I recently found myself in the unenviable position of taking a good long look in the mirror. Not your typical mirror on the wall (although I often find that to be no picnic either), but the metaphysical mirror; the “pot calling the kettle black” kind of mirror. I often comment on posts (lately they have been Barry’s) decrying what I perceive to be criticism without construction. But as soon as the topic turns to our beloved NAR (a favorite around the BloodhoundBlog), I join the nattering nabobs of negativism. Barry’s post on the NAR’s recent attempt at a technological video is the latest example. At last count there were 66 comments and I am in there at least twice with some snide sizzle and no meat. (Hello pot, you’re black!) But there are also some comments from Ian Smith, one of the people vested with producing the video. He came into what can only be described as hostile territory and acquitted himself quite well.
So here is what I propose. The contributors, commenters and readers of BloodhoundBlog may very well constitute the premiere brain trust in RE2.0. We complain, sometimes with great vitriol, that we would like to see more from the NAR and here is our chance. I challenge as many of you as possible to step up in the comments to this post and offer your services to Ian for the production of these videos (I’ll start if off below). I imagine we have many experts here abouts: video, editing, graphics, music, writing, production, agent advice, technological advice and so on. Ian, your challenge is to get whatever bureacratic sign-offs you need in order to open the project up to some expert volunteer help. The progress will be reported from time to time right here on BloodhoundBlog and we can all take a hand in improving that which we so often pillory.
Sean Purcell says:
Ian,
I am a writer. I also coach agents and originators – which means I spend 70% of my time helping them with marketing and 30% with psychology (attitudes and beliefs required for success). I might be able to help with the marketing, copywriting, agent perception or any other aspect for which my skill set could be helpful. I also volunteer to report here on BHB about the progress. Contact me and let me know.
April 26, 2008 — 8:35 pm
Greg Swann says:
> the nattering nabobs of negativism
I see getting rid of the NAR as a hugely positive thing. It’s a cartel — exactly like OPEC but toothless. Peeling this gummy parasite off the backs of American consumers will be a huge boon to everyone.
> we would like to see more from the NAR
You will never hear me say this. I want to see the NAR in a casket. Then I want to burn the casket, just to be safe.
I don’t mean to be negative about your idea, Sean, but helping the NAR does two things: It perpetuates an on-going criminal conspiracy against the American public. And it makes the helpers parties to the crime.
Improving the American real estate industry is a very different thing, and a common topic of conversation around here. The best and most important thing we can do right now is do our jobs so well that the dumbest and laziest Realtors among us are put into a line of work they can actually handle. This is precisely the function the NAR cannot and will not undertake, but we don’t need it to, anyway.
Meanwhile, Ian Smith definitely is to commended for sticking his head in the bloodhound’s mouth, as it were. Even more to be commended if he has sense enough to stick around and soak up the atmosphere.
April 26, 2008 — 8:48 pm
Bob Wilson says:
,blockquote>> we would like to see more from the NAR
You will never hear me say this.
Amen.
I would like to see NAR stick to their core competency of lobbying on behalf of the US homeowner and nothing more.
I’ve always liked bonfires though.
April 26, 2008 — 9:22 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
Fair enough. I am no fan of the NAR either and my position on that is pretty clear.
My nattering nabobs comment is not NAR specific but reflects a general disgust with people (myself included) who launch rhetorical rockets without offering plans for reconstruction. I believe I understand your position: launch the rockets, there is nothing to improve. But I do not see the NAR going anywhere anytime soon. Given that, I want to push them as hard and fast toward an NASD model as possible. This requires continued engagement.
As for this particular case, they are attempting to expose and educate REALTORS to technology. Are they up for it? Doubtful. Will they lead? Definitely not. But they are making an effort in an arena that Bloodhounds hold near and dear. I think noblesse oblige applies. Maybe it is my own personal mea culpa. But on this one, I would rather be in the arena… marred by dust and sweat and blood
April 26, 2008 — 9:43 pm
Bob Wilson says:
Sean,
Realistically, do you think it will make a difference? NAR may not die tomorrow, but aside from their lobbying efforts, they are being minimalized by the public at an alarming pace. They have their own member associations refusing to give them listings and they don’t have a clue how to run tomorrow’s real estate business, so what is there to reconstruct? More importantly, why?
April 26, 2008 — 10:07 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I want to push them as hard and fast toward an NASD model as possible.
