Why We No Longer Syndicate Our Listings
Posted by Curtis Reddehase on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 12:31pm.The purpose of a real estate company is to market listings and offer representation to buyers and sellers. In light of recent events in the real estate community, Sky Realty is making a major policy change that will effect how we market listings. We have decided not to syndicate our listings at the broker level to advertisement based companies. We are also asking all of our agents to pull their syndications through their individual sites.
We believe that many companies have consumers convinced that they are a source of real estate information, when their real purpose is to generate profit by selling advertisements. The motivation to sell advertisement is far different than the motivation to offer the consumer information that that they need. The motivation to sell advertisement is far different than the motive to offer consumers service. Companies that offer information for the purpose of advertisement have no fiduciary duty to buyers and sellers. Licensed real estate agents have a fiduciary duty and REALTORS® specifically abide by a Code of Ethics.
Sky Realty is in the business of offering service to people who view our listings. That service is a critical component to the products we market. We have never received a productive lead for any of our listings as long as we have syndicated our listings to these national web sites. The purpose of our decision not to syndicate is to keep the focus of real estate about buyers and sellers best interest and not use listings for the purpose of selling advertisement.
We will of course allow other REALTORS to market our listings
The man spells it out for you http://activerain.com/blogsview/1383054/the-problems-with-syndicating-your-listing-inventory
Blog Tags
Print
Share41 Responses to "Why We No Longer Syndicate Our Listings"
Shannon Ensor wrote:
It amazes me that these sites even exist - their primary goal is to make money through advertising & they are not nearly as resourceful as going straight to the REALTORS for the listing information. REALTOR sites should be the only source for our listings, not these advertising machines.
It amazes me that these sites even exist - their primary goal is to make money through advertising & they are not nearly as resourceful as going straight to the REALTORS for the listing information. REALTOR sites should be the only source for our listings, not these advertising machines.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 1:12 PM.
Patsy Snyder wrote:
Fiduciary trust, service and Realtor Code of Ethics all define dedicated Realtors. We market our clients' properties in order to get them sold and these companies who invite us to place our clients' listings on their websites, free of charge, do so in order to get inquiries from buyer prospects in hopes of selling these "leads" back to us, the Realtors who earned the right to sell and list the property in the first place. It is never my intention to be crude but, this activity is crude and can only be described by me as a "bottom-feeding" internet business. Without Realtors, they would have nothing and I, for one, do not see a problem with Realtors marketing their clients' listings as we have always done, and, believe it or not, we always got them sold. Before I learned better, I used a few of these sites to appease my clients but never, never, never got a listing sold as a result of these websites. My listings always sold through another local Realtor. Enough said!
Fiduciary trust, service and Realtor Code of Ethics all define dedicated Realtors. We market our clients' properties in order to get them sold and these companies who invite us to place our clients' listings on their websites, free of charge, do so in order to get inquiries from buyer prospects in hopes of selling these "leads" back to us, the Realtors who earned the right to sell and list the property in the first place. It is never my intention to be crude but, this activity is crude and can only be described by me as a "bottom-feeding" internet business. Without Realtors, they would have nothing and I, for one, do not see a problem with Realtors marketing their clients' listings as we have always done, and, believe it or not, we always got them sold. Before I learned better, I used a few of these sites to appease my clients but never, never, never got a listing sold as a result of these websites. My listings always sold through another local Realtor. Enough said!
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 1:26 PM.
Dylan Schleppe wrote:
I met with over 60 agents today and mentioned this issue exactly - everyone in the room was nodding their head in the affirmative. The advertising sans-service model provides true value to only one entity. Changing direction always needs a first step and I applaud Sky Realty for being ahead of the curve!
I met with over 60 agents today and mentioned this issue exactly - everyone in the room was nodding their head in the affirmative. The advertising sans-service model provides true value to only one entity. Changing direction always needs a first step and I applaud Sky Realty for being ahead of the curve!
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 1:32 PM.
Suzanne Gantner wrote:
I applaude you for standing up for a very good cause. Our clients are #1, we have a fiduciary duty to give them the correct information in a timely manner. These ad machines you are speaking of - the information is slow to get on their sites, alot of their information is incorrect and useless, and the fact that they are trying to set themselves up as experts is abhorrent!! Only local Realtors know the local market.
I applaude you for standing up for a very good cause. Our clients are #1, we have a fiduciary duty to give them the correct information in a timely manner. These ad machines you are speaking of - the information is slow to get on their sites, alot of their information is incorrect and useless, and the fact that they are trying to set themselves up as experts is abhorrent!! Only local Realtors know the local market.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 1:51 PM.
Jim Gilbert wrote:
I, too, have in the past syndicated listings to some of the better known national sites, all the while wondering how it could be in my best interest and in my clients' best interest. After all, these sites do not have access to all the information they need to put out accurate information to potential buyers. I have had occasional inquiries from consumers about homes that they found on these sites. It was my sad duty to tell them that the information "out there" was out of date, sometimes by weeks or months! Why should they go to one of those sites when they can get accurate and up-to-date information from Realtors who know the neighborhoods and markets?
I, too, have in the past syndicated listings to some of the better known national sites, all the while wondering how it could be in my best interest and in my clients' best interest. After all, these sites do not have access to all the information they need to put out accurate information to potential buyers. I have had occasional inquiries from consumers about homes that they found on these sites. It was my sad duty to tell them that the information "out there" was out of date, sometimes by weeks or months! Why should they go to one of those sites when they can get accurate and up-to-date information from Realtors who know the neighborhoods and markets?
