You know, some days I can really relate to Inspector Harry Callahan. Some days, it feels like being an IDX vendor is a dirty job so unappreciated that only Dirty Harry could fully appreciate it.
Recently, I’ve heard that the NWMLS decided to enact a few more rule changes. Needless to say, I’m all broken up about the new NWMLS rules. The good news is that there will no longer be a 3 download agreement limit. This should allow members to more easily work with multiple vendors, and perhaps better allow members to easily find cost-effective solutions to their IT problems. I think it’s a good idea because it could create more demand for the services I can provide.
The bad news is that starting in October, the NWMLS will charge each entity downloading the IDX data (i.e. the consultant or the broker for an in-house data feed) $30 per month, per agreement. For example, if a vendor A has a download agreement with office A, B, and C, then the vendor will be charged $90 per month. Needles to say, this new rule will seriously hinder your vendor’s ability to inexpensively host web sites or otherwise develop applications w/ NWMLS listings on them.
Sometimes, I got to wonder what are the jive turkeys at the NWMLS are thinking? So now I either have to eat an unwanted (and probably unnecessary) cost or I have to pass on the increase in my costs to my customers? Neither scenario really appeals to me (and probably won’t appeal to my customers either). I’d rather increase my costs by buying more servers, going to Inman SF Connect, buying iPhone app development tools & books, or anything else that would ultimately improve end-user satisfaction with the applications I build. But now I have to pay a tax for merely trying to serve my clients? Gee, it isn’t like developing an Evernet XML download is already as much fun us as doing my taxes is.
My clients are hard working real estate professionals; they are not professional software engineers. They know about as much about creating Zillow XML feeds or developing Real Estate based Google Maps mash-up as I know about selling a home with a troublesome neighbor or if a property is next to a graveyard, does it lower the value because it’s creepy, or does it raise the value cause it’s quiet? Unfortunately, the nature of the world today requires real estate professionals partnering with vendors and/or consultants because real estate consumers increasingly demand high tech services from their agents & brokers and you can’t provide that service without high tech experts working on your behalf.
I’m not opposed to higher taxes if I know it’s going for a good cause. But what is this extra $30/month per agreement going to buy me or my clients? Is the NWMLS going to buy faster servers? Hire more IDX support staff? Throw a big party and spend the money on booze and strippers? Is the NWMLS running in the red and needs a bailout? Seriously, I’d like to know what I’m about to pay for.
Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to charge per vendor instead of per agreement? A vendor needs the same amount of NWMLS IT resources regardless if they serve only one member or ten members. Typically, a vendor only downloads the NWMLS data once, and uses the same copy of the NWMLS database for all their clients. It’s not like a vendor who has 10 clients incurs 10 times the CPU & bandwidth costs that a smaller vendor does.
Allowing multiple feed per broker could encourage more competition between vendors, but increasing vendor costs certainly won’t make things cheaper for members in the long run.
I can see a future phone call from the NWMLS enforcement division going something like this…
I know what you’re thinking, punk. You’re thinking “Did I sign six download agreements or only five?” Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the NWMLS, the most powerful MLS in the greater Puget Sound area, and could blow your web site clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Has anybody else heard any details on these new policy changes? Do you know what the new IDX feed fees are for? Do you think the repeal of the download rule will help you? Do other MLS’s do this kind of thing? Why do I feel like I forgot my fortune cookie and it says I’m {bleep} out of luck?
Seems like the Real Estate profession is being infected by the same virus as is the Architect profession. We’re both being beset by ever-increasing hordes of regulation writers. To some of the younger practicioners, this all seems normal– which is really frightening. JG
Let’s do the math. A while ago I was told there were about 200 vendors downloading data from NWMLS. As Robbie mentioned, regardless of how many brokers each vendor serves, he only taxes the NWMLS servers and bandwidth for a single download. That data is then distributed per agreement.
Some IDX vendors might serve 50 to 100 different brokers, mainly the small independent broker who pays a modest fee for his website including the IDX data. That single vendor is now going to be charged $18,000 to $36,000 per year for the privilege of accessing the data for his clients, who pay him maybe $40,000 to $80,000 per year total. Don’t forget the vendor pays for servers and provides technical support and has to be available 24/7 just in case there’s a glitch and the data stops flowing. He also pays programmers and designers and does research and development in order to keep up with the latest rule changes (adding sales data, for example). As most businesses cannot absorb a 40-50% cut in their operating margin, their only option is to pass the increased cost on to their clients. And this is happening at a time when the real estate market would be generously described as stagnant and probably more accurately characterized as broken.
