Realogy makes case to index all IDX listings at franchisor websites
NAR work group will consider proposal, develop guidelines
By Matt Carter, Friday, May 14, 2010.
CORRECTION: This article has been updated to fix an error. Realogy is seeking permission for franchisors to index affiliated brokers' IDX websites to provide enhanced search results on brand websites.
WASHINGTON -- A year ago, members of the National Association of Realtors' Multiple Listings Issues and Policies Committee recommended that NAR's Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy be updated to make it clear that search-engine indexing is not tantamount to "scraping" -- the unauthorized duplication of listings by third-party websites.
Ultimately, NAR adopted a policy in November making it clear that brokers can allow "recognized search engines" to index their listings.
Meeting Thursday at NAR's Midyear Legislative Meetings & Trade Expo, the committee heard a new request related to search-indexing from Alex Perriello, president and CEO of the Realogy Franchise Group.
Perriello put forward a case that franchisor websites like those Realogy operates on behalf of brokerages -- such as Century21.com, ERA.com and ColdwellBanker.com -- should be permitted to index its affiliated brokers' IDX websites to enhance the search results.
That way, consumers who visited the sites would be able to see not only the listings represented by the brokerages in that franchise, but virtually all of the listings in the market they were interested in.
IDX reciprocity agreements allow brokers to display the listings of other participating brokers in their market on their own websites, and vice versa.
Perriello said franchisor websites should have the option of indexing the IDX listings on their own brokers' websites -- in other words: the listings of all brokers participating in IDX reciprocity agreements.
The initial search results would present consumers with brief summaries of IDX listings results from all listing brokers, with an acknowledgment of the source and a link back to a full IDX site.
Realogy would not manipulate or store IDX listing data, or show any preferential treatment in display, he promised.
Perriello said the benefits of allowing franchisor websites to index listings would accrue to unaffiliated brokers, whose listings would be exposed to consumers who are likely to be drawn to the franchisors' larger websites.
About 45 percent of the traffic that comes to one of Realogy's websites is direct traffic from the consumer typing in a brand name, he said. The rest comes from search-engine optimization, paid search ads, and display ads that drive traffic to the site.
Although Realogy's proposal will undoubtedly stir up a debate, the Multiple Listing Issues and Policies Committee voted to postpone that debate until NAR's annual meeting in November.
A work group was tasked with developing guidelines and definitions that could be used to draw up rules for the initial display of indexed listings, and determine who would be eligible to index.
"If you're going to allow franchisors to do this, where do you cut off the line?" Committee Chairman Mike Jewell said. If all MLS participants were allowed, a "virtual franchisor" might claim the right to index listings, he said.
"We need to look at who gets to do it, and what are the display rules," Jewell said. "There should be some rules everybody's going to play by, or brokers might say they don't want to provide listings, which ruins the system."
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Robert T. Boyer, Ph.D. on May 14, 2010 - 12:17pm.
Dear Mr Jewell,
You are quoted as saying, "There should be some rules everybody's going to play by, or brokers might say they don't want to provide listings, which ruins the system"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the agents' responsibility to get the highest and best price for their client, the seller? Is there any case in which maximizing visibility to the internet world reduces the return to the seller?
For brokers to refuse to play is a) unlikely - they don't get paid unless the property sells and b) essentially violates their duty to their clients. (The full debate over fiduciary responsibility is a discussion for another forum.)
Sincerely,
Robert T. Boyer, Ph.D.
Co-Founder - http://www.FinestExpert.com
VP http://www.AmericasFinestRealEstate.com
Submitted by Scott Nelson on May 14, 2010 - 12:36pm.
If Realogy wants this ability then it has to be available to EVERY real estate website to do the same. Either apply the rules to ALL across the board the same or not at all. Size, number of listings, agents/brokerages cannot be the determining factor for equality. It's either let EVERYONE do it or no one, this is one area where there cannot be an exception made for any reason. It should be cut & dry.
Submitted by Gabriel Gross on May 14, 2010 - 12:37pm.
Robert, right on!
Submitted by Bob Wilson on May 14, 2010 - 12:52pm.
You are not a search engine.
