Because they “own” the listing and the faster that sucker sells the faster they get paid!
A lot of this aruging back and forth is inmaterial because REALTORS themselves, yes REALTORS – not the DOJ or consumers, have decided en masse to disseminate information through Realtor.com, their own websites, Trulia, etc.
I think what most of don’t like is we pay dues for MLS systems that we (collectively the agents) built and now you (collectively everyone that has put in a gosh-darned-dime) says they have every right to access it the same as us.
What profession are you in? Mind letting me reap the benefits without the effort? I think most people would say “no.”
So while I’m on the side of leaving MLS’s private and closed, I’m on the side of the consumer when I say I will do 99% of it voluntarily because it’s good for business.
In the end, if it’s good for business it’s probably good for the consumer. Because the business is helping the consumer to buyer and/or sell. Simple as that.
August 14, 2007 — 2:44 pm
Michael Cook says:
Bruce,
You have officially impressed me. Great rebuttal and very well reasoned.
Chris and BR,
The watchout for your argument is that you need consumer listing to keep the MLS running. The more others create forums to replace the MLS the less listing you all get. It would be a shame if there was eventually nothing left for you to protect.
Also, if a consumer wanted to come to my job and have access to my sales databases, I would be more then happy to let them. Fortunately for me my MBA and Industry knowledge makes the data quite useless without me (or someone like me). Furthermore, if you ask a top selling agent if open access to the MLS would affect them, I bet they would say no because they bring way more to the consumer than a database.
August 14, 2007 — 4:12 pm
Greg Swann says:
> The more others create forums to replace the MLS the less listing you all get.
This is false, at least so far. If anything, it’s the true FSBO seller — no MLS listing — who is vanishing, since limited-service listings get sellers into the MLS at a very low cost. In our market, almost no homes are selling unless they are priced right from day one — which implies not just a Realtor but a good one.
> Furthermore, if you ask a top selling agent if open access to the MLS would affect them, I bet they would say no because they bring way more to the consumer than a database.
That’s dead on, in my opinion. If we were to divorce the sales commission, the Top Secret MLS would be a dead letter, whether or not it were replaced by something else. The good Realtors would chug on undaunted. The not-so-good Realtors are already living on $15,000 a year.
August 14, 2007 — 4:31 pm
Bruce Hahn says:
Chris –
You are right. I don’t know any top agents that don’t do everything they can to help sell their client’s homes, which is why it seems so odd that such positive attitudes are contradicted by the policy efforts of many real estate organizations.
The fine agents that I’ve worked with over many years as a homeowner and very small potatoes investor would all want their MLS to distribute my listing on the Internet because the sole objective of the entire exercise is to sell my home and that’s where today’s buyers are. If my agent and I were sitting around my kitchen table working on a marketing plan for one of my properties and an official from NAR, a state association or a local MLS walked in and started spouting some of the blather I’ve heard from some of those organizations, both of us would look at him like he was a moron from Mars.
This has nothing to do with whether MLSs remain privately owned – frankly that’s fine with me. Its also fine with me if the MLSs remain closed to true FSBOs (i.e. no MLS member involved), but, as the MLSs have learned, its not so fine with DoJ and FTC if an MLS decides to bury/discriminate against the listings of certain classes of their own members.
The only sure way to control who can access MLS listings is to stop distributing them on the Internet, which I understand some MLSs have considered. If an MLS decides it doesn’t want to distribute my listing on the Internet I guess that’s their right, but with 80% of buyers looking on the net I want my listing up there and will find another way to get it widely exposed on the net. If my potential agent is unwilling to utilize alternative ways to get it widely exposed on the net I guess I’ll just have to put it on Craigslist and other venues myself. So if the MLSs and MLS members want to stop distributing listings on the Internet, I will certainly respect their right to commit economic suicide.
August 14, 2007 — 5:05 pm
Kris Berg says:
>A lot of this aruging back and forth is inmaterial because REALTORS themselves, yes REALTORS – not the DOJ or consumers, have decided en masse to disseminate information through Realtor.com, their own websites, Trulia, etc.
I think that is whatt I said (from the resident potted plant).
August 14, 2007 — 5:12 pm
Kris Berg says:
And, yes, I know “what” only has one “t”. My fat fingers are too lazy to edit.
August 14, 2007 — 5:13 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
Kris – put those fingers on a diet. 🙂
Michael – I thought it implied, though I was obviously wrong, that top agents bring more to the table than a database.
Here is the great thing about America. Don’t want to use an agent? Don’t. Do want to use an agent. Do.
Personally, I’m all for 100% transparency. Try to find the last client I worked with that didn’t know exactly how I was compensated.
But here’s the deal. Most of my clients don’t care. It’s the old show me the baby, don’t tell me about the labor pains. I’m hired to do a job. Funny thing, professionals understand that.
You know what, every now and then I start a remodel project in my house. Heck, I can save money doing it myself! Sometimes it succeeds. Sometimes I have to call Stan to clean up my mess…which can be more costly than if I had just called him in the first place. Stan doesn’t throw a fit or lecture me on why I should have called him first. He just does the job.
When somebody has gotten themselves into a screwey position with their investment properties I just help them fix. With the help of MLS, oddly enough. If they want to try it again on their own on the next property, I’m not going to berate them.
August 14, 2007 — 5:49 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
Oh, this is timing!!!
Right after logging off I got a phone call from a friend of a friend. This person had talked to me briefly before going FSBO. That’s fine, no problem there.
But guess what? He’s now under contract and having some major issues SO HE CALLS ME FOR ADVICE!!!
Now, when I called him and he told me he was going to go FSBO becaue he didn’t feel my fees were fully justified with the availability of the marketing advantage of the internet (I swear I cannot make this up any better!) I accepted his decision graciously and moved on.
As for the advice, I just explained compassionately to him that since I was not his agent I didn’t feel comfortable giving out real estate advice both from a legal & a compensation point of view. I did advise him to do some google searches so that maybe he could find the answer to his problems there. (That was sort of cutting…but really, isn’t this the information age?)
Truly, I wish him the best. I also advised him that he might want to consult with a real estate attorney. How much do they charge?
Classic case of not wanting to pay the fee but needing the knowledge and expertise. And this doesn’t happen once in a while. I’d say 3-5 times year for me. How about other agents out there?
August 14, 2007 — 6:38 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Truly, I wish him the best. I also advised him that he might want to consult with a real estate attorney. How much do they charge?”
Probably less than 6% of the transaction?
August 14, 2007 — 8:13 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
There you go with the 6% again. The other party is represented by a real estate agent. So he’s paying 3% for that. (And he was complaining the other agent wouldn’t help him…funny.)
But again, it’s not my concern if he chooses to go FSBO. Just don’t come to me when there is trouble. Pay someone to fix the problem he caused. And from what I understood, he caused it.
August 15, 2007 — 6:36 am
Michael Cook says:
Chris,
I mention 6% because commisions are paid by the seller. If I am selling an choose to use an agent, I pay 6% regardless of the fact that its split. If I FSBO and go with a lawyer, it might be 1% at most.
I do agree that he should fix the problem. If you do choose to go it alone, you should certainly have to suffer the consequences. For the record, I never recommend doing a transaction without any help. At the bare minimum you should have a lawyer. Its just too much money to chance on your own limited knowledge. (But not enough to give up 6% to a lack luster agent)
August 15, 2007 — 7:55 am