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 2:46 PM.
Jolenta Averill wrote:
Bravo!!! I was just thinking about this very issue earlier today when I stumbled across your post. I think this could become a powerful movement if we could educate enough agents to understand that these sites are nothing more than bloodsucking leeches on the backs of Realtors.
Bravo!!! I was just thinking about this very issue earlier today when I stumbled across your post. I think this could become a powerful movement if we could educate enough agents to understand that these sites are nothing more than bloodsucking leeches on the backs of Realtors.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 2:46 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
Thanks Jolenta. Yes it takes action to make a differnece. That is our vote, we need to learn how to use it
Thanks Jolenta. Yes it takes action to make a differnece. That is our vote, we need to learn how to use it
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 3:21 PM.
Mike in Dallas wrote:
I need to consider this policy also. We dont do alot of it yet so it wouldnt really be a big problem.
I need to consider this policy also. We dont do alot of it yet so it wouldnt really be a big problem.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 3:54 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
That is is the attitude, every little bit counts.
That is is the attitude, every little bit counts.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 3:56 PM.
Nicole Boynton wrote:
There are many issues concerning REALTORS today and we thank you for your willingness to step up and fight for us. No website can every replace the knowledge and touch of an experienced agent but websites that provide are simply profit makers running under the guise of an information source can be detrimental to us all. I would encourage anyone reading this to post a link back to this blog from twitter, facebook, your own blogs, etc and spread the word.
There are many issues concerning REALTORS today and we thank you for your willingness to step up and fight for us. No website can every replace the knowledge and touch of an experienced agent but websites that provide are simply profit makers running under the guise of an information source can be detrimental to us all. I would encourage anyone reading this to post a link back to this blog from twitter, facebook, your own blogs, etc and spread the word.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 4:21 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
here is a great letter to send to NAR. Log into your NAR account for the board members emails http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/images/letter-to-nar.pdf
here is a great letter to send to NAR. Log into your NAR account for the board members emails http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/images/letter-to-nar.pdf
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 4:52 PM.
Kim Luttrull wrote:
I find it it interesting that the following individuals represent us at NAR and are a part of Zillow/Trulia. http://www.zillow.com/corp/WhoWeAre.htm The Broker Advisory Board Bob Blount Bob Blount is CEO of RE/MAX Allegiance with 35 offices, 1,150 agents in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC. He is a Director for NAR, MRIS, REIN MLS, and REBR. He serves on several VAR committees and work groups and was on the NAR Gateway PAG. He is recognized as an expert in integrated brokerage business systems. Bob is a former RE/MAX International Broker/Owner of the Year and resides in Virginia Beach, VA. http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=62 Trulia Advisory Board - also has a member of NAR that is currently the federal coordinator for NAR's REALTORS® Legislative Network Trulia Advisory Board Bob Peltier, Edina Realty Mr. Peltier is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), the Minnesota Association of REALTORS®, and the St. Paul Area Board of REALTORS®. He also served on the Regional MLS Committee for five years (two years as chairman), and is currently the federal coordinator for NAR's REALTORS® Legislative Network
I find it it interesting that the following individuals represent us at NAR and are a part of Zillow/Trulia. http://www.zillow.com/corp/WhoWeAre.htm The Broker Advisory Board Bob Blount Bob Blount is CEO of RE/MAX Allegiance with 35 offices, 1,150 agents in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC. He is a Director for NAR, MRIS, REIN MLS, and REBR. He serves on several VAR committees and work groups and was on the NAR Gateway PAG. He is recognized as an expert in integrated brokerage business systems. Bob is a former RE/MAX International Broker/Owner of the Year and resides in Virginia Beach, VA. http://info.trulia.com/index.php?s=62 Trulia Advisory Board - also has a member of NAR that is currently the federal coordinator for NAR's REALTORS® Legislative Network Trulia Advisory Board Bob Peltier, Edina Realty Mr. Peltier is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), the Minnesota Association of REALTORS®, and the St. Paul Area Board of REALTORS®. He also served on the Regional MLS Committee for five years (two years as chairman), and is currently the federal coordinator for NAR's REALTORS® Legislative Network
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 5:18 PM.
Phil Thomas Di Giulio wrote:
Excellent decision Curtis! You nailed it with this quote,"The motivation to sell advertisement is far different than the motivation to offer the consumer information that that they need." To tell you the truth, we're (WellcomeMat) hoping more real estate professionals consider the implications of syndicating not only listing information, but digital media that would often accompany this information (i.e. video). For example, uploading video content to video network(s) that generate profits via advertising within your content (YouTube, etc.) is NOT at all beneficial to your client nor your brokerage and can actually do a fair amount of damage to your brand. As one of the best resources for local information, a brokerage is best served presenting this information (video, etc.) in the places where it's least compromised... the agent'as/brokerage's website, blog, etc. Unless done thoughtfully, syndication is simply another word for spam.
Excellent decision Curtis! You nailed it with this quote,"The motivation to sell advertisement is far different than the motivation to offer the consumer information that that they need." To tell you the truth, we're (WellcomeMat) hoping more real estate professionals consider the implications of syndicating not only listing information, but digital media that would often accompany this information (i.e. video). For example, uploading video content to video network(s) that generate profits via advertising within your content (YouTube, etc.) is NOT at all beneficial to your client nor your brokerage and can actually do a fair amount of damage to your brand. As one of the best resources for local information, a brokerage is best served presenting this information (video, etc.) in the places where it's least compromised... the agent'as/brokerage's website, blog, etc. Unless done thoughtfully, syndication is simply another word for spam.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 8:18 PM.
