Thomas Jefferson once said every generation needed a revolution. Real Estate 1.5 - the taking back of the online real estate space from the aggregators and advertisers can be, should be ours. Do you have the courage to join in? It's as easy as commenting, re-blogging, Tweeting (#pulltheplug) and letting those in charge know how the rank and file feel.
Using the REALTOR® Trademark
Revised: July 1, 2003 ~ Reviewed: May 2011The term REALTOR® is a federally registered collective membership mark owned exclusively by the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”). The REALTOR® membership mark serves the singular function of identifying and distinguishing members of NAR. The mark is licensed for exclusive use by members as a means of indicating their membership status. Members are licensed to use the term REALTOR® only in forms that are likely to highlight the registered status, significance and special meaning of those MARKS in the eyes of the public and distinguish them from words of ordinary use and other marks or symbols.
Except, of course, when it comes to Realtor.Com, a one-time Realtor/MLS driven website that now is the property of Move Inc. Not that the public knows this. But anyone who has received the call to upgrade their listings through the showcase package know quite well about both Move Inc. and the extravagant fees charges to highlight listings on the site.
In railing against Zillow and Trulia these past months, I’ve largely left Realtor.com out of the equation out of respect to the trademark. But if NAR doesn’t have enough respect for the trademark to allow it to be used by Move on the site, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for me to hold back.
For while Realtor.com does have the most accurate listings of the three, pulling listings directly from the local multiple listing systems (with some exceptions), the site’s entire reason for being is to extract money from real estate agents. And the sums being asked for are far from insignificant.
And so the question to be asked is, what would happen if an MLS membership decided to direct its MLS to stop sending listings directly to Realtor.Com? It’s happened before, up in the Pacific Northwest, and the market there seems to have kept on moving just fine.
Wrote Marlow Harris at the time:
Apparently, there was some dissent from a minority of the Board, but the majority felt that it was an inappropriate use of copyrighted data.
Speaking to my friends at the Arizona Association of REALTORS and Arizona Regional MLS …
Removing local listings from Realtor.com en masse would not disadvantage any sellers because all would be in the same boat. It would not disadvantage any buyers because there literally are dozens and dozens of sites with IDX-powered home searches that are more accurate than anything on Realtor.com or elsewhere.
What it would do, however, is deprive a parasitical website the opportunity to glut itself on marketing cash while using the listings of the fourth largest regional MLS in the nation.
We have the leverage if only we have the courage to utilize it without cowing to the ill-informed arguments of protectionism and consumer choice that, once you dig past the surface, tend to have zero real substance.
And to my friends elsewhere, should you agree, plant the seeds with your local MLS. Every revolution begins with a whispered thought.
Lest I forget …
Realtor.com is not the extent of the trouble with Move Inc. You see, Move also owns Listhub and through Listhub home listings are being syndicated to multiple other sites including Zillow and Trulia. So not only is Move profiting from agent advertising, they also are syndicating our listings to other sites which then also profit from agent advertising.
There may not be honor among thieves, but there are some profitable business relationships.
At the end of the day, listings appearing on these sites is of dubious benefit to sellers and of serious detriment to buyers believing the data to be accurate. What better way to help the consumers and ourselves than to rid out industry of the parasites.
Illustration courtesy of the illustrious Russell Shaw
Comments(3)