California Association of REALTORS®
MLS Working Group
Statement of Principles
September 24, 2005
1. MLS data needs to be fully standardized with local options for data field variation.
We
believe that local customization of MLS data fields has made the
comparison of data between MLSs unnecessarily complex. A lack of
uniformity has created artificial boundaries that impede the efficient
operation of the market and the ability of REALTORS® to service their
clients. We support universal data fields that are standard across all
MLSs while also recognizing the need for adding local descriptors.
2. California REALTORS® should have universal access to all MLS data.
C.A.R.
members are licensed by the state Department of Real Estate and as such
are able to sell property throughout California. Consumers have access
to statewide and even nationwide listings through a variety of data
aggregation sites on the Internet. In order for REALTORS® to provide
their clients with the information they want, California REALTORS®
should have access to all listing data in the state. Shared databases
and reciprocal agreements should be strongly encouraged.
3. Use of MLS data and its distribution to third parties should be controlled by the brokers who provide the data.
We
believe that a listing represents intellectual capital and that the
process of creating a listing is a value-enhancing activity. Brokers
entering into an exclusive agreement with sellers accept the
responsibility for marketing the property and should have control over
distribution of the listing data. The rampant and uncontrolled
dissemination of valuable listing information on the Internet has
increased the cost of doing business and devalued the role of the agent
and broker in this process.
4. MLS entities should exist for the benefit of participants and subscribers.
We
believe that MLS fees should be set at a rate that gives the MLS and/or
the Local Association a fair return for delivery of MLS services. We
believe that Local Associations of REALTORS® provide valuable services
to their members. These include services and activities that advocate
for homeownership, ethics and professionalism in the industry. We
believe that local AORs should be adequately and fairly compensated for
these services, including those that may be directly associated with an
MLS.
5. MLS rules should be uniform and enforced consistently.
Over
the years the relevant market area for many brokers and agents has
expanded beyond the artificial boundaries of now out-dated MLS regions.
As a result, brokers are increasingly operating in multiple MLS
environments and facing complex issues related to the disparities in
rules, regulations and enforcement governing different MLSs. We believe
rules should be established that simplify and enhance the experience of
MLS users across systems. To that end we believe that the C.A.R. Model
MLS Rules should form the basis to develop statewide rules and
standards of enforcement.
6. The MLS Board of Directors should include broker owners with appropriate regional representation.
We
believe that broker involvement in MLS governance is critical. The MLS
is the single most important business tool in the real estate industry
and as such the provision of MLS services should be accountable to all
participants. We believe it is imperative that brokers from both large
and small firms be given representation on MLS Boards.
Mark Flavin's analysis of the CAR's Statement of Principles <a href='http://psyne.net/blog4/2007/09/15/perspective-statement-of-principles-by-car-mls-working-group/'>can be found here</a>.
Here are some of my thoughts about the CAR's statement of principles:
1. The call for data standards should adopt RETS as that standard.
2. Statewide Access to MLS Data. This is a fine idea as long as it is not confused with the ability to service a client well. Just because one has a license from the state doesn't mean they know anything about a market hundreds of miles away. Also, state boundaries seem an arbitrary border that will ill-serve those on or near the state lines. Of course, CAR likely is only going as far as they possibly can, but as the discussion moves national, state boundaries don't seem well advised.
I believe a much more extensive terms of use agreement needs to be discussed that outlines the data involved and the purposes for which that data can be used by members. Simply declaring "universal access" is overly broad in some cases and not broad enough in others.
3. Broker/seller control over where and how the listing is advertised should be a given, however, the definition of advertising is changing under our very gaze by companies like Zillow with their "report a house for sale" campaign, regardless of whether or not it is your house. Leaving that issue aside for a moment, however, there is a significant question about how broker/seller control over advertising individual listings applies to the compilation as a whole. Few would challenge the right of the seller/broker to control the advertising of a specific listing. But is the display of the MLS compilation on a public web site advertising?