Twitted by KrisBerg wrote:
[...]This post was Twitted by KrisBerg - Real-url.org RT @jfsellsius: Why we no longer syndicate our listings http://is.gd/zjaI >Noble, but how will the consumer see it http://twitter.com/KrisBerg/statuses/1780157145[...]
[...]This post was Twitted by KrisBerg - Real-url.org RT @jfsellsius: Why we no longer syndicate our listings http://is.gd/zjaI >Noble, but how will the consumer see it http://twitter.com/KrisBerg/statuses/1780157145[...]
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 9:12 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
Good question. Since we have never been able to to prove that a successful transaction has come from any of these sites they should not be to concerned. That might also help demonstrate that we should market our own listings anyway and not rely on other sites that are not of real use to the consumer meaning the buyer or the seller
Good question. Since we have never been able to to prove that a successful transaction has come from any of these sites they should not be to concerned. That might also help demonstrate that we should market our own listings anyway and not rely on other sites that are not of real use to the consumer meaning the buyer or the seller
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 9:22 PM.
Dave Montgomery wrote:
The pre-Internet concept of media advertising motivates the "I want my listings advertised everywhere" thinking works for billboards, magazines, and newspapers. But, the Internet is dimensionless and thus a listing is everywhere with one website/webpage. The horse left the barn with R.com and now 3PAs are eating at the REALTOR table. I think it will be tough to shut this pre-Internet thinking down as sellers believe in it, "Why can't I find my home displayed on R.com?" Good idea, but a very long road ahead.
The pre-Internet concept of media advertising motivates the "I want my listings advertised everywhere" thinking works for billboards, magazines, and newspapers. But, the Internet is dimensionless and thus a listing is everywhere with one website/webpage. The horse left the barn with R.com and now 3PAs are eating at the REALTOR table. I think it will be tough to shut this pre-Internet thinking down as sellers believe in it, "Why can't I find my home displayed on R.com?" Good idea, but a very long road ahead.
Posted on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 9:18 AM.
Kristin Noll-Marsh wrote:
Bye-bye newspaper classifieds, hello Trulia, Zillow et al. Both posted listings to sell ads. Newspapers have held us hostage with high costs and article about gpoing FSBO for years. Nothing has changed. Unfortunately, just as sellers expected a lame, ineffective newspaper ad or open houses, they expect to see their listings on these sites, blogs, Facebook and more. At least these are free and if used right, get my face in front of more prospects. What we really should be unhappy about is that as dues-paying members, our own Realtor.com site charges us to enhance listings, when it should be a given. In order to make/keep Realtor.com the #1 destination site on the national level, they need to make all features free to members, so we have the best listing information out there AND add the bells and whistles of the Trulias and Zillows - which fill a consumer demand. Obviously, NAR is doing a poor job of getting the word out and building a better site if consumers choose syndication sites over Realtor.com. I pay for enhanced listings - because sellers expect it - and I have nbever seen a lead from there, either. Yet I have been contacted off of syndication sites - especially craigslist.org. Instead of seeing syndication as the enemy, we should be offering the consumer a reason to come to US instead. But we're too busy holding MLS information hostage, so they go elsewhere. Just think if Realtor.com offered the same info and features as Trulia and Zillow and Realtors had free access. No one would need to ever use the other sites!
Bye-bye newspaper classifieds, hello Trulia, Zillow et al. Both posted listings to sell ads. Newspapers have held us hostage with high costs and article about gpoing FSBO for years. Nothing has changed. Unfortunately, just as sellers expected a lame, ineffective newspaper ad or open houses, they expect to see their listings on these sites, blogs, Facebook and more. At least these are free and if used right, get my face in front of more prospects. What we really should be unhappy about is that as dues-paying members, our own Realtor.com site charges us to enhance listings, when it should be a given. In order to make/keep Realtor.com the #1 destination site on the national level, they need to make all features free to members, so we have the best listing information out there AND add the bells and whistles of the Trulias and Zillows - which fill a consumer demand. Obviously, NAR is doing a poor job of getting the word out and building a better site if consumers choose syndication sites over Realtor.com. I pay for enhanced listings - because sellers expect it - and I have nbever seen a lead from there, either. Yet I have been contacted off of syndication sites - especially craigslist.org. Instead of seeing syndication as the enemy, we should be offering the consumer a reason to come to US instead. But we're too busy holding MLS information hostage, so they go elsewhere. Just think if Realtor.com offered the same info and features as Trulia and Zillow and Realtors had free access. No one would need to ever use the other sites!
Posted on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 1:17 PM.
Eileen Chaladoff wrote:
As Dave said "why isn't my house on R.com" I simply say that I use up to date information and that site is not as up to date as our MLS system. And REALTORS sell houses not a web site. The internet is good for the buyer just starting to gather information but they always come to us to handle the transaction. Be very careful of antitrust issues!!
As Dave said "why isn't my house on R.com" I simply say that I use up to date information and that site is not as up to date as our MLS system. And REALTORS sell houses not a web site. The internet is good for the buyer just starting to gather information but they always come to us to handle the transaction. Be very careful of antitrust issues!!