Does that mean more laws? Our economy is already crushed under the dead hand of the state. You are about to watch and hopefully not experience a completely preventable famine caused by dumb-asses who think their preachy good intentions overrule the laws of economics. The idiot laws already on the books won’t go away any time soon, but, so long as they don’t change, we can eclipse and supplant them. Forbidding government to muck with commerce would work even better, but inertia is the best bargain we can hope for.
> I think noblesse oblige applies.
Heinlein called this “monkeytalk.” I owe a fiduciary obligation to my clients. I owe my best efforts to consumers in general. What I owe the NAR is scorn, contempt and vilification. I think I’m holding up my end.
They are a dead letter. They do not matter. They started as a criminal conspiracy against the consumer, and this is just about over. Their sclerotic ineptitude will prevent them from taking on any non-criminal role. You’re right that they will take forever to die off, but they already don’t matter. The future belongs to Realtors who are willing to out-perform and out-market the slouched and shuffling union men of the NAR.
April 26, 2008 — 11:11 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
What I owe the NAR is scorn, contempt and vilification.
Greg: and about $500 a year.
April 27, 2008 — 6:09 am
Scott Rogers says:
> I challenge as many of you as possible to step up in the comments to this post and offer your services to Ian for the production of these videos (I’ll start if off below).
Sean — you have a great idea, but one that won’t work here at Bloodhound.
Bloodhound’s existence depends on NAR continuing to struggle to be a source of information on (for example) advanced technology use in the real estate industry. Bloodhound has a vested interest in NAR making no progress in this area (or, as Greg puts it “I want to see the NAR in a casket.”)
Certainly, NAR and Bloodhound are in vastly different places today as far as being a source of information for advanced technology in real estate. And thus, it would be easy to dismiss the logic above because of how far NAR would have to come to provide just as much valuable commentary, perspective and analysis on the industry. But within your (Sean’s) context of trying to assist NAR in this realm, don’t be too surprised if Bloodhound doesn’t end up being a very helpful place to do so — it would be counterproductive for Greg.
Interestingly, for a moment I thought Greg might take the stance of “ok, let’s give them ideas and our assistance — they’ll never be able to do anything valuable with it.” This would have supported the goal of “Improving the American real estate industry” as Greg put it. Alas, Greg’s response was a bit more self serving.
April 27, 2008 — 7:21 am
Teri Lussier says:
>we would like to see more from the NAR
That stopped me cold, Sean. Not sure who “we” are, but it ain’t me, as I would like the NAR to go away. Sooner rather than later.
Any discussion that would effectively prolong the demise of the NAR is one in which I refuse to participate.
And I’m all for thinking positively: It’s another beautiful week in Dayton Ohio, and my life is damn good (and none of that has anything to do with the NAR)! 😀
April 27, 2008 — 9:22 am
Greg Swann says:
> Bloodhound has a vested interest in NAR making no progress in this area
> Greg’s response was a bit more self serving.
Your entire comment is ad hominem: “I impute impure motives to BloodhoundBlog and Greg Swann, therefore their arguments are incorrect.”
Imputing anything at all to BloodhoundBlog is the Collectivist Fallacy — we are unique individuals, each free to speak our own minds. That’s beside the point. If the ad hominem were directed at any other contributor, I would have killed this comment with dispatch. In normal circumstances, I will sometimes let smears about me come through, because I can shoot them down so easily, but these are not normal circumstances. I’m putting out way too many fallacious fires right now. I don’t want for anyone to get the idea that imputing motives to or characterizing the positions of contributors or commenters is persuasively valid discourse.
Our comments policy is explained on our About Us page. It is elaborated at great length in this post. If that’s still not enough, it is explicated in excruciating detail in this post. The essence: Arguing ideas is what BloodhoundBlog is all about, and this is why we forbid ad hominem attacks on the people making those arguments.
But: I let this in, so I need to shoot it down.
> Bloodhound’s existence depends on NAR continuing to struggle to be a source of information on (for example) advanced technology use in the real estate industry.
> Bloodhound has a vested interest in NAR making no progress in this area
> But within your (Sean’s) context of trying to assist NAR in this realm, don’t be too surprised if Bloodhound doesn’t end up being a very helpful place to do so — it would be counterproductive for Greg.
> Alas, Greg’s response was a bit more self serving.
We see about 50,000 unique souls a month at BloodhoundBlog. That’s a lot for a real estate weblog, particularly since we don’t practice the “EZ reading” philosophy ubiquitous in the weblogging world. But in the larger scheme of things, it’s nothing. In the world before Web 2.0, we wouldn’t matter to the NAR — but, of course, we wouldn’t exist in the world before Web 2.0.
