Hat Tip to Jay Thompson
OK, here’s the Press Release
UPDATE: According to Mr. Brunner CEO of Virginia Association of REALTORS, he has talked with the general counsel of NAR and there is NO relationship between ForSaleByOwner.com and REALTOR.com. Ms Janick apparently as well told him that there are NO unlisted properties on REALTOR.com.
I want to make sure that we provide accurate information (which has been difficult in this case).
With that in mind and IF that is true then much of this post is now irrelevant.
We still have no official word from REALTOR.com saying that this press release was not accurate. (Would have made getting the truth out much easier.)
I am literally too P.O.’d for words. I have long considered REALTOR.com an enemy to the REALTOR. But this is a bridge too far. Whoever did this at REALTOR.com HAD to know what they were doing (IMO).
For them to allow FSBO’s onto REALTOR.com WITHOUT being on the local MLS shows CLEARLY who these @##%#$%’s are. They are no different than any other interloper.
My message to the folks at NAR on this one is short and sweet:
“You’d better come down HARD and FAST on this one… or this will make Bastille Day look like a picnic. And you know what? That might not be a bad thing.”
Thoughts?
Tony Arko says:
If this isn’t an indication that NAR is operating with it’s own interest in mind at the expense of its members, I don’t know what is. If only there was an alternative to NAR.
November 13, 2008 — 3:05 pm
Daniel, The Real Estate Zebra says:
I’m only posting this here because it is relevant to the discussion. Apparently, NAR was just as surprised as you and me.
General Counsel of NAR tries to clarify: http://varbuzz.com/fsbos-on-realtorcom-not-so-fast/
via VARbuzz
November 13, 2008 — 3:13 pm
Lou Lynch says:
Amen Brother. Twitter was jumpin’ with this news earlier today.
I never liked REALTOR.com and this is right in line with their MO. It has always been my opinion that the NAR was more interested in self preservation than the protection of their membership. Now is the time to stand up and boycott the organization that sells our data back to us.
Truth be told, the ROI on the enhanced service wasn’t worth squat anyway. We knew that they were slowly losing market share but I never thought they would stoop to this level of desperation.
Thanks for putting this on Bloodhound Eric.
November 13, 2008 — 3:15 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Daniel- I agree that they likely got bamboozled as well. Time to go for the throat IMO…straight at R.com. Time to boycott since they have declared themselves the enemy.
As I commented on Jay’s AG post, the only way I can see to stop ’em is using economic pressure (read: voting with our feet–en masse).
BTW- It was GREAT to meet you at BHBU in Orlando.
November 13, 2008 — 3:17 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Lou- I am no NAR fan…but I think they got SERVED by R.com on this one and that is where we need to direct the boycott, anger, etc. IMO.
November 13, 2008 — 3:20 pm
J Boyer Morristown NJ says:
What a bunch a S$&#, They deserve to be put out of business. Realtor.com and Move.com are complete bone heads.
November 13, 2008 — 3:54 pm
Missy Caulk says:
Eric, I stopped the enhanced last year, no regrets, I’ve lost all respect for them.
We have to join NAR to get access to our MLS, they have always screwed us IMO. This is just another thing they have added to list of insults.
November 13, 2008 — 3:55 pm
Sean Giorgianni says:
Screw R-com and NAR. And to hell with State and local associations too! They only care about real estate professionals (as opposed to real estate sales agents) as a revenue stream for their ice-cream-in-a-sauna-stupid organization. It’s time for an alternative to rise up against this monolithically hostile organization. BHBs scenius is nice, but I’d sign on to something bigger. I’ve always wanted to see an open source model applied to real estate …
I’m so mad I can’t type straight.
November 13, 2008 — 4:01 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Lou- You are welcome, bro. BTW- this HAD to be here. Something needed to be said. This won’t be the last place I post on it either. (grin)
@Sean- I understand how you feel. I do. I am still an inside out guy at heart, but stuff like this makes me want to take the whole thing down and start over. The one thing that I take into account here is that (as Daniel pointed out), it looks like this is an R.com and FSBO.com thing that NAR may not have had any knowledge of.
Along that line though, if they can find out Sarah Palin’s life story in 48 hours, time to get to the bottom of this. Quick. Who knew. What did they know. When.
November 13, 2008 — 4:15 pm
Natalie says:
Unbelievable.
Speechless.
November 13, 2008 — 4:23 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
If our local boards pulled their collective listings from R.com, then we could (at least locally) turn:
Realtor.com
into
FSBO.com
and they could then go pound irrelevant sand.
Time to Take Back our R from these morons.
Thoughts?
November 13, 2008 — 4:29 pm
Joshua Hanoud says:
From what I read on FSBO.com’s description of the service, they actually have a “broker affiliate” (I’d love to see a definition of that term…) who they subcontract the realtor.com showcased listing out to…that means it’s US allowing this to happen (obviously a very small minority of us…). Talk about shooting yourself in the foot…
It is now a $200 add-on to be showcased on Realtor.com…that’s the value of it. And there are brokers supporting it according to fsbo.com.
November 13, 2008 — 4:40 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
Hey Joshua…
Could be. Doesn’t change a thing. Still a money grab on R.com’s part.
According to a comment on Jay’s post at AG by Mark Storolis (don’t know him..) Errol Samuelson called him and told him that this was a “hoax” and that FSBO.com was doing this through some MLS’s that were more lenient about how they treated listings.
I don’t want to call BS on this, but here’s an open invite to Errol. I officially invite you to explain (here at BHB) what happened so that we can clear the air. Please be prepared to answer some thorough questions such as:
Did you receive any payment of any kind in exchange for these FSBO listings from being on your site?
If this press release was a “hoax” and yet the people involved are legitimate business concerns, when was the last time you talked with them and what was the content of the conversations?
But I want to be fair. So the invite is out there.
Until these issues are addressed, I see NO use for REALTOR.com’s enhanced listings I will encourage everyone I can to vote against R.com by cancelling (and not signing up). Why support an organization that declares war on the people who ARE it’s trademark?
On one of the other blogs, I was asked about creating a script to use with clients who ask about R.com. I posted one over a year ago on my REW blog. Time to create more anti-R.com marketing materials.
November 13, 2008 — 4:58 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
Actually it was at my blog http://tinyurl.com/5h8uad
November 13, 2008 — 5:01 pm
lenny says:
1 picture is worth a 1000 words:
http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/7/7/6/5/4/ar122662205445677.jpg
November 13, 2008 — 5:23 pm
Buy A. Home says:
You guys need to come to grips with the fact that your monopoly on the MLS and other listings will end. Every Realtor I’ve ever used in a purchase or a sale has been self-dealing or double-dealing…everyone of them. That’s not to say people reading Bloodhoud don’t “get it”, most of you probably do. But your industry as a whole needs a huge overhaul. The only reason Realtors have gotten away with crappy service for so long is that most lay-people don’t understand the arcane process of buying and selling a home. That’s rapidly changing. Also, your lobby has been able convince lawmakers to protect you in too many states. But those days are coming to an end. Technology is democratizing the process. You can embrace it and figure out to make a living with it, or go the way of other neanderthal businesses that refused to see the future. Then again, it sounds like you folks aren’t too happy with NAR, also.
November 13, 2008 — 7:11 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
And yet you used more than one REALTOR, buy a home…Why? If you were so mistreated, why did you come back for more?
I have used REALTORS as I have bought and sold houses. I am the technologist for a RE company. NOT a REALTOR. I did not feel abused. I felt like I was treated with respect.
But then again, I tip waiters, and taxi drivers. I value good service and things that make my life go smoothly. And when I am dealing with large transactions (like my house), I like to use a REALTOR.
Houses seem to sell that way.
November 13, 2008 — 7:23 pm
J Boyer Morristown NJ says:
Buy A. is just one of a small number of REALTOR haters. I do not believe he has been abused more than once. He is probably one of people who thinks we are all rich and making tones of money or something.
November 13, 2008 — 7:46 pm
Barry Bevis says:
Unreal…
The reality is that FSBO’s have been paying for this with limited service / discount brokers for a while.
We can throw rocks at them all day too…
The betrayal would be if Realtor.com took cash to circumvent even them…
November 13, 2008 — 8:41 pm
Thomas Hall says:
Do the French actually picnic?
November 13, 2008 — 8:48 pm
ShortSaleBlogger says:
Honestly, why does it even matter?
November 13, 2008 — 8:53 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Buy A. is just one of a small number of REALTOR haters.
Please don’t characterize the motives of other commenters. “Buy A Home” was right on the borderline of things I cut for flame-baiting, but I thought his argument was interesting. If you want to ask about his experiences, go for it. But none of us know who this person is or what he has seen or done.
November 13, 2008 — 8:59 pm
Buy A. Home says:
Why did I keep using Realtors? Well, lets see… Who controls the MLS? I just got smarter about dealing with them. And yes, I do tip waiters well for good service, not so much for bad service… that’s not an option I have if I get a bad realtor.
November 13, 2008 — 9:30 pm
Jessica Horton says:
Why not allow FSBO’s on it? What a great opportunity to show the public that we embrace a consumers RIGHT to sell their own home and we aren’t afraid to help them. How many of us give FSBO’s tips on some type of drip campaign with the hopes of getting their business – if the home doesn’t sell? It’s all about building the relationship.
Are we that intimidated by a FSBO in this market? I’m not.
November 13, 2008 — 9:45 pm
Buy A. Home says:
OK, I’ll admit to taking an extreme line here. I kind of stumbled across this blog and thought I’d vent in the hope of provoking some good discussion. I know there are good, honest, Realtors out there who work very hard for their clients. I’ve just had some really bad experiences. I also know it’s a hard business, especially right now. I’m putting my house on the market next week and yes, I’m using a Realtor. So, maybe this story is to be continued….
November 13, 2008 — 9:54 pm
Brian Brady says:
“I’m putting my house on the market next week and yes, I’m using a Realtor”
Let’s make this constructive, shall we? First of all, thanks for starting the discussion, Sir. If you don’t mind, would you share with us how you shop for a REALTOR and how you are trying to limit those bad experiences with REALTORs from your past?
We’re a fast but fair crowd on Bloodhound. Your input will be valued and most likely implemented.
November 13, 2008 — 10:10 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Let me get this straight. We are mad because a person that wants to sell their house has gained access to a tool normally wielded by a group we despise because of its actions in direct opposition of persons who want to sell their house.
I’m pretty sure there is a definition of irony in here somewhere…
November 13, 2008 — 10:35 pm
Patrick Hake says:
If anyone is foolish enough to waist $200 to put their home on Realtor.com, God bless them.
Honestly, most of the people who would choose to list their homes as FSBOs in this market are not the people I want to do business with anyways.
The true foxes to watch in the henhouse are not the FSBOs on Realtor.com, but the REO asset management companies who are acting as unlicensed agents and are stomping all over our MLS rules and common customs.
When the dust settles and the REO market starts to dissipate, it is highly likely that these companies and the banks that use them or own them will attempt to weasel their way into the real estate business permanently.
November 13, 2008 — 11:03 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
@Sean, Brian and Buy A. and Jessica-
First off, I agree with Brian that this should be constructive. We are fair here. Buy A.- we can all learn from others mistakes. Our aim is to RAISE the bar real estate sales wise…NOT play limbo. Please help us with this. You will find that you advice will be taken.
Sean, yes, I suppose there is irony. And, (after thinking on it), like Jessica, I have a piece of me that is FINE with FSBO folks having access to the internet. That’s the competitive piece of me that says, bring it on.
However- this is a branding thing as well. Putting a home that is NOT represented by a REALTOR on REALTOR.com in my mind de-values the BRAND that we have built up. The operating agreement between R.com and NAR stipulates (I think) that use of our site is for REALTOR listed homes.
I do regret that this was a pretty bad hoax. I will admit to being protective of the individual REALTOR and their business interests.
I don’t view allowing others the exposure that REALTOR.com gets as a threat. I view FSBO folks piggybacking the BRAND as a threat.
I do think that many FSBO sellers look at R.com as the Holy Grail. If I just get my listing on THAT site, then it will sell. As Jessica points out. I am not scared of them having access to that.
On a personal note to Errol Samuelson. The press release that was “heard round the world” was a cruel hoax played on your company.
I personally apologize for furthering their message. They are scum for mis-characterizing their relationship with your company.
I have always tried to be 100% accurate in my views. My retractions when I fall short are complete. This is no different. I am sorry.
You KNOW that I disagree with 3rd party national real estate listing aggregator sites in general. You know that I view Realtor.com as a third party entity not unlike Trulia, or Zillow. That’s my opinion. But I am fair and you did not deserve to be tarred by their PR stunt. My hopes are that your lawyers are busy typing this morning.
November 14, 2008 — 5:48 am
Russell Volk says:
I’ll have to agree. I don’t think it’s fair to allow general public post their houses on R. The market is competitive as is and incredibily slow, so why take away FSBOs from our strategy.
Just not fair.
November 14, 2008 — 7:20 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
I agree with your sentiments on the cruelty of this hoax. I also found your retraction to be as forceful and complete as was your earlier reporting.
Having said that, however, your post did generate an interesting discussion and I am always interested in that.
Finally, I respectfully submit one disagreement with your latest comment.
Putting a home that is NOT represented by a REALTOR on REALTOR.com in my mind de-values the BRAND that we have built up… I view FSBO folks piggybacking the BRAND as a threat… I do think that many FSBO sellers look at R.com as the Holy Grail. If I just get my listing on THAT site, then it will sell…
You give way too much respect to a brand that deserves none. I am limited to the people here in SoCal, but when I ask the public the difference between an agent and a REALTOR (which I do often) they see none. The concept that a REALTOR is different – never mind better – than an agent has not made a dent against the overall negative view most people have of our profession. In some ways I am happy for this. It diminishes the cost to our industry when NAR inevitably collapses.
November 14, 2008 — 7:24 am
Eric Blackwell says:
I wish I could disagree with that Sean… to me it seems to be a glass half empty / half full sort of thing.
I still think there is value in the REALTOR brand. I would have the audacity to hope (grin) that NAR would do a more effective job of building the brand and making it stand for being not only different but better.
I DO agree with you that in large measure, NAR has failed to accomplish this.
My sentiments fall near to Brian’s that he expressed unbelievable pride in the people that he saw in the trade and yet often dismay at the organization and its decisions.
Some days, I think it is possible to work from the inside out and save the brand. Some days I think “nuke it.” and “start over”. I am an eternal optimist, so that kinda keeps me thinking work from the inside out.
But I am a tech guy. I like thinking in algorithms and less in organizational behavior. So i can totally understand your view of this. Some days, I am right there with you.
Hopefully this post does and did? lead to some good discussion.
November 14, 2008 — 7:40 am
Louis Cammarosano says:
“They are no different than any other interloper.”
WORSE
they are supposed to be the association for realtors.
November 14, 2008 — 8:01 am
David says:
I am surprised to see that people actually put value in the “Realtor” brand. How can there actually be value in a professional organization that has zero barrier to entry?
It may as well be a union. We all know how well those work out.
November 14, 2008 — 8:05 am
Dena Davis says:
I think we need to focus on 2 issues:
1. When does NAR’s contract with Move.com end? Or is it perpetual?
2. You know how realtor.com does those “free marketing sessions” — this is where they tell us how to Leverage realtor.com. ( ie. use it in our listing presentations)
They get a big group of realtors together and they create a sense of urgency for the sign ups for certain featured listing zip codes. Then all the new suckers line up to make SURE they get their featured listing spot. ( Before anyone else gets it– Ha!! One year contract!! No switching zip codes – you sign up you are STUCK) They host these events at Hotels. We could find out when and where they are hosting these marketing events. Then run an Obama style ground game in 2 steps to warn potential enrollees. 1.) email flyer blast to board members prior to the meeting in that local market. Email flyer could point them to a collection of blog posts like this one. ( this is cheap. Less than 25.00 a blast) Then go to the parking lot of the hotel and flyer it with warnings. Or hell— picket outside the parking lots. Small town TV News teams are dying for news.
We are realtors and we need to take back REALTOR.com. Yes, the press release was misleading. But It really just woke us up to how bad the situation is with realtor.com
November 14, 2008 — 8:11 am
Hilary Marsh says:
Great discussion here, everyone. I do want to reiterate that ForSaleByOwner.com’s news release was filled with falsehoods. For more info, please read my blog post about this at http://narblog1.realtors.org/mvtype/speakingofrealestate/2008/11/what_forsalebyownercom_said_is.html, and NAR’s official news brief at http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2008111301. We’ll be posting more info on this today….
November 14, 2008 — 8:56 am
Dave Hanna says:
Let us all be clear on this:
NAR is not Realtor.com.
Realtor.com ius owned by Move.com. and they have the exclusive use of the name Realtor.com via a license agreement with NAR.
None of us is privy to the actual language in that agreement, but NAR has long stated they did not intend for Realtor.com to be able to display any non-realtor listing inventory.
NAR MLS guidelines do not allow any Association owned MLS to display non-Realtor inventory.
NAR does not support For sale by owner listings in an MLS or any other display of real property for sale.
I am all for blasting away here at the offending parties, but let’s shoot the bad guys, not everyone in range.
November 14, 2008 — 9:29 am
Dennis Blackmore says:
We still need a better national MLS. Too many local MLS rice bowls.
November 14, 2008 — 11:02 am
Barry Bevis says:
I’m sure many of you have seen the Official Realtor.com Response but here is the link
http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2008111401?OpenDocument
November 14, 2008 — 11:59 am
krisstina Wise says:
I ‘hear’ a lot of upset at R.com, Move.com, FSBO.com, etc. — but Who is really to Blame? In my opinion, we are. We, the REALTOR population, continue to pay for a service that fundamentally competes with us.
Let me explain what I mean.
First, as a REALTOR, it is I who takes on the HIGH COST of producing a Listing. In other words, I spend MY time, energy and money to obtain a Listing.
Next, I take on the additional HIGH COST of ‘Marketing and Selling’ the Listing. I spend MY time, energy and money working to produce prospective buyers of my client’s (the seller’s) home. My ‘job’ at that point is to 1. ‘generate leads'(through my marketing dollars)and 2. follow up and respond to each and every ‘lead’ for the sake of converting a ‘lead’ into a buyer and ultimate sale of MY Listing.
And, in the event that the buyer ‘lead’ is not a match for MY Listing, my next move is to offer my Buyer Services to that ‘lead’ and convert them to a bona fide buyer who hires me to help them purchase their next home.
And this is the game of Real Estate: Listings — Leads — Sales. Fundamentally, it is imperative to understand that without Leads we have no Sales. In other words, I must produce Leads before I can a produce a sale necessary to compete and sustain in the marketplace. The Leads are the Gold. The day the leads dry up is the day I go out of business.
So, to make my point — With R.com — Where do MY ‘Leads’ go (they are MINE because I spent the time, energy and money to produce the source of the lead – the listing)??? Every other vendor I use to market my listings routes the Listing Inquiries (Leads) back to me. R.com does NOT. R.com forces me to buy MY lead back (that I spent the money to generate in the first place) or will sell to another willing buyer. Make no mistake. R.com is my competitor, not my friend. We are both competing for MY Lead. Would American Airlines PAY Southwest Airlines to compete with them?
Yes, I think we are to blame. Until WE REALTORS as an entire population take our business back — we will be at the mercy of the Move.coms of the world. Refusing to pay R.com to ‘enhance our listings’ or ‘paying for leads we don’t generate’ would be the first step in a good direction.
November 14, 2008 — 1:47 pm
Judy Orr says:
Back in the Seller’s Market I studied FSBO.com to see how they worked. From what I remember, a fsbo had a choice of what services they wanted. For one fee they got advertised on the FSBO.com site only.
To get on the MLS I believe they might have paid more (or just agreed to a co-op commission) and they were then given to a local agent (that was approved by FSBO.com) that took an Exclusive Agency Listing allowing them to sell on their own or through the MLS. I’m thinking the seller had a choice of whatever cooperative commission they wanted to offer.
I’m fuzzy on the next part, but they might also have had to pay a small commission to the listing agent (.5% comes into mind but I could be wrong) if the sale was via the MLS. In IL we have a Minimum Services law which states that we cannot force a selling agent to deal directly with a seller if the agent doesn’t want to. So the listing agent has to negotiate if the selling agent requests it.
I believe they always had the ability to get these types of MLS listings on Realtor.com all along. But that meant each of their approved agents had to have access to Showcase Listings (and pay extra for it). So maybe FSBO.com is now paying a blanket fee for it or is giving the agents a portion of that $200.00 collected to get on R.com as a Showcase Listing.
In fact, I bet many of these FSBO.com listings did appear on R.com but as basic listings only. Only local agents that looked up the type of listing would know.
So IMO it’s not that big of a deal and we’re overreacting. I even got mad, thinking that Realtor.com went too far by sleeping with the enemy. But in reality, I think the enemy was there all along, we just didn’t realize it. Now they’ll just be showcased. And we know that having a Showcase Listing is all it takes to sell a house, right?
November 14, 2008 — 2:08 pm
Kevin Tomlinson-Miami Beach Real Estate says:
A good amount of the details of the NAR/Move deal is on a post at ActiveRain that Jon Washburn wrote.
If NAR is so protective of the brand–they sure gave up A LOT of control.
From what I’ve read it will be years or cost the NAR a ton of money to get out of the deal with Move Inc.
November 14, 2008 — 9:39 pm
Heather Lawson says:
I kind of agree with David that we may as well be a union. We pay dues, and if we were a union at least we could get health benefits.
November 15, 2008 — 9:47 am
Steven Leung says:
> We still need a better national MLS. Too many local MLS rice bowls.
You said it, Dennis. And it’s not getting better with companies soliciting listings for their own sites outside of the traditional database.
November 16, 2008 — 7:20 pm