Posted on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 2:30 PM.
Pierre wrote:
Mr. Reddehase, i think you have brought up an excellent conversation. I have posted my thoughts on it here: http://www.trulia.com/blog/pierre_calzadilla/2009/05/an_open_letter_to_mr_red Best, Pierre A. Calzadilla
Mr. Reddehase, i think you have brought up an excellent conversation. I have posted my thoughts on it here: http://www.trulia.com/blog/pierre_calzadilla/2009/05/an_open_letter_to_mr_red Best, Pierre A. Calzadilla
Posted on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 10:38 AM.
Phil Thomas Di Giulio wrote:
Phil here again. I realized after re-reading my comment that there was the potential for misinterpretation. Specifically, I believe that people should provide info wherever their customers are. For those of us focused on video in the real estate space, the videos are providing both information and entertainment, as well as serving as the 'advertisements' themselves. As a result, additional advertising on unfocused video sites comes across as redundant and possibly detrimental to business. Therefore we support the syndicate only if they can truly benefit the client (by means of exposure and not spam). Sorry to retread old ground -- I felt the need to clarify my statement after finally becoming wise enough to proof read.
Phil here again. I realized after re-reading my comment that there was the potential for misinterpretation. Specifically, I believe that people should provide info wherever their customers are. For those of us focused on video in the real estate space, the videos are providing both information and entertainment, as well as serving as the 'advertisements' themselves. As a result, additional advertising on unfocused video sites comes across as redundant and possibly detrimental to business. Therefore we support the syndicate only if they can truly benefit the client (by means of exposure and not spam). Sorry to retread old ground -- I felt the need to clarify my statement after finally becoming wise enough to proof read.
Posted on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 2:35 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
Thank you Phil Notice: my response to trulias open letter posted by Pierre
Thank you Phil Notice: my response to trulias open letter posted by Pierre
Posted on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 2:50 PM.
John Rutkowsky Jr. wrote:
Here, here... I couldn't agree more! These companies take our hard earned listings and pass them on and on, down the line, and with each "passing" the data can, and does, becomes more and more distorted! This does not help the Buyer, the Seller nor the Realtor. On the contrary, it creates more confusion, and more importantly...liability! I believe allowing this misinformation to exist breaches our fiduciary to our clients and sometime soon, we may all have to answer to the powers at be?
Here, here... I couldn't agree more! These companies take our hard earned listings and pass them on and on, down the line, and with each "passing" the data can, and does, becomes more and more distorted! This does not help the Buyer, the Seller nor the Realtor. On the contrary, it creates more confusion, and more importantly...liability! I believe allowing this misinformation to exist breaches our fiduciary to our clients and sometime soon, we may all have to answer to the powers at be?
Posted on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 3:10 PM.
Steve Hysinger wrote:
Far from sucessful results from Trulia, Zillow etc.are the pain that is bought about when clients find listings that are no longer active from these sites..I was once accused of "holding back" on properties that a client had found on Trulia, that had actually closed or gone pending weeks earlier. Curtis, Thanks for taking a stand .
Far from sucessful results from Trulia, Zillow etc.are the pain that is bought about when clients find listings that are no longer active from these sites..I was once accused of "holding back" on properties that a client had found on Trulia, that had actually closed or gone pending weeks earlier. Curtis, Thanks for taking a stand .
Posted on Friday, May 15th, 2009 at 11:18 AM.
Patsy Snyder wrote:
Thanks Steve. I have had the same problem with prospects thinking that I did not have all the available listings for sale because they found more on Trulia, When I proved to this prospect that the listing he was questioning had been sold for some time, He continued conversing with me. Actually, I have had quite a few conversations similar and never mind them because it gives me the opportunity to tell members of the public that Realtor sites are the only sites that are current and correct. I have spent a fortune with Realtor.com over 20 years and never received one lead from this website. I paid for all the whistles and bells and it did not make a difference. I no longer support them since they do not offer anything for me. I agree with Kristin Noll-Marsh. If Realtor.com offered us what Trulia, Zillow, etc. offers, without the exhorbitant costs, these "bottom feeder" companies would not pose the problems for us that we experience today. It just seems to me, at times, that a good way to make some money is to feed off of Realtors and their efforts. One does not expect this from their own professional entities.
Thanks Steve. I have had the same problem with prospects thinking that I did not have all the available listings for sale because they found more on Trulia, When I proved to this prospect that the listing he was questioning had been sold for some time, He continued conversing with me. Actually, I have had quite a few conversations similar and never mind them because it gives me the opportunity to tell members of the public that Realtor sites are the only sites that are current and correct. I have spent a fortune with Realtor.com over 20 years and never received one lead from this website. I paid for all the whistles and bells and it did not make a difference. I no longer support them since they do not offer anything for me. I agree with Kristin Noll-Marsh. If Realtor.com offered us what Trulia, Zillow, etc. offers, without the exhorbitant costs, these "bottom feeder" companies would not pose the problems for us that we experience today. It just seems to me, at times, that a good way to make some money is to feed off of Realtors and their efforts. One does not expect this from their own professional entities.
Posted on Friday, May 15th, 2009 at 12:55 PM.
Tony Sena wrote:
Good for you! Hopefully we will start to see other real estate brokers follow suit!
Good for you! Hopefully we will start to see other real estate brokers follow suit!
Posted on Saturday, May 16th, 2009 at 8:19 PM.