If you want to make the argument that IDX should apply, then do so, but dont insult our intelligence with the argument that because you are nationwide that you are a search engine.
I have no problem with your IDX argument as long as the intent of IDX is followed: you display all of our listings and we can display all of yours. All of them.
Submitted by John F Sullivan on May 14, 2010 - 1:02pm.
"If you're going to allow franchisors to do this, where do you cut off the line?" Committee Chairman Mike Jewell said. If all MLS participants were allowed, a "virtual franchisor" might claim the right to index listings, he said.
I wonder if an FTC representative was in the room.
Submitted by Barrett Powell on May 14, 2010 - 1:18pm.
I hate to break the news to everyone but this train left the station a long time ago and there is NO catching up with it. Google quietly started Google Base Real Estate to index ALL listings.
There is not a franchise in the world, not even if every franchise banded together, that can compete with or keep up with Google.
I have already added a search to my site that allows my visitors to search properties via Google Base. As development continues and more data mashups are available there will be no way any franchise can keep up.
Barrett Powell, Owner/Broker/Consultant
Southern Advantage Companies
RSA Software & Consulting
288 East Street, PO Box 1427
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
http://www.ChathamCountyLand.com
http://wbarrettpowell.wordpress.com
barrett.powell - Skype
wbarrettpowell@gmail.com
Submitted by Mike Bowler Sr. on May 14, 2010 - 1:30pm.
If you opt in, you give the world the right to display your listings. That's giving the seller the best marketing exposure and that's out job. If you opt out, I for one, would use it against you competing for a listing.
“Expect the Best” Mike
Mike Bowler Sr. ePRO, CRB, GRI, SRES
Coldwell Banker Hubbell Briarwood
1020 S. Creyts Road, Lansing, MI 48917
Phone: 517-492-3400 Fax: 888-832-6203
email: Mike@MikeBowler.com
Website for Clients: www.MikeBowler.com
Submitted by marlene goldstein on May 14, 2010 - 3:13pm.
I agree with scott, if realogy wants to have the ability to have all listings on their website, then all brokerage should have this same ability.
Marlene Goldstein
Broker/Owner
Accredited Staging Professional
Berkshire Country Homes
Great Barrington, Ma. 01230
www.berkshirecountryhomesrealestate.com
Submitted by berge charles on May 14, 2010 - 5:37pm.
At times there are all the right answers to all the wrong questions. It's sometimes referred to as obfuscation. To remain relevant to the real estate transaction perhaps the current antiquated method of posting real estate listing information needs to be abandoned. Real estate listings need to be outsourced/syndicated to major third party search engines such as Google.
IDX agreements and franchisor indexing are definitely not the answer. This course of action is old technology and has become largely irrelevant.
Real estate companies operating as real estate companies should not be involved with or pretend to be search engines. Doing so will only create further conflicts of interest and endless disputes.
Relevant content is today's new commodity and currency the internet can't get enough of. Real estate listing information (content) is what search engines are looking for. This invaluable content generates the very ad revenue search engines need to thrive and survive.
Of course the listing agents who provide this valuable content should control their listing data and monetize their work product the same as any other business enterprise. The search engine companies pay well..
Charles Berge
Real Estate Broker
auctionrefer.com
Submitted by Victor Lund on May 15, 2010 - 5:42am.
This is rabbit hole that was predicted at the onset of this policy discussion.
"Indexing" is an action by a "search engine" that directs traffic via a link to the location of the information.
It begs the question, about what is a "search engine." In real estate, I believe that you can clearly argue that Google, Yahoo Real Estate, Trulia, and Century 21 are all search engines.
The only possible way to define search engine for policy making on this issue would be to nominate what search engines may index the data, and what search engines may not. This would create a de facto barrier to competition, or a monopoly - which was never the intent of the policy.
Allowing indexing of IDX data was a mistake from the beginning. Proper guidance on the policy could be modified to solve the issue easily. Only allow indexing of an agent or brokers own listings - rather than all of the listings in a marketplace. It would solve many issues. Any search engine would be indexing the original site of the listing holder.
Victor Lund
Partner
WAV Group
http://waves.wavgroup.com
http://www.wavgroup.com