That is the question. 
Whether ‘tis noble in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by not opposing them? To die:to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end.
I started this post with what I thought was a cute title, but then I looked at the actual Shakespeare soliloquy and saw that it was quite appropriate to this post. The “Z” in the title is for Zillow – the latest in a long list of challengers to Realtor.com for supremacy in Internet traffic for real estate eyeballs. There are other relatively new sites – Trulia, etc. – but Zillow seems to have captured the imagination of both the public and REALTORS®. Maybe it’s the cute name or the even cuter play on words with “Zestimates,” but the one site everyone seems to remember is Zillow. It has almost become a cliché term for Internet listing aggregators. Not bad for a site that has only been around for a year and a half.
But this post is not about Zillow; rather I wanted to explore the question of whether it make sense for local MLS systems to send their listing data to Zillow (or any other aggregator). A recent New York Times article provides a good framework of the discussion, but leaves out most of the “slings and arrows” that need to be considered before we willy nilly send MLS data to any site that wants it. Before you draw any conclusions as to my opinion on sending listing data to Zillow, let me say I could argue either “To Z, or Not To Z.” This post will focus a bit more on the slings and arrows, but Times article does a good job of making the other side of the argument. Frankly, I am undecided on this question and I encourage you to approach this discussion with an open mind.
We recently had this discussion in the Technology Group of the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR). There were strong opinions stated on both sides of the debate. Advocates for sending data to aggregators used many of the points made in the Times article, but opponents took a very different slant. The naysayers were not worried about sharing their listings with the public or commingling with for sale by owner listings; rather they were concerned about Internet market dilution with so many sites doing the same thing.
First, it may help to know a little background about CAAR. We have had our listings online for the public to view since the early 90’s. We were one of the first to see the value of letting the public have access to the data. Second, because we have been on the Internet so long (and because we have a great MLS Vendor in Solid Earth), we have a very good public search engine that is fed directly from live MLS data. When the public goes to www.caar.com, they are, in fact, searching the exact data that CAAR members access. Although we are a small market, we get thousands of unique visitors each week.
So the counter argument, or the Not To Z, is that sending the data to every aggregator site in order for the listings to get more exposure is superfluous. The public already has the best possible access to the data – live and accurate – so why spread it around to sites that may or may not keep it up-to-date and accurate. In addition, every site we send it to would create a new site that members needed to keep up with by either paying fees or filling out profiles. Do Realtors have enough free time to keep up with several aggregator sites, maintain their Blog and their IDX site, and still have time to actually meet with clients?
Again, I am only offering the Not To Z perspective in this post because the Times presented the other side. We have not decided what course to take with our local data. Part of me wants to say to the Z’s of the world, “if you want it, make us an offer.” That’s what REALTOR.com did. They paid us several thousands of dollars in cash and stocks to get our listings. What is REALTOR.com or any other aggregator providing us, or the public, that is not already accessible and more accurate on CAAR.com?
David G from Zillow.com says:
Hi Dave, it’s David G from Z,
First let me say that the simple solution here is to implement a data-feed on an opt-in basis. That way each broker (and agent) decides independently whether their listings are syndicated by the MLS. The MLS facilitates a fresh data feed with current information but the broker/agent decides where it gets sent. This is our preferred way of integrating an aggregate feed and it seems to be working well for our partners.
That’s the simple solution but to address the objections you identified:
1) “sending the data to every aggregator site in order for the listings to get more exposure is superfluous”
RE internet traffic is very dispersed. To reach the maximum number of buyers you simply have to take the listings to them, especially in this market. Obviously there will come a point of diminishing returns on smaller sites but it probably makes sense to know and consider listing on the top 20 sites in your area. If your clients talk to you about Zestimates, for example, it’s probably a good sign you’d benefit by listing on Zillow.
2) “every site we send it to would create a new site that members needed to keep up with by either paying fees or filling out profiles”
There are no fees to list on Zillow. I wouldn’t recommend using a site that did charge a listing fee. In reality many Charlottesville agents already are posting their listings online by hand. The time you save them through feeding their listings directly from the MLS can be used to spruce up their profile pages 😉
3) “Do Realtors have enough free time to keep up with several aggregator sites, maintain their Blog and their IDX site, and still have time to actually meet with clients?”