Instead, I’m certain that, in due course, we will matter quite a bit more to the NAR than the NAR matters to us — to me, that is. I’m going to show agents how to supplant them, and they have no defense against this.
In any case, BloodhoundBlog’s continued growth doesn’t have much of anything to do with the NAR, except as an ancillary factor. We grow because individual real estate professionals want to learn how to do their work better in the hi-tech world, and we will continue to grow as long as we continue to deliver the goods.
If the leadership of the NAR were actually interested in learning how to do their work better in the hi-tech world, they would be here. I conceal nothing, not from anyone, and that’s the example I strive to set for contributors and commenters. If you know something, share it. It will spark other ideas, and we’ll all be richer for it.
The NAR is already a dead letter, but I have nothing to gain from that. This job doesn’t pay me anything — it costs me quite a bit, both in out-of-pocket costs and in opportunity costs. I work 90+ very high-octane hours a week. The Realtors who waste so much of their lives bitching about me might take a moment to thank their stars that I’m working to help them and not to put them directly out of business.
And all that’s as may be. The actual charge is corruption. The second claim would be that my refusal to help the NAR — which I have repeatedly identified as a criminal conspiracy against the consumer — is evidence that I am dishonest. Were I an honest man, I would help the NAR commit crimes against the consumer and against other real estate business models. I won’t do that, and my position is that no one else should, either. Instead, I devote my efforts to helping the very best real estate professionals surpass and therefore — as a secondary consequence — supplant the NAR. As a reductio, your position might be expressed like this: “Greg Swann is corrupt because he opposes crime and promotes scrupulously honest, completely transparent, coercion-free trade.”
But the first claim would be that I devote so much of my time and so much of my intellectual effort to undermining the criminal philosophies that undergird the NAR, among many other criminal organizations, because I am fundamentally corrupt. I have proved — to my own satisfaction, at least — that occupational licensing laws harm the consumer, that the safe-harbor withholding tax exclusion destroyed real estate brokerage as a business, that the seller paying for the buyer’s representation is a complete betrayal of the buyer’s interests. I doubt that most of the people reading here share my satisfaction, but they cannot raise any rigorous intellectual arguments against the positions I have taken. I expect, in fact, that I’ve made them pretty unhappy — but that’s only because I’m so corrupt and self-serving.
Sean Purcell is free to do as he chooses, as is every other contributor to BloodhoundBlog. I recognize that I can argue very stridently. This might be intimidating to some people — though this cannot possibly apply to Sean, who has a much better education than I. In any case, it’s not my fault. I argue rigorously by nothing but persuasively valid means. If other people can’t keep up, this does not prove me right, but it does prove me better-prepared. I personally think it is a mistake for any honest man to complicate himself in an unrepentant criminal enterprise, but I don’t tell other people what to do. If Sean can get people to volunteer to help the NAR look less inept in its next movie, that’s his business.
Finally, although I let this comment post, do not regard this as a license to engage in ad hominem attacks. Your next one and any others will be killed. Contain yourself to arguments about ideas, and not about people and their putatively impure motives, and we’ll be fine.
April 27, 2008 — 9:57 am
Bob says:
Greg, I’m glade you let that comment through the logic filter.
I have paid NAR dues since 1990. I applaud them for being the homeowner political lobby. It matters not to me whether they live or die, other than the few hundred dollars I pay them every year.
Instead of attacking the NAR detractors and challenging us to rebuild a broken machine, I challenge you supporters to convince me why I should help.
Aside from their lobby efforts, what does NAR bring to the table that I should value? If you want my help in rebuilding, remodeling or reinforcing the 100 year old edifice that is NAR, please show me what part of the crumbling structure is still sound and worth saving and what I stand to lose if NAR is scaled back.
April 27, 2008 — 10:08 am
Barry Cunningham says:
Help for agents that need it and want to implement it..ABSOLUTELY!!
Help for NAR….no way…unless they rebate our fees…ok..I can be bought…LOL…
Viva La Revolution!
April 27, 2008 — 10:26 am
Scott P. Rogers says:
Greg,
My apologies, as you seem to have interpreted my comment above as quite offensive and provocative. That was not my intent, but certainly, the written word sans inflection and tone can result in some miscommunications.