Matthew Ferrara wrote:
Curtis: I am very excited for you! It's always wonderful to find brokers who are taking back control of their business. One of the long-standing and un-refuted arguments made by syndicators (whether they were print, direct mail or ecommerce) was that somehow "more distribution" was synonymous with "more sales." Sellers do NOT hire REALTORS to "advertise" their homes; they hire them to *sell* their homes. Frankly, they don't really care how it's done, as long as it's done in the time frame, price-goal and convenience structure they desire. If you can sell the home with one phone call or 1000 emails, the seller doesn't care; they care about the outcome. That's why the "put listings everywhere" phenomenon always confused me. Today we even have brokers and agents who have gone to such extremes that they spread their inventory onto the most "brand-undermining" of sites (like classified sites). And let's face the fact that MORE "hits, traffic, questions and blog questions" do not necessarily create more SOLD homes. At some point, REALTORS have to ask themselves why other commodities do not "spread" their inventory everywhere and anywhere... and more-over, why did some commodity manufacturers move their inventory back from syndication to their own sites only? The reason is that, in order to be in control of your company's success, you have to be in control of your company's products, services and brands. And a sound marketing plan isn't the same as simply distributing your product information everywhere and anywhere, just because others are doing it. It's why marketing and advertising is selected, targeted, and focused; not spread around like so much fertilizer! Take it one step further; I've made the argument on my website that even IDX can be a bad idea for some brokers, especially those who spend lots of money making great websites only to have them *polluted* by the inaccurate, photo-less and poorly spelled listings of their less-capable competitors. The same may be true for syndicating your inventory: You don't have much control over who shows up "next" to your listings on the distribution sites. In fact, your listing could show up and trigger an "ad" for a mortgage or title company next to it that COMPETES with your own in-house services. Or more likely your great-looking inventory will be surrounded by uglier stuff that just happens to be in the same zip code and price range. Finally, because your inventory data will be "reprocessed" to fit the look/feel of the distributor's site, any brand advantages or creative presentation you might have on your own site is nullified and the playing field once again leveled (or dumbed down?) to that of any competitor who can likewise send a data feed to the aggregator. So, congratulations, Mr Reddehase, on taking back control and responsibility for your own company, brand and client outcomes! I hope you start a trend, not an exception, in the industry! Best wishes for success, Matthew Ferrara CEO, Matthew Ferrara & Company www.matthewferrara.com
Curtis: I am very excited for you! It's always wonderful to find brokers who are taking back control of their business. One of the long-standing and un-refuted arguments made by syndicators (whether they were print, direct mail or ecommerce) was that somehow "more distribution" was synonymous with "more sales." Sellers do NOT hire REALTORS to "advertise" their homes; they hire them to *sell* their homes. Frankly, they don't really care how it's done, as long as it's done in the time frame, price-goal and convenience structure they desire. If you can sell the home with one phone call or 1000 emails, the seller doesn't care; they care about the outcome. That's why the "put listings everywhere" phenomenon always confused me. Today we even have brokers and agents who have gone to such extremes that they spread their inventory onto the most "brand-undermining" of sites (like classified sites). And let's face the fact that MORE "hits, traffic, questions and blog questions" do not necessarily create more SOLD homes. At some point, REALTORS have to ask themselves why other commodities do not "spread" their inventory everywhere and anywhere... and more-over, why did some commodity manufacturers move their inventory back from syndication to their own sites only? The reason is that, in order to be in control of your company's success, you have to be in control of your company's products, services and brands. And a sound marketing plan isn't the same as simply distributing your product information everywhere and anywhere, just because others are doing it. It's why marketing and advertising is selected, targeted, and focused; not spread around like so much fertilizer! Take it one step further; I've made the argument on my website that even IDX can be a bad idea for some brokers, especially those who spend lots of money making great websites only to have them *polluted* by the inaccurate, photo-less and poorly spelled listings of their less-capable competitors. The same may be true for syndicating your inventory: You don't have much control over who shows up "next" to your listings on the distribution sites. In fact, your listing could show up and trigger an "ad" for a mortgage or title company next to it that COMPETES with your own in-house services. Or more likely your great-looking inventory will be surrounded by uglier stuff that just happens to be in the same zip code and price range. Finally, because your inventory data will be "reprocessed" to fit the look/feel of the distributor's site, any brand advantages or creative presentation you might have on your own site is nullified and the playing field once again leveled (or dumbed down?) to that of any competitor who can likewise send a data feed to the aggregator. So, congratulations, Mr Reddehase, on taking back control and responsibility for your own company, brand and client outcomes! I hope you start a trend, not an exception, in the industry! Best wishes for success, Matthew Ferrara CEO, Matthew Ferrara & Company www.matthewferrara.com
Posted on Saturday, May 16th, 2009 at 11:38 PM.
Tony - Vidlisting.com wrote:
At Vidlisting.com, we've taken a different approach to syndicating real estate content. Our method brings the viewer back to the broker's site to consume content rather than our site or a third party site. It can best be described as syndicating the opportunity and brand rather than the content. The content is consumed on your website where the chances for customer capture are most rewarding for you. Incidently, Google will also index the content on your site rather than ours which is quite a different approach than most real estate vendors. Tony Grey - Vidlisting.com
At Vidlisting.com, we've taken a different approach to syndicating real estate content. Our method brings the viewer back to the broker's site to consume content rather than our site or a third party site. It can best be described as syndicating the opportunity and brand rather than the content. The content is consumed on your website where the chances for customer capture are most rewarding for you. Incidently, Google will also index the content on your site rather than ours which is quite a different approach than most real estate vendors. Tony Grey - Vidlisting.com
Posted on Sunday, May 17th, 2009 at 10:06 AM.
