Home : Blogs : Ben Kakimoto - Seattle Condo Specialist : Seattle Real Estate :: Seattle Condos

NWMLS to Suspend it's Feed to Realtor.com

Marlow @ 360digest.com reports that the NWMLS will suspend it’s feed to Realtor.com when the current contract ends in next Spring.

Probably not a big deal. In speaking with the general public and my own clients, no one ever mentions using Realtor.com to view listings. In the Seattle area, company websites such as Windermere.com, JohnLScott.com and Remax.com probably get the lion’s share of user home searches.

The only area where it may be an issue is out-of-state people relocating or looking to invest in Western Washington. Most may not know about the many local companies and their websites.

Posted by Ben Kakimoto - Seattle Condo Specialist on 10/18/2006 10:49 PM

Comments (34)

nwmls, realtorcom, seattle, washington

This post has been included in Washington Information

34 Comments on NWMLS to Suspend it's Feed to Realtor.com

OCT

2006

Ben, but wont it hurt the agents? From my knowledge, when my agents are printings listings out for a cma or showing the title on the top of the page is Realtor.com. Is the MLS going to change their system to reflect the change with Realtor.com?

My gut instinct tells me that this may in fact be pretty big news and not just in the Northwest, especially if it develops into a trend among MLS's. I know Lennox (CEO of John L Scott) probably is pretty happy with this move.

I think your right it may have a pretty major effect from the relo standpoint. I thought I feature the post and see what others thought of other effects this might have...

First, I hope that info is factual since I've replicated it...Marlow didn't state the source and I couldn't find anything about it in the NWMLS or the NAR site.

Toby - is that from Locator? I get the JLS banner on my MLS print outs.

Matt - I wonder if the NWMLS will go after the 3rd party sites that republish its data.

Yes, Ben. I believe it is from the Locator link inside the MLS.

OCT

2006

I agree with Matt. I think this will pan out as a BIG deal in a lot of respects. Many people use Realtor.com to do their searches, especially going from state-to-state. The larger regional companies would do well to captilize on this development, and do more promotion outside their respective service areas.

Is your MLS not renewing the contract because Realtor.com is not paying the MLSs anymore to list their properties on Realtor.com. I was at a meeting with the local MLS when this was brought up. I think we are shooting ourself in the foot. Our job is to give our client's property the most exposure to the buying public as possible. By telling Realtor.com they can't but our client's property on their site because they refuse to pay the MLS is a disservice to our clients. That is like taking our ball and going home. The MLS should provide as much exposure as possible for our client's property. It shouldn't matter if Realtor.com dosen't pay the MLS for the listing. As far as I am concerned is it free advertising for my client's property. Keep listings on Realtor.com

But Gene, if the MLS provided all the listings for free to buyers on multiple website there would have no reason for buyers visit an agents or brokerage company website to search listings. Having the MLS provide this service to everyone hurts us who work in the industry.

Rich - Marlow stated Windermere doesn't allow it's listings fed to Realtor.com from NWMLS...is that true?

Gene - If above is true, then I don't believe sellers will be terribly disadvantaged (locally) considering that Windermere controls 40% of the listings in the Seattle area. And, it does appear agents can individually decide to advertise a listing on Realtor.com.

You're correct, Ben. Windermere doesn't allow it. I had a Seller call me on it once. They had used Realtor.com to search when they were moving in from back East, and they wanted me to advertise their home there when we listed. Windermere doesn't like all the peripherial ad stuff that surrounds listings on Reator.com, and they aren't afforded much control of the process. I could agree with some of their rationale, but it still would have been nice to have the ability, if only to placate the Sellers. However, I think people have become more computer-literate since the inception of Realtor.com, and are doing their own custom searches outside of that platform.

Matt, do you have any current stats on Realtor.com? Are people using them now as much as they have in the past?

Many buyers I've talk to in the New Jersey area don't use Realtor.com as their primary source anymore (they still check it out though). During the past few years when things were hot and heavy, being a day or two behind (which is what the Realtor.com feed was) new listings may have meant you missed out. The word Outdated was usually used in the same sentence as Realtor.com.

Plus as a agent, I really hate having to pay to enchance my own listings!!!

I agree with Ravi as far as the Northeast. Realtor.com is not the first place they go.

Actually most people do a Google search for what they want and go to the first few that come up. The MLS here (in RI anyway) is pretty much duplicated on PROJO.com the RI daily newspaper and again on Ooodle, although I don't know how many people use that one.

However, I would think that Realtor.com still holds the background of searching and I would still like to see our MLS on it.

Hi Ben, great post and comments. Personally I wish my MLS would do the same thing. I am not now and have never been a fan of Realtor.com. With IDX feeds who needs them

Just because the MLS gets out "that doesn't mean the Brokers can't go back in on a case by case basis" which I understand happened in other parts of the Country namely Arizonia, Florida, maybe Calif.,
Anyone out there that has experienced your MLS getting out BUT Brokers getting back in. It could be an advantage for some Brokers.

Ben: This is a very interesting development, with potentially huge repercussions. I would love to know more about the underlying rationale for the departure--as well as their future plans. Please keep us posted--and thanks!

Like Roberta said keep us posted ....................

I am reminded of a line from a blog I read on Active Rain a few weeks ago... "Information is free...Knowledge is priceless"

MLS should be feeding information to whomever they can and it shouldn't matter if they are paid for the feed or not. Unless the feed is costing them $$ --- which I don't think it is.

Per a NAR Report: "Realtor.com was the most popular Internet resource, used by 54% of buyers..." (Home Buyer and Seller Survey Shows Rising Use of Internet, Reliance on Agents- WASHINGTON, 1/17/06- Walter Molony)

I think that, like Joanne said, "MLS should be feeding information to whomever they can..."

Interesting post, though. Thanks.

You need to keep in mind that NAR has a highly vested interest in helping Realtor.com succeed.

We own the domain name Realtor.com and Move.com operates it under a licensing agreement with NAR.

Internet history has proven time & time again that buyers will go where the listings are to look at them. If they're no longer on Realtor.com but another easily findable and usable site then that's where they will go.

If Realtor.com starts losing a significant portion of it's listings database they will also start losing a significant number of viewers.

I'm not sure that John L. Scott & Co. has ever had their listings on Realtor.com and it doesn't seem to have had any sort of negative impact on their business.

I do not subscribe to this current notion that we shold be disseminating our listings to as many online sources as possible.

Realtor.com is by no means perfect, but having my MLS pull out of it would worry me. I work with a lot of investors and out of state clients that use Realtor.com to see the changes I make to their listings in my local MLS.

Biggest complaint I keep hearing about realtor.com is that the information is outdated. I think that ship has sailed already. -Charles

Realtor.com is still perceived by the masses as the "best" resource out there. Until that perception changes, they will still get the traffic.

OCT

2006

Our MLS in the twin cities feeds Realtor.com. You won't find me paying for an enhanced listing. It's my listing, and I'm not paying extra on Realtor.com to have my info next to it. In my opinion, NAR should do that for us, instead of making money from it's members. There's something inherently wrong with this system. I applaud those MLSs for taking a stance. Bravo.

Hey Ben, I just wanted to comment on the remarks regarding Windermere and Realtor.com. I am with Windermere in Spokane and as far as I know, the only control we have on whether a listing is on Realtor.com or not, is done by checking a box (or not) on our listing data sheet which is then submitted to the MLS. It decision made between the listing agent and the seller and has nothing to do with Windermere. This is actually the first time that I have heard of the MLS not wanting to submit to R.com so it will be interesting to see how it pans out. I am with Gene when it comes to getting as much free exposure as possible for my seller. However, the last thing you will find me doing is "paying" R.com to "feature" me or my listings!

If R.com and others wanna feature our listings then it should be an opt in category. For me I am tired of seeing my offices outdated listing on the web and even on BobVilla.com. Why should others have more money to achieve top Google rankings when they are provided dated material to people? I would like to see third party sites restricted and more power passed to the agents and offices who subscribe to the MLS service. Did you know that agents can't even advertise the MLS when they pay for it? I have spent to much time to achieve solid Google rankings to have to have another website feature my outdated listings. It is just my hope that those types of sites "go away" because it takes away alot from companies who pay to listed in the MLS and to feature current and accurate data...Just my opinion.

OCT

2006

Lots of buzz about this around the blogoshere. I ran into comments by Ben on a blog or two... out there...

Ben's got a poll on his blog... wouldn't it be interesting if others did the same on their real estate blogs for their markets? I have looked at the results twice... but not voted!!!!!! I would assume Ben wants a local read on it.

http://seattlehousingbuzz.com/

I would think people would Google for info about who has the inventory in a market... real estate is local.

Hey Maureen, thanks for stopping by. I did speak with my broker and he did confirm there were rumblings going on about the Realtor.com feed. The MLS Annual membership meetings are next month (for brokers only), I'm sure this will be discussed. Not a lot of votes, but so far it's 12-2 against using Realtor.com for searches.

OCT

2006

I honestly don't think realtor.com is a big deal. I am not sure that they are helping our cause I just hink they figured out how to make money off of us.

Since they've never made any money they dont' have it figured out yet Teresa. ;-)

Realtor.com is having some major issues.........

OCT

2006

How many people who replied to Ben's Blog belong to the advance site on Realtor.com. I can add more pictures, my own text, my name and contact information is associated with that listing. I get a lot of hits on my listings every week (yes, you can see the interest in your property if you belong to the advance site) and it drive buyers to my web site. That is not bad for someone in a small market. Realtor.com does works if you know how to use it to your advantage. It is just another marketing tool for the Realtor.

Gene,

I belong to the "Showcase Listings" it makes a huge difference being able to add comments and such.

OCT

2006

I find it hard to believe that any sane and reasonable real estate professional (and by implication, an MLS/association run by brokers and agents) could honestly say with a straight face,

“I don’t see the value for me or my clients in having my properties seen on such a popular website like Realtor.com, a site that is in fact, governed by and for Realtors.”

It’s preposterous that a single person could actually say they don’t want their property in the one place where it has the best chance of being seen based on the fact that the majority of homebuyers search Realtor.com. If a board member of an MLS who was also my agent or broker voted NOT to have area listings posted on Realtor.com, came to me and told me (a home seller) the decision they just made, I would be outraged.

I wonder how that conversation would go exactly?

MLS DIRECTOR/MY AGENT
Good evening Mr. and Mrs. Home Seller. I know that I’ve only had your home listed for a little over a week, but I already have some fabulous news for you.

MR. & MRS. HOME SELLER
You sold our home already?

MLS DIRECTOR/MY AGENT
Not exactly, but I’m working on it. But I still think you’re going to love this.

As you know, I’m one of the Board of Directors for the local MLS. Well guess what I and the majority of the other board members who happen to be with the largest companies in the area decided to do?

MR. & MRS. HOME SELLER
Spend more money advertising our home?

MLS DIRECTOR/MY AGENT
(blushing)
Oh no. We decided that we didn’t want your home to ever be seen by any of the 6 million home buyers (according NAR and other reliable sources, more than any other real estate site) who visit the site owned by the association I am a member of, the National Association of REALTORS (one of the most trusted trade organizations in the world), Realtor.com, each and every month. Isn’t that fantastic?

MR. & MRS. HOME SELLER
That is fantastic. Thank you so much for working so hard to make sure our home is seen by the FEWEST number of buyers as possible. In a few months when you return and tell us that our home hasn’t sold and we need to reduce the price, we’ll look forward to hearing all of the other wonderful ways you are NOT working in our best interest. I assume you’ve made this vital business decision because, Realtor.com is charging you massive sums of money.

MLS DIRECTOR/MY AGENT
(dismissive)
Oh hardly. Realtor.com is FREE.

MR. & MRS. HOME SELLER
(tears in their eyes)
I’m so glad we listed our home with you.

Can you imagine what would happen if home sellers who are having to reduce the price of their home in a slowing marketplace discovered their agent or broker was either part of this decision or at the very least, didn’t do anything to stop it?

An agent who is representing a home seller has a fiduciary responsibility to effectively advertise their client’s home. Is it possible that some agents and brokers either because of political games or in a bid to try and crush the smaller brokers might inadvertently be making a decision to harm their home seller clients? I’m surprised that more agents don’t find this appalling – I’m sure that their home sellers would.

I guess what I’m getting at, is I wonder if an agent were forced to explain this decision to a home seller client, how would they justify it? I’m guessing that if any major news outlets did an investigative story on this, the agents and brokers who are currently on the MLS board would quickly change course on this decision to avoid embarrassment.

You know, actually, brokers who do see the value in Realtor.com could start an ad campaign letting area homeowners which companies have chosen not to advertise their clients homes on Realtor.com – and by implication won’t do as much as they will do to sell a home. That would wake them up for sure.

MAY

2007

Yes, again by policy, Windermere has not allowed it's listings to go into Realtor.com It was explained to me that accuracy was the big issue. As someone posted before Windermere has about 40% of the listings in KIng County. Personally I've only had one Seller ask about Realtor.com, I said no, got the listing and sold it.

Greg - that's the percentage I heard as well. R.com is really a non-entity in this market. The poll I ran on my blog is down but I asked if people used R.com for searches. The result was 80% no, 20% yes, though it's extremely unscientific. And, of course, in the spirit of friendly competition, I bring up the fact that W's listings aren't featured on R.com : )

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?