Oh, and don’t forget, the vendors will have to pay B&O tax on this additional revenue, as well as having the additional burden of managing the reporting and remittance to the NWMLS. So in a fair world, the cost to the end user should go up by more than the $30 fee.
The end result is that the cost of maintaining a web presence with an IDX solution has gone up significantly for the independents, proportionately much more than the large brokerages. It seems that the playing field has been tipped in the favor of those brokerages with deep pockets.
Let’s do the math. A while ago I was told there were about 200 vendors downloading data from NWMLS. As Robbie mentioned, regardless of how many brokers each vendor serves, he only taxes the NWMLS servers and bandwidth for a single download. That data is then distributed per agreement.
Some IDX vendors might serve 50 to 100 different brokers, mainly the small independent broker who pays a modest fee for his website including the IDX data. That single vendor is now going to be charged $18,000 to $36,000 per year for the privilege of accessing the data for his clients, who pay him maybe $40,000 to $80,000 per year total. Don’t forget the vendor pays for servers and provides technical support and has to be available 24/7 just in case there’s a glitch and the data stops flowing. He also pays programmers and designers and does research and development in order to keep up with the latest rule changes (adding sales data, for example). As most businesses cannot absorb a 40-50% cut in their operating margin, their only option is to pass the increased cost on to their clients. And this is happening at a time when the real estate market would be generously described as stagnant and probably more accurately characterized as broken.
Oh, and don’t forget, the vendors will have to pay B&O tax on this additional revenue, as well as having the additional burden of managing the reporting and remittance to the NWMLS. So in a fair world, the cost to the end user should go up by more than the $30 fee.
The end result is that the cost of maintaining a web presence with an IDX solution has gone up significantly for the independents, proportionately much more than the large brokerages. It seems that the playing field has been tipped in the favor of those brokerages with deep pockets.
I find it interesting that the 3 IDX limit was pitched to me as a benefit but not mention of the fee change was made. The NWMLS is losing agent members left and right. Each of those members paid $40 per month to the MLS as dues which is revenue they no longer recieve. Much like every other orginization, both government and private, they are looking for ways to make up the difference. I work in a large brokerage but have my own IDX feeds to my own sites. This will affect the independant realtor more than the brokerages.
As a broker I would prefer to see them just increase the dues to reflect their costs or learn to live with less. Those brokers and agents who are using multiple feeds are the ones most likely to be enbracing technology and adapting to the market. Charging these new fees is short sighted on their part by putting additional costs on those who need the benefits the most.
The big brokerages that have full time engineering staffs, won’t even notice this change. If a big broker is paying 6 – 7 figures a year for software engineering salaries, $30/month is a rounding error. If you have that kind of engineering resources, you only need 1 feed, since you can do everything in house.
However, if you only pay your IDX vendor 3 – 4 figures a year, your costs just went way up (because your IDX vendor now has to pay your NWMLS $360/year for the privilege of servicing your needs and pay the cost of paying that tax). The IDX vendors will have to pass on the cost or find a way of making each customer produce more recurring revenues (through added services or features) so they can afford to eat the cost and maintain margins.
Testing out comments here on the new RCG theme
Yes, let’s try the comments.
An IDX feed is everywhere. What I would like as a Real Estate agent is for the NWMLS website to settle down and start working.
For all of the innovation to the NWMLS site that the members pay for there seems to be a lag time for it to be working. I like the features provided, but would like for the site to be more stable.
So before the feed goes out to a third party vendor, I think the site should work for any one who has a license and pays the dues.
I’d just like to see it work in a mediocre way on a mac! But that’s the vendor Rappatoni, and a rant for a different post. The subject here is the IDX feed. It’s everywhere? Possibly it won’t be so easy to get after this fee goes into effect. Some vendors may simply choose to no longer work with the NWMLS data and outsource that portion of their websites. Many of the template style real estate websites that you see offered everywhere say they are IDX compatible, but that only means they’ll frame whatever you arrange with another vendor.
OK, that worked, it at least didn’t erase the comment, but there was more than one attempt in getting the comment to accept.