Nicole Boynton wrote:
The battle still rages. Read more from Agent Genius here where they reference Curtis' decision. http://agentgenius.com/real-estate-news-events/politics-beats-agents-in-dc-mibor-blocks-change-nar-committee-agrees/
The battle still rages. Read more from Agent Genius here where they reference Curtis' decision. http://agentgenius.com/real-estate-news-events/politics-beats-agents-in-dc-mibor-blocks-change-nar-committee-agrees/
Posted on Sunday, May 17th, 2009 at 11:52 AM.
Kathryn wrote:
We were slow to do syndication and have just started in 2009. It has been a nightmare so far in terms of agent complaints about accuracy - we are not here and not there, even though a feed has been sent by an awsome provider. I understand the anger at the ad driven "top results" and logo promotion, but can anyone really tell me that they have had true hit or miss submission success to sites like Trulia, Yahoo? Are your listings being sent there fine and accurately? Or have you had sellers and agents complain that they can't find their house on these sites- even though if you search REALLY hard, they are there? Have you ever had the experience that hundreds of listings do not show up even though you are feeding to these sites? I have searched for backup on problems such as these. Not much out there - Except "we can syndicate for you" and "we can syndicate for you- nothing to worry about". Well the syndications have been something to worry about - they have caused more harm than good - anyone have the same problem?
We were slow to do syndication and have just started in 2009. It has been a nightmare so far in terms of agent complaints about accuracy - we are not here and not there, even though a feed has been sent by an awsome provider. I understand the anger at the ad driven "top results" and logo promotion, but can anyone really tell me that they have had true hit or miss submission success to sites like Trulia, Yahoo? Are your listings being sent there fine and accurately? Or have you had sellers and agents complain that they can't find their house on these sites- even though if you search REALLY hard, they are there? Have you ever had the experience that hundreds of listings do not show up even though you are feeding to these sites? I have searched for backup on problems such as these. Not much out there - Except "we can syndicate for you" and "we can syndicate for you- nothing to worry about". Well the syndications have been something to worry about - they have caused more harm than good - anyone have the same problem?
Posted on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 PM.
Spencer Rascoff wrote:
Curtis, Spencer from Zillow here. You and I have never met, and I regret that. So please don't take this to be rude when I tell you, respectfully, that this is a very bad business decision for your company, your agents, and most of all your sellers. It is the responsibility of brokers and agents to make sure that their clients' listings are wherever buyers are looking. Zillow has 8.9 million unique visitors and our traffic is growing 72% year-over-year. In most cities, we're the #1 or #2 real estate website. In fact even in Austin, where we have notoriously bad public record data on Zillow, we have a ton of traffic. We have many, many buyers on our website. Not putting your listings on a website with that many visitors -- especially when it's free to you to do so -- is a disservice to your sellers, and I'm sure it's coming up in you agents' listings presentations. The benefits of putting listings on Zillow are: 1. Exposes the listings to potential buyers (9M uniques, 25% of whom say Zillow is "their primary real estate shopping website") 2. Shows your seller that you're working to sell the home (CAR Study: 73% of sellers visit Zillow, frequently to check to see if their agent listed it there) 3. Sends free traffic to the broker website (each listing on Zillow has at least 2 links to the broker website from the listings page) 4. Improves search engine traffic for the broker website because of all the links from Zillow 5. Marginalizes the "Zestimate". When a listing is added to Zillow, the Zestimate comes off the map page, and is pushed all the way down the listing page. Also, we recalculate the Zestimate based on the property attributes in the listing feed, so the best way to improve and marginalize an inaccurate Zestimate is to list the home on Zillow. By painting the issue in a sort of "us vs them" light, you're trying to create a conflict between real estate media companies and brokerages where none exists. Yes, Zillow makes money on advertising, just like newspapers do. But it's free to put your listings on Zillow, and we have buyers. Brokerages who don't help their agents and sellers market their homes where buyers are will see their listings business evaporate as more and more sellers become sophisticated about how to market their homes online. Respectfully, Spencer from Zillow spencer@zillow.com
Curtis, Spencer from Zillow here. You and I have never met, and I regret that. So please don't take this to be rude when I tell you, respectfully, that this is a very bad business decision for your company, your agents, and most of all your sellers. It is the responsibility of brokers and agents to make sure that their clients' listings are wherever buyers are looking. Zillow has 8.9 million unique visitors and our traffic is growing 72% year-over-year. In most cities, we're the #1 or #2 real estate website. In fact even in Austin, where we have notoriously bad public record data on Zillow, we have a ton of traffic. We have many, many buyers on our website. Not putting your listings on a website with that many visitors -- especially when it's free to you to do so -- is a disservice to your sellers, and I'm sure it's coming up in you agents' listings presentations. The benefits of putting listings on Zillow are: 1. Exposes the listings to potential buyers (9M uniques, 25% of whom say Zillow is "their primary real estate shopping website") 2. Shows your seller that you're working to sell the home (CAR Study: 73% of sellers visit Zillow, frequently to check to see if their agent listed it there) 3. Sends free traffic to the broker website (each listing on Zillow has at least 2 links to the broker website from the listings page) 4. Improves search engine traffic for the broker website because of all the links from Zillow 5. Marginalizes the "Zestimate". When a listing is added to Zillow, the Zestimate comes off the map page, and is pushed all the way down the listing page. Also, we recalculate the Zestimate based on the property attributes in the listing feed, so the best way to improve and marginalize an inaccurate Zestimate is to list the home on Zillow. By painting the issue in a sort of "us vs them" light, you're trying to create a conflict between real estate media companies and brokerages where none exists. Yes, Zillow makes money on advertising, just like newspapers do. But it's free to put your listings on Zillow, and we have buyers. Brokerages who don't help their agents and sellers market their homes where buyers are will see their listings business evaporate as more and more sellers become sophisticated about how to market their homes online. Respectfully, Spencer from Zillow spencer@zillow.com
Posted on Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at 11:41 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
Spenser, thanks for your thoughts sorry it took so long to respond, I have been busy. I posted my response here so that we may start a more productive conversation. http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/blog/why-zillow-does-not-work-in-austin.html
Spenser, thanks for your thoughts sorry it took so long to respond, I have been busy. I posted my response here so that we may start a more productive conversation. http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/blog/why-zillow-does-not-work-in-austin.html
Posted on Monday, June 15th, 2009 at 10:38 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
oops here is the correct link http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/blog/talk-with-zillow-about-their-data-in-austin.html
oops here is the correct link http://www.skyrealtyaustin.com/blog/talk-with-zillow-about-their-data-in-austin.html
Posted on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 9:17 AM.