No, they don’t, which explains the need for listings feeds. Automated feeds free up time that Realtors currently spend posting and maintaining listings on websites like Zillow.
If you go the opt-in route no-one would have to change what they’re doing today and we’d still see the benefit of having the 2,400 Charlottesville listings that are on Zillow updated automatically. It’s a win-win.
May 13, 2008 — 9:28 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Part of me wants to say to the Z’s of the world, “if you want it, make us an offer.” That’s what REALTOR.com did”
Dave, didn’t that weaken the individual brokerages’ ability to market themselves on the internet? While it seemed like a good idea (in the late 90’s), wasn’t it a bad long-term strategy? While I might philosophically disagree with information hoarding, shouldn’t the association do what is in the best long-term interest for its members?
“If you go the opt-in route no-one would have to change what they’re doing today and we’d still see the benefit of having the 2,400 Charlottesville listings that are on Zillow updated automatically. It’s a win-win.”
For whom, David G? Aren’t association deals an end around from negotiation with local brokerages (who own those listings)?
May 13, 2008 — 11:28 pm
Laurie Manny says:
Dave,
I have a simple solution. I’ll feed the MLS through IDX to my site, from my board. The board removes all no follow, no index tags and allows the search engines to index the individual listings. BAM, you have transparency and distribution to the public who is craving it so badly.
I as a LICENSED REALTOR have links to my sites directing the leads back to me where they belong, with no 3rd party involved or even necessary. After all, it was my money and time that drove that business in.
The rest of it, is all just a bunch of crap!
May 14, 2008 — 1:46 am
Mike Farmer says:
My listings are automatically fed to the major aggregators through my website, so there is no need to manage it.
The only question is if these aggregators hurt my business. I don’t think so. I believe these aggregators draw early lookers. Once a homebuyer becomes more focused with their search, for the most part, they find local sites. If I’m a serious buyer who is eventually going to contact an agent, then Zillow doesn’t offer that service.
Listing agents can be contacted directly from Zillow and some buyers may go directly from Zillow to a listing agent to a home purchase through that agent — but if you look at Zillow like a cyber yard zign, we know that buyers calling on yard signs don’t usually buy the home they call about — it starts the process of a more focused search, and that is when local sites are discovered in the search for service after the buyer has satisfied their appetite for pictures.
May 14, 2008 — 3:22 am
Mike Farmer says:
On the other hand, the recent discussion about search engine placement is another matter and should be considered if we are going to fully analyze the positive or negative effect of aggregators. I would like to found on the initial search.
May 14, 2008 — 3:25 am
Eric Blackwell says:
Mike–I agree with your second comment. Trulia’s aggressive pursuit of search engine dominance should give us all pause when considering where our data should go. And legally it is OUR data. (I know I just got pelted with rotten eggs for saying that…). Perhaps we should protect the intellectual property that a listing is with the same zeal we try to protect our websites. (more eggs…)(grin)
Maybe I am old school. Or maybe I was visionary in seeing and saying that a Trulia type model would do this. Now that they have and they ARE going for search engine dominance, perhaps it is time to re-visit the “information is free” model and have us as REALTORS make it truly FREE to our customers by not requiring registration. (As we currently do in our site). If I am giving the information away for FREE, DIRECTLY to my customers, and they only have to contact me DIRECTLY if they are interested…why is a Trulia or Zillow needed?
Just thinking out loud there.
@Dave-Either way,good questions. I don’t think it is to Z or not to Z…I think it is more to I(nterloper) or not to I. Or maybe to DIY or not to DIY–this is stuff we (tech savvy REALTORS) SHOULD be providing ourselves as a service to our potential clients and in many cases are.
There are third party advertisers who do not use the listing data against the REALTOR.
Yikes…I better stop now before EVERYONE is mad at me…grin.
May 14, 2008 — 4:51 am
Dave Barnes says:
The font you selected for your post is way too small.
May 14, 2008 — 6:03 am
Bob Wilson says:
If you took a poll, I would wager that listing agents would not be bothered by Zillow and Trulia as much as agents who depend more on using other people’s listings to attract buyers.