Some sites work better if you double click the comment button.
the double click seemed to take the comment quicker.
Robbie – I just called the MLS and the tech dept told me that the first three feeds will still be FREE – absolutely free, but anything over 3 feeds will be charged to the vendor. Do you have something in writing that is contrary to that?
Listen Callahan, I’m just gonna keep selling homes next to grave yards… (yes, I did it in May)
Courtney, when the policy change was explained to me, it was not explained to me that the first 3 feeds would be free (so I assumed the fee applied to all feeds). If in fact this is the case, I’m happy my understanding is incorrect. However, the MLS should probably clarify it’s policy before it implements it’s new policy.
Doug, to paraphrase Dirty Harry – “There’s nothing wrong with selling homes next to grave yards, as long as the right homes get sold”.
Hi Robbie – your understanding was actually unfortunately correct. The MLS employee’s supervisor called me back after that and gave me the bad news. This site was on and off all day yesterday and I had appointments so sorry for getting back to you so late on it.
The revised rules went out to members today. Interesting reading, talking about co-branding, AVM and blogging, and of course this new fee. Listings will need to be displayed a little differently than they are now but fortunately we have a 3 month grace period in which to comply. We need to sign the new data agreement and start paying fees on Oct 1, but we have the rest of the year to rearrange our listing displays. For example, the name of the listing office must now be displayed next to the primary photo.
This language is a little frightening, “NWMLS may charge a fee to the party processing the data in an amount determined by NWMLS from time to time.” What?!?
Maybe I’m off base here, but is this fee created more or less created because the ‘head’ of MLS just doesn’t like that they’re being forced to open up the feeds? All I know is that I can host an *unlimited number of websites for $7/mo., and now I have to pay $49/mo. for the feed plus the extra $30! Either they pulled that amount out of a hat, or was it just an amount they decided they could get away with. It certainly isn’t an amount based on additional services they would be providing. If the fee is in fact out of spite, seems like they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Have they not yet learned that empowerment and general ‘good doing’ payoffs more than safeguarding? Safeguarding MLS data has inspired companies like Zillow and Redfin-both of which are good and have inspirational mission statements/purpose.
I’m not completely educated on the politics at the MLS, but isn’t it pretty much ran by the big W and JS? If so, what’s they’re logic in making it more difficult for their agents to compete by charging them more? The whole concept of the MLS doesn’t even seem useless anymore. Can somebody please remind me why we have the organization?
Justin,
If you have 10 clients from different companies, can you use the same feed for all of their websites? Or do you have to pay for each site feed per agent? If you have 30 agents all working for the sme Broker, is that one $30 charge? If so, it would seem the policy benefits the larger companies at the expense of the smaller ones.
The purpose of the mls is so that sellers have a means to lots of buyers coming to their house (via the seller’s promise to pay the buyer’s agent via the mls). Prior to the mls, no agent would tell a buyer about houses for sale, except for the ones their particular brokerage had in contract. Much like rental listings.
It is very frustrating trying to find a single source for all rental property available. With no mls system the same would happen to property for sale. The largest brokerages only sold their own listings with no mls system, so innovation would suffer without it and there would be even more of a monopoly than there currently is in the system.
I’m a Realtor who works as the ‘marketing guy’ for another agent. So, I’m not sure how to answer the 10 client questions. However, the guy we use for IDX contacted me the other night and said he had to start charging us $30/mo. extra. However, in years past, I’ve set-up over 600 real estate websites and I’ve yet to come across an IDX for more than $49/mo. I’ve done sites in NY, NM, WY, HI, OR, AZ, and all throughout CA where almost all MLS’s allow unlimited feeds. Maybe our IDX guy didn’t understand the announcement, but form what I understand, every agent that has IDX will be paying $30 more/mo. Is that right?
As far as what the MLS is, it just seems they’ve gotten a little too political for what they’re supposed to be. From what it looks like to me, a bunch of little guys teamed up, called BS on the current 3 downloads, and the board stomped their feet, crossed their arms, and said, “Fine, then we’re going to make you charge everybody $30/mo. for us.”
“…it just seems they’ve gotten a little too political for what they’re supposed to be…”
Who gets to decide what they are “supposed to be”? Them or the public? That is where we are right now in life. They don’t want to be what people want them to be, they want to be who they are.