The compilation is content that is very valuable in its entirety. Individual listings are of little value. The cooperation fostered by the MLS to create that compilation is necessary, and the question becomes whether that cooperation can extend to the public web. So far, the IDX policies have been successful, but IDX is inconsistent with the idea of individual broker control over advertising. If this policy were adopted, IDX would be gone. (So, too would Realtor.com.) Is that desireable? Does that serve consumers?
Also, I've suggested previously that if the only public aggregation is subject to individual broker/seller decisions, then there will be no complete aggregation because competitors naturally will choose disparate sites. Again, is that in the best interest of consumers?
I would suggest that the principle should be re-formed to differentiate between (1) the control of sellers/brokers over where their individual listings are advertised and (2) making the entire listing compilation available on the web in one place for consumer access.
I also suggest that this issue is intertwined with the question of market boundaries in question 2 above and data standards in question 1 above. I also would suggest that the best approach to this question extends data standards by creating universal terms of use for MLS data to encourage innovation and allow competition to define the markets while protecting the cooperation that forms the compilation in the first instance.
4. I don't really get this fourth issue at all. It seems like a back-hand slap to the MLS organizations. Or perhaps it is a complaint regarding Association ownership of MLSs, and the subsidizing of Associations through MLS dues? If so, I would agree that MLSs should be separated from Associations. In many cases, they already are. But, I think this entire statement should be re-phrased to be more to whatever point is trying to be made.
5. As Mark Flavin has pointed out, the devil here is in the details. This issue should follow the same concepts as being developed in RETS that allows for an agreement on core rules that are common for all locations but also allows some extension for local markets.
6. This seems like a better expression of issue 4. I agree that brokers are critical, but, in many places, agents are more and more driving the show, even if they are not brokers. Should that trend be considered? Anyway, ownership of MLSs seems like an issue that should be left to local decision and not part of broad principles like this. Regardless of ownership structure, the question is what are the terms of cooperation among brokers, agents, and markets?
1. I agree that RETS is definitely the way to go but I don't think it is specific enough yet. I feel that the way the data looks is just as important as how it is transmitted.
I know I am not nearly as versed in RETS as I should be but having read through and worked with it on applications I feel it is lacking that critical detail. For instance I want to know ever time I query a partial bath it will be an integer value (it could be any value just as long as it is consistent). Our vendor is RETS certified and they have fields that appear nowhere in the spec and it raises issues when doing something as fundamental as querying data by board.
2. I agree that applying an arbitrary boundary could potentially lead to problems down the road but as someone far wiser than me said “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” and for now giving statewide access to MLS data is a good first step. Also the issue of reciprocity should be addressed if not in this principle then somewhere.
3. I believe fundamentally that the Broker should have control of where their listing data ends up and how it is used. Other agents or brokers should not be able to add a property they do not have a listing agreement with to a site like Zillow without the listing Broker’s consent, if that is the desire of the listing broker then so be it but they should also have the right to remove that content if the terms of service or the situation changes.
To think that giving Brokers discrete control over where their listing data ends up will put REALTOR.com out of business is I think a post hoc assumption at this point. More likely the mechanism used to transmit the information will change. I also believe in this model there is room for a MLS public site especially one that generates leads and if a Broker decides not to participate then they should be given that option and it should be either through the MLS system or a single control point.
4. This is the only point that I completely disagree with you on Michael.
I believe CAR's intention here was to validate the idea of running combined services under a single roof. They (CAR's working group) are taking the position that the MLS funds should be used to raise the quality of the supporting services (training, education, pro-development) and be reinvested in the Association/MLS to continually improve the service offering and decrease the cost of access to the MLS systems. In fact I was told that nearly verbatim by a representative of the council.
To be clear I think MLS platforms should be outsourced to vendors I think developing and running an in house solution is bad for the end user. There is definitely a benefit for having the association perspective for the MLS platform. Our vendor is running a support system that I developed and they license from us. Vice versa their platform is continually evolving and improving at a rate we could not hope to match with the resources we currently have.
5. Agreed!
6. Agreed!