I doubt most sellers would agree with the “not to” option. They want the property marketed to as many eyeballs as possible.
If asked by a seller, are you going to tell the seller that you won’t export their listing to Trulia and Zillow?
May 14, 2008 — 6:45 am
Greg Swann says:
> The font you selected for your post is way too small.
Dave’s posts in their native form are infested with all the crap that Microsoft products spew into everything. I clean them out when I can, but they look “wrong” for BHB until I get to them.
Dave, you might look into Ecto for posting cleanly to multiple accounts on multiple blogs.
May 14, 2008 — 6:54 am
Greg Cremia says:
If we feed our data to these third party sites we will give them the power to replace us in the search engines. Once they replace us in the search engines they can change the rules any way they want. What is free now, might not be not free later.
All of the MLS listings are already available to the public on numerous agent sites which is the way it should be. The consumer will not benefit by having a third party company maneuver their way between them and the agents.
May 14, 2008 — 7:04 am
Bob Wilson says:
>The consumer will not benefit by having a third party company maneuver their way between them and the agents
It is disingenuous to argue that the consumer doesn’t benefit. The argument is whether or not it benefits you the agent.
May 14, 2008 — 7:34 am
David G from Zillow.com says:
@Brian – “Aren’t association deals an end around from a negotiation with local brokerages (who own those listings)?”
No, because the preferred arrangement with an MLS (and all listings aggregators) is an opt-in set-up as per my previous comment. That way, the MLS plays the role of technology provider and the negotiation remains with the local brokerages and agents who independently control where their listings appear (as it should be). The MLS option is simply one technical solution and it’s one that’s often optimal for all parties. If it’s preferable for a brokerage to feed their listings directly, or via another aggregator, they would opt-out of the MLS feed.
@Laurie – exactly. Like in any web publishing, listings feeds are simply is a smart distribution strategy (kind of like blogging on BHB 🙂 and so as publisher, it’s up to you to capitalize on the added reach your listings bring you. Beyond just selling the home your listings could be doing double-duty improving your brand recognition (think logo in corner on photos), increasing your site’s page rank (links), advertising your local expertise and, dare I say it, maybe even bringing you in on both sides of the deal.
@Eric – “Why is Trulia or Zillow needed?”
Eric; I can’t speak for the other guys but Zillow identified a need for new tools and easy access to information that would put the real estate consumer in more control. In the past few years we’ve seen a massive leap in transparency and access to information industry-wide and I personally believe that Zillow’s played a part in that trend. Remember that listings, while important, constitute less than 3% of the content on Zillow and that home value estimates are now standard content on many RE and media sites. Many of those estimates are Zetsimate values. And until 5 weeks ago there was no transparent marketplace for mortgages where consumers could get advice without the hard sell of becoming a lead. Does the mortgage industry NEED more transparency? Maybe.
May 14, 2008 — 8:41 am
Michael Fisher says:
Somehow I must have missed the press release from The Z on their new feature: posted homes for sale with “Address Undisclosed”. How does that bring transparency to the consumer?
May 14, 2008 — 10:32 am
David G from Zillow.com says:
Michel –
No press release; we’re constantly looking for new ways to promote more of our partners’ listings and this is just one of them.
As you may know, Realtors and brokers in some parts of the country are in the habit of advertising listings without an address. Now I’m yet to hear what I’d consider a good reason for this sub-optimal marketing strategy but it’s obviously is in the buyer’s best interest to display what we do know about these listings.
May 14, 2008 — 4:36 pm
Dave Phillips says:
Thanks s to all for great comments. A few replies:
David G – CAAR will currently feed any brokers listings to a thrid party aggregator who requests such a feed. We are here to serve the member, but that is not the question in this post. Some members think we take away their strategic advantage if we send ALL listings to you because their listings are already there.
Brian B – We are trying decide what is in the best interest of the members. THis is NOT about the MLS, but our members, who are the ones having this debate, are not unified in what the best course is.
Mike F – I think your comments are very good and helpful – thanks!
Bob Wilson – good point about sellers wanting their listing everywhere possible, but at what point does the management of all the separate sites pull their agent away from doing other marketing efforts. When is enough, enough?
May 14, 2008 — 8:09 pm