My intent was not to imply that you are corrupt — merely to point out that if NAR was providing the same quantity and quality of information found on BHB, then BHB would not be such a diamond in the rough. I suppose it would be a diamond, among diamonds, in the rough? 🙂
In retrospect, I also didn’t put enough thought into my use of “Bloodhound Blog” and “Greg Swann” — this seems to have hit a nerve, yet again, that was not my intent.
At any rate — since my comment now has been interpreted as such, I guess I’ll just watch the ensuing dialogue unfold.
April 27, 2008 — 10:33 am
Cathleen Collins says:
Give me a Congress that is filled with this type of corruption.
April 27, 2008 — 10:35 am
Greg Swann says:
> My apologies, as you seem to have interpreted my comment above as quite offensive and provocative.
Not to worry. Doesn’t bother me in the least. I let the comment come through and then addressed it because I wanted to take up the two meta-issues — logical fallacies and the question of motives — with the ninety-and-nine.
> My intent was not to imply that you are corrupt — merely to point out that if NAR was providing the same quantity and quality of information found on BHB, then BHB would not be such a diamond in the rough.
Everything else notwithstanding, that won’t happen. There are too many factors working against it — not just the lack of knowledge but the lack of insatiable curiosity, the hierarchical management structure, the overarching need to placate the lowest and worst among brokers, etc. In the corporate world, you can have a buy-out or turn-around manager who can just keep firing people until the rest catch a clue. This cannot happen in the NAR, nor in any membership organization. They’re already obviated, they just don’t know it yet.
April 27, 2008 — 11:08 am
Scott P. Rogers says:
> Everything else notwithstanding, that won’t happen. There are too many factors working against it — not just the lack of knowledge but the lack of insatiable curiosity, the hierarchical management structure, the overarching need to placate the lowest and worst among brokers, etc.
I agree that inertia is not in NAR’s favor, however, I think it could happen…
1. CONTENT: From the headshots on the sidebar, you have 25 contributors. No slight against any of them (they’re great!), but I believe there are at least 25 more out there that could provide content to NAR. Certainly, NAR would have to figure out who they are, and figure out how to incent them to contribute.
2. AUDIENCE: I’m not sure how we’d measure it, but I believe that NAR would come out of the gates with a larger audience than BHB. No, I’m not pointing out that one-point-something-million members is more than 50k unique visitors per month, but the NAR has established communications vehicles in place (let’s not argue whether their effectiveness or appropriateness) to communicate with their members.
Again, inertia is not in NAR’s favor, but I believe NAR has the capability to provide just as much quantity and quality information as BHB (or as some of the other similarly prominent multi-author real estate industry blogs)
April 27, 2008 — 11:28 am
Teri Lussier says:
Scott-
It can’t happen for one very simple reason: There are no rules for what is posted on the BHB. That amount of trust and freedom will never happen on an NAR blog.
April 27, 2008 — 12:33 pm
Sean Purcell says:
This comment thread is interesting for the salient points being made, but it is important for what is missing.
Greg, just to answer a few of your questions. I am not in favor of the NAR as they stand, just as I do not favor unions or trade groups in general. They are, for the most part, intent on growing their power rather than helping their members. When I was quite young I went to work as a bagger at the local grocery store. Had to join the union. My father gave me one piece of advice. He said to watch the actions of the union: they will fight (with your money) to preseve the whole (which is to say: themselves) but they are loathe to support any one member. Unions and trade groups do not protect the very constituents they proclaim to… they are insular and look out for you only to the degree that it benefits them.
I also agree with you (and have in the past) regarding state licensing laws. They are misleading and pointless (other than as a means to collect fees for the state). Does all of this rise to the level of “criminal conspiracy”? I am not sure. We differ in degree, but not direction.
I also do not wish to increase laws; at least centralized law. I believe that the more local the control the better the law. Should there be no law at all? Not a feasible theory in our society. Therefore law should be as local as possible. Better still are rules that do not carry the color of “law” but are rather requirements of entry to whatever club we are discussing. The NASD is a great example of this. If you wish to transact business with the public you will agree to the rules of the NASD. They are not there as a trade group and they are not there to make oneself feel good about what one does for a living. The NASD is there to maintain as much integrity and trust as possible in a business filled with opportunity to abuse that trust. They do so with a heavy hand and you do not want to run afoul of the NASD. Now, does power corrupt? Absolutely. No organization is above concern. But still, wouldn’t the profession be better off with an oversight group to which we all belonged and whose bite we all feared?
What is most important about this comment string, however, is what is not here – I said that in the beginning. My target in the original post was not so much the NAR as the commenters here at BHB. Look at who is commenting now; take a good look. Where are all the people that comment on NAR issues when they are served up at feeding time? You are not a regular commenter on those posts and with good reason: your take on the NAR is well established and that is my point. You do not wish to see them go further and you find little interest in debating the video or polling issues of a group that is a “dead letter”. The same can be said for a few of the other commenters here. Where are all the people that gleefully comment about how poor a job the NAR is doing and how they deserve more for their money? Where are all the people that engage in discussion over the NAR now, when it comes time to put up or shup up?
If I could wave my hand and make the NAR disappear I would do so. If I can create the impetus to move the NAR from a sophomoric trade group to an oversight group with teeth and integrity, I try to. But if I catch myslef going on a site such as this and bashing because the bashing is good… then I feel the need to stand up as a man and offer a hand as well. You suffer from no such loss of face, you do not engage in NAR bashing. You do not engage the NAR issue much at all. But what is the excuse for the rest of us who have? Where is the answer from all the people who DID say “I expect more from the NAR?” Hearing Teri and Bob repeat that they do not expect more is superfluous: they proffered little expectation before and they never said they did.
I expected a bit of negative response when I posted this. Helping the NAR, for most of us, falls somewhere between wasting time on a foregone conclusion to aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy. But I did expect at least a couple of the more vocal nabobs to speak up and step up when given the opportunity.
April 27, 2008 — 12:50 pm
Greg Swann says:
I’m out of time right now, but, FWIW, I think I deserve to be counted among the NAR bashers. Means nothing to me, just rude jokes, but I do do it. I don’t think that creates any obligation for me or for anyone else. No good can come from prolonging the demise of any aspect of Socialism. If you’re for justice, you’re against crime. There really is no third way, although the criminals will never stop trying to convince people that there is.
April 27, 2008 — 1:00 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
You are right in theory if not in practice. This has been a difficult string for me. That is: it is difficult for me to back a position regarding the NAR when I generally agree with the opposing view point. Again, my original intent was not so much NAR driven as it was “criticism without content” driven. But I played it out against an NAR backdrop and find myself arguing a duality: criticism should be more constructive and yet the object of this criticism merits little reconstruction.
The silence is deafening and so my challenge has been answered. I am, quite possibly, playing out my own issues on this stage in any case and that is inappropriate. I will continue to challenge those that post withoug purpose and those that enjoy the feeding frenzy that follows.
April 27, 2008 — 1:51 pm
Scott P. Rogers says:
To continue with the original intent as began in comment #1 . . .
Ian,
I am an associate broker, and the IT Director of a company with roughly 65 agents. Six years ago, I began as an employee of the company providing graphic design and web design services. A year later (five years ago), I began in sales. Today, I am heavily involved in both sales, and web development for the real estate company. My work has been both internal agent-management tools, and external agent-client tools. I would be happy to share of my experiences and perspectives.
April 27, 2008 — 4:29 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Bloodhound has a vested interest in NAR making no progress in this area”
Someone ought to tell Dave Phillips that, then. He’s been a lightning rod of good information on BHB. When he was announced, I thought, “Is he out of his mind?”. Soon after his first few posts, I realized he shares our irreverent swagger that begs for institutional improvement.
I’m not a REALTOR. I’m not a real estate agent. I think the NAMB and CAMB are useless to me. The difference is that I’m not REQUIRED to pay dues to them so they have to earn my money. To date, they haven’t done that.
Do I think they can help my business? Absolutely not. If the President of CAMB saw an opportunity to improve his association by contributing to BHB, I’d willingly read…just like I willingly read Dave Phillips….and I’d do so with an open mind. It is the promotion of intellectual thought that makes BHB great.
This isn’t “Fight Club” here. This is Bloodhound Blog. Dissent encouraged.
April 27, 2008 — 4:35 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Scott,
Thank you.
April 27, 2008 — 5:24 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Brian,
Someone ought to tell Dave Phillips that, then. He’s been a lightning rod of good information on BHB
Great comment. I too am not a member of NAMB or CAMB, although I contemplated joining at one point when I was pushing so hard for transparent lending practices. Bottome line: didn’t see any way they would be of benefit in the drive to clean up lending and so I am still not a member. NAR, on the other hand, I must join in order to access the MLS.
I guess I still hold out hope that NAR can be turned around… but maybe that is fruit of a dues paying rationalization.
April 27, 2008 — 5:31 pm