1. Rich Bailey February 3, 2009 at 17:35

    In the early days of IDX, this was a common dialogue. Tech vendors were trying to convey the concept of IDX and its benefits. The savvy agents and brokers got it; they saw a consumer who wanted ownership of the search process and created great efficiencies by giving it to them. Ultimately, this led to a shift in the industry perception of data accessibility for the consumer. But at the time, most simply expressed their desire to only display “My Listings” on “My web site”. One might have asked “Does the seller understand how much you are limiting their property’s exposure by NOT participating in IDX?” The solicited a variety of replies: deer in the headlights, a smug “harumph” and walking away, or the classic, “My sellers depend on my experience and professionalism to find a qualified buyer, not the Internet.” Today it’s hard to imagine anyone clinging to this philosophy.

  2. Jim Duncan February 4, 2009 at 13:15

    Rich –

    Thanks for the comment. Here’s the thing, in my opinion – those brokers who keep their listings to themselves and do not allow the widest possible distribution are doing their sellers (and therefore themselves) a disservice.

    I’d love to know if the sellers of these non-IDX properties understand how limited the marketing is. I can think of several properties in my market that are, in my opinion, being marketed very ineffectively because of this limitation.

    Sellers and buyers are at equal, but different disadvantages in this situation.

  3. Rich Bailey February 4, 2009 at 13:42

    You are preaching to the choir. There was once a fear that the REALTOR would no longer have a role in the transaction if the public could access the data online. That and the broker desire to capture both sides of the transaction. But is this thinking still very prevalent in Central Virginia?

    One of the reasons IDX was so well embraced in Minnesota in the early days is the great job Brian Larson did as president of the RMLS in promoting its benefits to the membership. The local REALTOR associations offered classes and materials to explain why the RMLS and NAR were moving in that direction. Education promotes understanding and adoption.

  4. Joel McDonald February 5, 2009 at 00:43

    Hey Jim,

    I think we all can agree that listing agents are opting out of IDX in the hopes of double ending a commission, but
    1) doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the MLS in its entirety?
    2) it seems that if a listing agent is going to do that, they should be *required* to have a disclosure signed by the sellers acknowledging that opting out of IDX drastically limits exposure.

    I have the same issue with “discount brokers” who reduce their own commissions *as well as* reducing the selling agent (buyer agent) co-op. Although buyer agents should not be screening based on commission offered, but you can pretty much guarantee that a listing with half the co-op as the majority of other listings on the market — will get drastically less showings.

    Either way, this is a major breach of fiduciary duty to the seller — on the listing agent’s part, and should require full disclosure when the agent decides to do this for selfish reasons.

  5. Pingback: A Timely Revisiting of IDX in Charlottesville | Real Central VA

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *