It is the very existence of competitive sites & advertising alternatives that other venues provide that keeps brokers from being controlled.

Brokers are smart enought to know who is taking advantage of them & who is not. Monopolies are never good.

I agree w/ brendan that all venues that post broker/agent listings ought to RIGHTLY link back to the lisitng broker and not usurp their brand. If move.com does not do this, they are doing a diservice to the very people who put money in their shareholders’ pockets.

Where do you get the info to make this statement: “Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches.” Sounds a bit self serving rather than fact based.

When a seller has four offers on the first or second day he lists, he generally doesn’t care where or how the buyers found his house.

What about a seller who “demands” that their property be in every paper every week and every magazine, when all it really needs to sell is to be priced right and show well and be in the mls so the agents can bring the buyers? Is it really about what the seller “demands” or what will sell his house?

So where do you get your “data” for what sellers “demand”?

However, for your sake, I’ll summarize what’s already been said. Actions taken by individual actors (agents/brokers) are not always in the best interest of the group (real estate industry).

It is in the best interest of individual agents/brokers to get their brand AND their listings as widely distributed as possible (money and imagination being the main limitation).

It is in the best interest of the industry to not build up competitors to an extremely valuable common asset.

If acting in the best interests of their industry, agents/brokers would not be spending marketing money on companies that are attempting to build up a comprehensive database of homes separate from theirs. This can only serve to devalue one of their key assets and marginalize them in the long run. However, acting in their own best interests makes complete and logical sense and I fully expect agents to continue to do so… Hence: the tragedy of the commons.

In any case, you state as fact that “Every time an agent buys an ad on Google, they are helping to fund a tool that is clearly meant to marginalize them.” You use the link “clearly meant to marginalize them ” to real estate listings in Google Base to support your statement. I have to disclose that at time of writing five of those listings shown belong to Realtors that use the system our company makes (Point2). We allow our members (Realtors) to optionally syndicate listings to many places including most vertical search sites. I wish to know exactly how Google Base, Trulia, Oodle, Edgio, Livedeal and other vertical search engines that promote clearly the Realtors brand and drive traffic directly to the Realtor’s site can be “clearly meant to marginalize them” ?

These sites are not too different from Move.com, except for the fact that they provide branding to the Realtors and direct traffic to the Realtors site for FREE. Move,com charges for branding and doesn’t directly link to a Realtors site. Consumers are demanding that their listings be show in the places they themselves start their searches. Please explain to me how Realtors are going to “marginalize themselves” by advertising, their listings and brand where people are looking.

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

3 cents, I’m not sure an “open MLS” favors the broker industry. Right now, each regional MLS acts as THE marketplace for residential real estate. While there may be other options (craigslist, one of the dozens of FSBO pages, etc.), none of those options can provide anything close to the exposure of the MLS. So, if a seller wants to truly participate in the marketplace, the seller must list on the MLS. If the MLS were “open” — i.e. anyone could list — then agents will have an even harder time justifying the 3%/3% commission. The listing agent will no longer be able to offer a valuable service — i.e. access to the MLS — while the seller will certainly NOT be willing to pay the selling agent a full commission. 1%, perhaps — but 3%? No way. So, an “open MLS” would have a negative impact on agent/broker income.

That said, I’m all in favor of anything that fosters FSBO and/or creates a viable alternative to the MLS. In fact, I’ve heard that the Tribune Co. is also buying BuyOwner.com and ByOwner.com — HOORAY! Let’s get those old media dollars working towards a new media world. Let’s get those consumers “flocking in droves” to the new and less-agent-reliant (and hopefully more attorney reliant) medium!