If we go to Broker Only Licensure (almost passed 4 or 5 years ago and on hold) we may get to the point where agent vs. Broker services…matter. The feed is for the Broker use, agents are supposed to use the Broker’s feed. It really isn’t a matter of cost as much as it is supervision of the data display. The cost of making sure your site complies when you are not piggybacking the broker’s display. Unlimited access = more sites to supervise as to infractions.
$30 more per agent worth of infractions to monitor?
C’mon.
Other than the data that’s being entered into the MLS, what else about a website really needs to be monitored that isn’t already a risk to the IDX provider? Not only has the MLS forced responsibility onto IDX providers, but I can’t tell you how many times I had to report (1) particular agent for putting his/her personal web address in a MLS entered property description for real estate listings I was sending to a client. It took over a month for the MLS to even do anything about it.
Found another agent who posted his web address in a photo gallery directing visitors to go to his website to see what a visitor thought they would be seeing by clicking on the deceiving image title. Those are IDX infractions. Curious to know what amount of effort really goes into monitoring IDX and how IDX really makes their job more difficult.
I would think the more websites out there without IDX create more monitoring than those with.
Again, NWMLS has always been way to protective over the data compared to any other MLS I’ve worked with over the last 7+ years I’ve been doing Internet marketing stuff. This, charging extra for each feed is a joke.
I know you guys “get it,” and you prove it by linking to your competitors. You get more when you give more. Being a resource is a revolutionary concept that has driven many companies to success, and especially our younger generation knows that best.
rant, rant, rant. Sorry:) The principle frustrates me. New fee, no explanation…
…and since they’re supposed to be monitoring and providing accurate data to the public, I certainly think the public, and it’s members, should have a majority say in how decisions are made.
$30 more per agent worth of infractions to monitor?
C’mon.
Other than the data that’s being entered into the MLS, what else about a website really needs to be monitored that isn’t already a risk to the IDX provider? Not only has the MLS forced responsibility onto IDX providers, but I can’t tell you how many times I had to report (1) particular agent for putting his/her personal web address in a MLS entered property description for real estate listings I was sending to a client. It took over a month for the MLS to even do anything about it.
Found another agent who posted his web address in a photo gallery directing visitors to go to his website to see what a visitor thought they would be seeing by clicking on the deceiving image title. Those are IDX infractions. Curious to know what amount of effort really goes into monitoring IDX and how IDX really makes their job more difficult.
I would think the more websites out there without IDX create more monitoring than those with.
Again, NWMLS has always been way to protective over the data compared to any other MLS I’ve worked with over the last 7+ years I’ve been doing Internet marketing stuff. This, charging extra for each feed is a joke.
I know you guys “get it,” and you prove it by linking to your competitors. You get more when you give more. Being a resource is a revolutionary concept that has driven many companies to success, and especially our younger generation knows that best.
rant, rant, rant. Sorry:) The principle frustrates me. New fee, no explanation…
…and since they’re supposed to be monitoring and providing accurate data to the public, I certainly think the public, and it’s members, should have a majority say in how decisions are made.
I didnt carefully read through all bits of this comment thread but from what I did read there seems to be some confusion here.
As an IDX vendor the way I understand the new rules so far is that there is a $30/month fee for each broker level vendor contract. Brokers (principle brokers, designated brokers, managing brokers, owners – whatever you want to call them). The data feed at the broker level can be used for the agents under that broker (framed per NWMLS wording in a co-branded site). An individual agent is not allowed to procure an IDX feed per their rules and that has not changed.
So the fee is per owner that wishes to submit a contract. That fee is for the multiple offices and multiple agents under that broker. Not a fee for each individual agent. So if I have 40 users in a particular brokerage using a product I will be charged $30 to maintain that contract. Not $30/agent.
Not all MLS data requires a fee for the vendor to access, and the fee that NWMLS is imposing is certainly not the highest out there.
I didnt carefully read through all bits of this comment thread but from what I did read there seems to be some confusion here.
As an IDX vendor the way I understand the new rules so far is that there is a $30/month fee for each broker level vendor contract. Brokers (principle brokers, designated brokers, managing brokers, owners – whatever you want to call them). The data feed at the broker level can be used for the agents under that broker (framed per NWMLS wording in a co-branded site). An individual agent is not allowed to procure an IDX feed per their rules and that has not changed.
