Comments on: Realtor.com pushes traffic to Google

By: Jim Duncan

Jim Duncan — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:21:47 +0000

Many consumers are also surprised that not all listings are in the MLS.

By: jf.sellsius

jf.sellsius — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:40:16 +0000

Most consumers know to visit realtor.com. Of course, consumers do not just go to one site. But realtor.com could do a better job for NAR members whose listings stock their shelves and make them relevant.

By: Jim Duncan

Jim Duncan — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:47:47 +0000

re: purchasing traffic – you didn’t think that MSN, AOL, et. al. showed Realtor.com’s listings just because they liked them, did you? Realtor.com pays millions of dollars to have their listings shown all over the web.

By: EndTable20

EndTable20 — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:18:38 +0000

I wouldn’t be so concerned about the “not charging referral fees” mention. It’s no different from banks advertising their lack of per-check charges, or a food product advertising its lack of added sugar, to distinguish themselves from competitors who do use such elements.

The “purchase traffic for Realtor.com” bit does concern me a bit though. Why does Realtor.com need to purchase traffic?

By: Athol Kay

Athol Kay — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 06:11:39 +0000

I agree, and wow Realtor.com is running scared. Though to me the real Jump The Shark moment is;

“and to purchase traffic for Realtor.com”

Thats such a damning statement. You either have content and sell ads, or need leads and buy them. Trouble with a captial T.

By: TrvlnMn

TrvlnMn — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:56:28 +0000

To the consumers, curious, potential home buyers or sellers – would you rather go to Realtor.com or Google if you were searching for your new home in Charlottesville?

I don’t know anything about the Google version of Realtor.com. So when I’m browsing real estate I generally head to Realtor.com. I guess if I knew more about the Google variant I’d go there instead. But I don’t think it can be found from the “More Google Products” section of their page.

The local variations of Realtor.com are too full of bugs and not user friendly.

I can certianly understand an MLS not providing their feed to realtor.com. That would be like asking a talent agent to tell you who is going to be casting for what project and when. Since that sort of information is their work product, and thus the only edge they have as a talent agent.

By: Karen Rhodes

Karen Rhodes — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:00:41 +0000

R.com is worthless. And how dare they state “It is a privilege to serve those of you who seek to provide even greater value for your current and prospective clients”!!!! None of my clients or customers have ever received less value or service because I choose not to throw money away on R.com when it can be more wisely spent elsewhere with a greater opportunity for finding the right buyer. Of course, I expected nothing more from them.