Matthew Ferrara wrote:
A comment on Spencer's Rascoff's comment (and Spencer, you and I have never met either, so please consider these comments in the spirit of conversation): Spencer writes: "It is the responsibility of brokers and agents to make sure that their clients' listings are wherever buyers are looking." Actually, this is not quite correct, from the business standpoint of real estate. The ONLY responsibility a broker has to their client is to SELL the home. That's what the consumer signs up for and expects to pay for. SOME sellers may "want" exposure, but if you ask them, they'll take a sale over exposure without a second thought. In fact, many, many homes sell every year without "vast exposure" - just look at FSBO sales which sell all the time, with barely as much "exposure" as what REALTORS can provide through advertising, web distribution, syndication, postcards, newspapers, whatever... Look at luxury property: they sell every day, with far LESS exposure than the average $150,000 ranch might get from the local average agent with MLS/REALTOR.COM/Company/Zillow exposure. Certainly, it's in the interest of "exposure companies" like Zillow to make the argument that "exposure" is the key to selling the home. And marketing is certainly a factor. However, for decades, homes sold quite well before the "massive" exposure of the internet. And since the massive exposure, we can't actually say we're selling MORE homes "because of" the increased exposure. If we look at home sales numbers from 2000-2005 (before the funding boom but during a massive increase in online marketing exposure) the total number of homes sold annually stayed about the same. In other word, exposure isn't a "given" added value for a broker; nor is being in front of "more buyers" because the key is to be in front of the RIGHT buyers, no necessarily the MOST. The way to see this is that many brokerages have TONS of buyer inquiries these days, even from their less-than-Zillow-sized websites, but are not necessarily selling more (even if we account for recession forces). Sellers watn the home sold; they don't care HOW. While Zillow may be a way to help agents do it, the reverse is not true: syndication in front of high numbers of consumers may work well for a product that appeals to anyone, anywhere. In real estate, only TARGETED marketing creates a sale. Web Traffic is actually IRRELEVANT. What matters is the percentage of traffic that a website turns into an INQUIRY, plus the percentage of inquiries that a brokerage turns into OFFERS which ultimately become sales. Until Zillow (or anyone else) can affect that - which is really a local company sales/management capability issue - the syndication-or-else argument is really just a sales pitch of variable performance-measured value to brokers. Just a thought... Matthew Ferrara www.matthewferrara.com
A comment on Spencer's Rascoff's comment (and Spencer, you and I have never met either, so please consider these comments in the spirit of conversation): Spencer writes: "It is the responsibility of brokers and agents to make sure that their clients' listings are wherever buyers are looking." Actually, this is not quite correct, from the business standpoint of real estate. The ONLY responsibility a broker has to their client is to SELL the home. That's what the consumer signs up for and expects to pay for. SOME sellers may "want" exposure, but if you ask them, they'll take a sale over exposure without a second thought. In fact, many, many homes sell every year without "vast exposure" - just look at FSBO sales which sell all the time, with barely as much "exposure" as what REALTORS can provide through advertising, web distribution, syndication, postcards, newspapers, whatever... Look at luxury property: they sell every day, with far LESS exposure than the average $150,000 ranch might get from the local average agent with MLS/REALTOR.COM/Company/Zillow exposure. Certainly, it's in the interest of "exposure companies" like Zillow to make the argument that "exposure" is the key to selling the home. And marketing is certainly a factor. However, for decades, homes sold quite well before the "massive" exposure of the internet. And since the massive exposure, we can't actually say we're selling MORE homes "because of" the increased exposure. If we look at home sales numbers from 2000-2005 (before the funding boom but during a massive increase in online marketing exposure) the total number of homes sold annually stayed about the same. In other word, exposure isn't a "given" added value for a broker; nor is being in front of "more buyers" because the key is to be in front of the RIGHT buyers, no necessarily the MOST. The way to see this is that many brokerages have TONS of buyer inquiries these days, even from their less-than-Zillow-sized websites, but are not necessarily selling more (even if we account for recession forces). Sellers watn the home sold; they don't care HOW. While Zillow may be a way to help agents do it, the reverse is not true: syndication in front of high numbers of consumers may work well for a product that appeals to anyone, anywhere. In real estate, only TARGETED marketing creates a sale. Web Traffic is actually IRRELEVANT. What matters is the percentage of traffic that a website turns into an INQUIRY, plus the percentage of inquiries that a brokerage turns into OFFERS which ultimately become sales. Until Zillow (or anyone else) can affect that - which is really a local company sales/management capability issue - the syndication-or-else argument is really just a sales pitch of variable performance-measured value to brokers. Just a thought... Matthew Ferrara www.matthewferrara.com
Posted on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 10:01 AM.
Sam Chapman wrote:
My listings get next to no views off syndication. It is a waste of time and effort and only gives those sites more content. Syndication is nothing more than a bogus listing presentation tool.
My listings get next to no views off syndication. It is a waste of time and effort and only gives those sites more content. Syndication is nothing more than a bogus listing presentation tool.
Posted on Monday, August 24th, 2009 at 8:49 AM.
Tampa Commercial Real Estate wrote:
As a commercial broker, I don't know the in's and out's of the residential business like you all do, but I find this discussion highly interesting. Zillow and realtor.com are the 2 primary sites I use when checking out residential info. I find it hard to believe that sites such as Zillow do not generate buyers, but there must be some merit to it as so many on here have mentioned it.
As a commercial broker, I don't know the in's and out's of the residential business like you all do, but I find this discussion highly interesting. Zillow and realtor.com are the 2 primary sites I use when checking out residential info. I find it hard to believe that sites such as Zillow do not generate buyers, but there must be some merit to it as so many on here have mentioned it.
Posted on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 at 11:37 PM.
Madison WI real estate wrote:
It is so counter-intuitive that these syndication sites do not actually generate views, let alone viable leads and sales, that is is almost laughable. Sadly, it is no laughing matter but the honest to goodness truth. My listings get almost zero traffic from such sites and rarely do I get an inquiry. Never in six years have I made a sale from any of them. This past week I had two complaints about Zillow and Trulia from a buyer and seller respectively, 1.) the Zestimates are inaccurate, and 2.) my seller did not like the fact that her previous Realtor listed her property on Trulia because of the way they advertise the pricing history. Two takeaways: 1.) Clients need to be educated that Realtors are wising up and not syndicating their listings to Zillow, and therefore Zestimates are by definition inaccurate, and 2.) Realtors need to be educated that syndication sites are as bogus a listing tool as open houses are and that these advertising companies are not only making a living off the backs of hard-working Realtors but that they are in direct competition with us for SERPs. Bottom line: stop syndicating to those sites and you might actually control the quality of your marketing and see your site rank on p.1 of Google.
It is so counter-intuitive that these syndication sites do not actually generate views, let alone viable leads and sales, that is is almost laughable. Sadly, it is no laughing matter but the honest to goodness truth. My listings get almost zero traffic from such sites and rarely do I get an inquiry. Never in six years have I made a sale from any of them. This past week I had two complaints about Zillow and Trulia from a buyer and seller respectively, 1.) the Zestimates are inaccurate, and 2.) my seller did not like the fact that her previous Realtor listed her property on Trulia because of the way they advertise the pricing history. Two takeaways: 1.) Clients need to be educated that Realtors are wising up and not syndicating their listings to Zillow, and therefore Zestimates are by definition inaccurate, and 2.) Realtors need to be educated that syndication sites are as bogus a listing tool as open houses are and that these advertising companies are not only making a living off the backs of hard-working Realtors but that they are in direct competition with us for SERPs. Bottom line: stop syndicating to those sites and you might actually control the quality of your marketing and see your site rank on p.1 of Google.
Posted on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 9:56 AM.
Listing Syndication? Not for this Broker! | Real Estate Industry Watch wrote:
[...]Reddehase, a real estate broker in Austin Texas recently wrote announcing his decision regarding Listing Syndication Attack of the 50 Foot Woman movie and why his brokerage will no longer be participating in that[...]
[...]Reddehase, a real estate broker in Austin Texas recently wrote announcing his decision regarding Listing Syndication Attack of the 50 Foot Woman movie and why his brokerage will no longer be participating in that[...]
Posted on Thursday, November 26th, 2009 at 3:06 PM.
Curtis Reddehase wrote:
Here is a great post to continue the fight http://activerain.com/blogsview/1383054/the-problems-with-syndicating-your-listing-inventory
Here is a great post to continue the fight http://activerain.com/blogsview/1383054/the-problems-with-syndicating-your-listing-inventory
Posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 9:00 AM.
301 Moved Permanently wrote:
[...]Moved Permanently The document has moved here.[...]
[...]Moved Permanently The document has moved here.[...]
Posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 9:01 AM.
Leave a Comment
My Account
Log in, to view your saved searches and add to your favorite listings.
... So You Can:
- View detailed property information
- Print detailed property flyers
- Save your searches & favorite homes
- Inquiry about a private showing
- Map individual property locations
- Share your favorite homes with friends
I believe the way we can best serve the real estate community is with giving them accurate and timely information. That information is best garnered from a local Realtor, not a site somewhere selling leads to realtors. thanks for taking a stand.
Posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 1:10 PM.