But … if that video is hosted elsewhere, say on Viddler, Youtube, Vimeo, Vidlisting, etc. etc. etc. then that “unbranded” video there that is not linked through the MLS would be in violation, no?

If that’s the case, would the MLS be justified in preventing Realtors from doing what’s in the clients’ best interests, ie. marketing the property as effectively as possible?

*I’m trying out the new “threaded comments” in the new version of this theme.

The MLS could argue that it doesn’t violate the Code of VA because it’s created by the MLS and is directly linked to from the MLS listing which clearly shows the name of the agent’s brokerage firm, contact info, etc.

I’m not defending the MLS (I actually think that most are in it for the money and not the agent whatsoever) – just thinking out loud about the arguement they may use.

By the way, the Washington Post uses Trulia for their listings database and cancelled the contract with MRIS. I wonder why?

But now, I assume that any consumer is going to be googling addresses anyway.

Here’s something to think about…the MRIS (DC/VA/MD area MLS) says you can’t put in URL’s, but it doesn’t say anything about not being to put something such as “Google 21377 Scara Place for more info” in the agent or public/internet remarks (try Googling that address and see what happens)

Thanks for the comment. Unless we collectively change our thinking, we are doomed by, not necessarily Trulia and Zillow, but the Trulias and Zillows that are out to eat our selfish lunches.

Daniel –

Amen, and frankly, that’s why Nest is doing our signs the way we are – the marketing should be about the property, not the agent.

As a tech-savy real estate consumer (not an agent), I was appalled at the way the MLS wanted to present my home (crappy resolution photos, short description, no links, no maps, no features, no blog… but the agent phone # was there!).

ps. The #2 google result for my address is the Bubble Blog… so the internet battle rages on…

The MLS’s and R.com simply aren’t coming up with workable solutions to face the reality in that the internet is THE definitive source of consumer interaction.

I would argue that the host site for the video (i.e. MLS IDX) should hold the disclosures that the agent is licensed, etc… The issue is the webpage where the agent actually created the video, such as Vimeo or YouTube. If it’s not attached to a page, than I think the same disclosures required in 18VAC135-20-190 would need to be there as well -or- the video needs to be private.

I understand the resolution of the MLS to keep agents from making the promotion about them – and not about the property. I understand (because of my disdain for dual-agency) the limitation of using the MLS to solicit buyers and use the listing as buyer-bait.

However neither of these reasons should be justification for an agent not being able to do everything in their power to promote the property.

Personally, I’m a big fan of Trulia and I think that if MLS don’t start doing a better job of catching the eye of the consumer; than agents are going to start abandoning MLS and use the more effective and free venues.

MLS’s should stop thinking of the agent as the consumer and start thinking of the consumer, as the consumer.

In the end – I think that if the host site (the MLS) has the disclosures you’re probably ok. But I also don’t think that the agent talking about the house is self promotion. The agent talking about the agent, would be.

You may have just created a whole new category of offenses for agents that no one will every write a complaint about; but will gripe about in the office.