So the fee is per owner that wishes to submit a contract. That fee is for the multiple offices and multiple agents under that broker. Not a fee for each individual agent. So if I have 40 users in a particular brokerage using a product I will be charged $30 to maintain that contract. Not $30/agent.
Not all MLS data requires a fee for the vendor to access, and the fee that NWMLS is imposing is certainly not the highest out there.
Chris,
That is where the bigger companies, with the most mls votes on the change, benefit at the expense of the smaller company. In many ways it can be viewed as an anti-trust violation to put the smaller companies at a disadvantage, and even out of business.
Jan talked about this before when “they” voted to drop the feed to Realtor.com Seemed to me at that time that Windermere had more than 50% voting power and JLS plus Windermere could pretty much put everyone else out of business. An MLS should not be allowed to function that way. Jan knows this better than I. Maybe she’ll update the “voting” lineup.
Would make more sense to charge every agent site $5 for the feed than one company $30 for 1,000 agent site feeds and another $30 for 1 agent site feed. The impetus for change often comes from the smaller companies, so boycotting them should not be allowed, and hiding the boycott in these small changes to benefit the bigger companies is, well…scandalous.
What kind of mind thinks $30 for 1,000 agents total and $30 for 1 agent = “fair”? The monopoly is getting out of control in all aspects of real estate.
Ill refrain from commenting on MLS politics and reasoning.
Chris,
That is where the bigger companies, with the most mls votes on the change, benefit at the expense of the smaller company. In many ways it can be viewed as an anti-trust violation to put the smaller companies at a disadvantage, and even out of business.
Jan talked about this before when “they” voted to drop the feed to Realtor.com Seemed to me at that time that Windermere had more than 50% voting power and JLS plus Windermere could pretty much put everyone else out of business. An MLS should not be allowed to function that way. Jan knows this better than I. Maybe she’ll update the “voting” lineup.
Would make more sense to charge every agent site $5 for the feed than one company $30 for 1,000 agent site feeds and another $30 for 1 agent site feed. The impetus for change often comes from the smaller companies, so boycotting them should not be allowed, and hiding the boycott in these small changes to benefit the bigger companies is, well…scandalous.
What kind of mind thinks $30 for 1,000 agents total and $30 for 1 agent = “fair”? The monopoly is getting out of control in all aspects of real estate.
Justin,
The mls does not monitor sites that don’t have IDX, so that becomes irrelevant. It’s not their jurisdiction if there is no property search feature.
There are HUGE violations all the time. Not all IDX providers even know the rules, like you can’t say “search the mls”. There are more rules than most can keep up with. That is why the mls has always favored a few vendors doing a lot of sites vs. a lot of vendors doing one or two. That limits the risk to each Broker Member.
Of course they could cut back on all the “rules”…that would help a lot with monitoring costs 🙂
“…and since they’re supposed to be monitoring and providing accurate data to the public”
The mls existed for many years before the public could see portions of it…so that is clearly not the purpose of an mls. That it is perceived as that really angers them, because that is really not who they are.
You don’t seem to care what an mls “is”…only how you can benefit from “it”. So we can’t really have a discussion about it. It’s like thinking the sun exists for you to get a tan…it may do that, but that is not its purpose…only its purpose to you at that moment in time.
To ask for the benefit of interacting with something as big as an mls system, you should at least take some time to understand what it actually is.
“…and since they’re supposed to be monitoring and providing accurate data to the public”
The mls existed for many years before the public could see portions of it…so that is clearly not the purpose of an mls. That it is perceived as that really angers them, because that is really not who they are.
You don’t seem to care what an mls “is”…only how you can benefit from “it”. So we can’t really have a discussion about it. It’s like thinking the sun exists for you to get a tan…it may do that, but that is not its purpose…only its purpose to you at that moment in time.
To ask for the benefit of interacting with something as big as an mls system, you should at least take some time to understand what it actually is.
It’ll be interesting how the new rules will affect IDX landscape. Will smaller brokers seek out more full service solutions? Or will they seek out best of breed components now that they now longer have the x feeds per broker restriction? Will the new higher costs dissuade brokers from seeking best of breed components from multiple vendors? Will the lower margin IDX vendors leave the market? Should be interesting the next few months.
Ultimately, the NWMLS is controlled by the brokers, so the concerns of the public, agents, and IDX vendors are secondary to those of the brokers (I wish the “rest of us” had a bigger say but those are the breaks). I wonder what the motivations for the change were? Do the big brokers (a/k/a the ones on the NWMLS board) want to place smaller brokers at a disadvantage? Is it to make up for the lost revenue from agents leaving the industry? To slow down the traffic growth of the Zillows of the world?
Hi! Sorry I wasn’t watching this thread more closely. I missed a few days.
Chris is correct – the fee is per data download agreement, which is with the designated broker only. The company where Justin works has 3 download agreements that I’m aware of, so vendors associated with his company would pay a total of $90/month to the NWMLS. That covers all the agents in all 4 offices. I’m one of those vendors and have several agents as clients. I’ve asked those agents to split this new cost with the broker. The only reason Justin’s vendor might ask for the full fee is if he has only one client in Justin’s office. I’m faced with that situation in other offices, unfortunately. What else can we do? The good news is that agents in the offices where we couldn’t previously provide service, now have options.
It is ultimately the designated broker’s responsibility to monitor their agents’ websites and other advertising for rules violations, including RESPA, NWMLS, and state law requirements. Unfortunately enforcement is uneven … as the brokers themselves may not understand the rules or their intent. It will only get worse as there are new requirements and new data available for display. Justin, I recommend that if you see violations, contact the agent, diplomatically. If it continues to bother you and the agent doesn’t correct the situation, contact the broker. Eventually someone will call NWMLS and get an answer of sorts, though as Courtney saw earlier, it may not be the correct answer!
Robbie, all excellent questions! Wish I knew the answer to any one of them.
Hi! Sorry I wasn’t watching this thread more closely. I missed a few days.
Chris is correct – the fee is per data download agreement, which is with the designated broker only. The company where Justin works has 3 download agreements that I’m aware of, so vendors associated with his company would pay a total of $90/month to the NWMLS. That covers all the agents in all 4 offices. I’m one of those vendors and have several agents as clients. I’ve asked those agents to split this new cost with the broker. The only reason Justin’s vendor might ask for the full fee is if he has only one client in Justin’s office. I’m faced with that situation in other offices, unfortunately. What else can we do? The good news is that agents in the offices where we couldn’t previously provide service, now have options.
It is ultimately the designated broker’s responsibility to monitor their agents’ websites and other advertising for rules violations, including RESPA, NWMLS, and state law requirements. Unfortunately enforcement is uneven … as the brokers themselves may not understand the rules or their intent. It will only get worse as there are new requirements and new data available for display. Justin, I recommend that if you see violations, contact the agent, diplomatically. If it continues to bother you and the agent doesn’t correct the situation, contact the broker. Eventually someone will call NWMLS and get an answer of sorts, though as Courtney saw earlier, it may not be the correct answer!
Robbie, all excellent questions! Wish I knew the answer to any one of them.
I know what they say about curiosity and the cat, but I’m dying to know if move.com will get special treatment here. They’re the folks who stepped up and offered a free upload of an office’s listings to the realtor.com website, back when NWMLS stopped their feed. (Yes, I realize realtor.com is part of move.com, basically the same company.) Brokers had to sign a download agreement with TheEnterprise (now called move.com) in order to allow this feed. So for every download agreement they should pay NWMLS $30 … and they get nothing from the broker? Conservatively they’d be out-of-pocket a few thousand dollars per month, but maybe they provide service to half the offices. I think there are over 2200 members? Is NWMLS really going to charge them $30,000/month for the privilege of offering a free service to NWMLS members? My numbers could be off as branch offices are included in a count of members.
If they follow the rules to the letter, they should be charging them. I think this could turn into a tempest in a teapot. If they don’t charge Move.com, a lot of vendors are going to be asking some tough questions why they get preferred treatment. If they do charge Move.com a lot of brokers are going to upset that their Realtor.com feed is no longer free.
I suspect the NWMLS will offer free realtor.com uploads again for members (or figure out some way to make an exception for them to keep their feed since annoying the vendors is probably less problematic than annoying brokers would be). It should be interesting…
Is it $30 per *vendor* or $30 per broker, per vendor? In other words, if I (as a vendor) am servicing 10 brokers, am I paying $30 or $300 per month?
It’s $30 per company. So if you serve 20 brokers from ABC company, and one from DEF company, another 10 from the 3 branches of GHI company, you’ll pay $90/month.