I would like to know if anyone has a good idea or thoughts as to why smaller neighboring MLS continue to exist?
I ask this question with the idea that with the Internet still growing, and as the borders between the MLS'S continue to overlap, how the smaller MLS board membership directors still think that they are doing a service to the buyers and sellers. Why wouldn't they merge? I think the smaller boards are doing a disservice to the public by trying to hold out for their perceived influence or do they think they may lose that local influence. Are they being short sighted or is it really more than mere resistance.
Isn't the service of gathering the listings of agents the basic idea behind the MLS' existence.
Is it like our politicians, you know they prefer to be big fish in a little pond rather than little fish in a big pond. Is it a monopoly? yes yes i know anyone can join the others board but does it really happen considering most agents sell just a few homes every year and their budget doesn't allow joining both? does the client of the smaller board member get as good a service as the larger one? or for that matter does the agent get as good a service from the board that they cannot control or have imput into by virtue of the old hold outs, (who just happen to be in power)? Do you think the smaller boards will go by the way of the dodo bird? Would you call them a dinosaur? Some agents cannot belong to both and because of this aspect, do you think it could be a restraint of trade issue?
I think it is no different and not unlike a how a discount service broker can't be eliminated by virtue of the lack of service (they provide a flat rate- low or no service inclusion in the MLS listing) which is restraint of trade is it not?
Is it ethical for them to resist or do nothing? What do you think?
Comments(5)