Michael Wurzer Yesterday, I published a post advocating for MLSs to shift from anti-commingling requirements to clear branding requirements, and mentioned that CMLS had tried this years ago with an initiative called Source MLS. Based on some subsequent conversations with folks who were involved in creating and promoting Source MLS, the primary reason it didn’t take off was that it was overshadowed by Craig Cheatham’s “you have 10 days” speech at CMLS in 2013, which was focused on, among other things, opposition to MLSs creating public facing web sites with member dues.
The tension between broker branding and MLS branding is something I anticipated in my post yesterday, which I addressed as follows:
[E]ach MLS should include in every license for display of listings a requirement that the listing broker and the MLS be clearly identified as the source of the listings. The MLS is branding the MLS compilation and the listing broker is branding the individual listing. These branding requirements can support each other rather than fight each other. Let me repeat this: Broker, agent, and MLS branding can work together and not against each other. This isn’t a zero-sum game and the branding serves the purpose of consumer awareness and transparency regarding the source of the listings.
What I can now add to this is that not only is MLS branding a value-add to broker branding, it is very distinct from the tensions caused between brokers and MLSs over issues like MLS public web sites, MLSs offering products that “level the playing field”, or other situations where MLSs pursue initiatives brokers see as “not the MLSs role.” In contrast to these situations, MLS branding on portals merely recognizes and promotes the distinct value MLS cooperation creates with the MLS compilation. At conference after conference this fall, this distinct value was recognized and promoted by speaker after speaker, including those like Robert Reffkin and Andy Florance who were seeking to eliminate certain MLS policies. Basically, everyone agrees that the MLS compilation has distinct value, and the only disagreement is how best to preserve that value.
So, let’s take a brave leap forward and assume for just a moment that we can find agreement that the MLS compilation has value distinct from the listings of any individual broker, and that this value is important to brand. (I know that’s a big leap for now, but bear with me.) I’m a big believer that visualizing what something controversial would look like is a great way to focus the discussion or debate. To that end, let me resurface a screen shot Andy Woolley from Homes.com shared with me today about how Homes.com surfaced its MLS Trusted brand along with the local or regional MLS brand. Now, there certainly may be newer ways technically or visually to implement this kind of design, but what I find is awesome about this is that it standardizes the MLS brand as well as provides an easy way to see the details regarding the MLS providing the listing. I also have to think there’s a way to marry this kind of approach with clear branding for the listing broker as well, so they’re not competing but rather support each other and make clear to the consumer the source of the listings, right?
Now, I do know there are all sorts of IDX rules about when and where the listing broker needs to be disclosed or not, but two things are important in that regard: (1) this is an opportunity to standardize that to make it easier and more effective for everyone to implement consistently; and (2) this is another case where applying IDX rules to portals likely is not the right approach. There simply are different concerns if a broker is displaying IDX listings on their own site than if a portal is doing it. I know many portals are now brokers so they can get IDX feeds, but this is a good case where the industry needs to get out of its own way so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To sum up, here are the wins I see for everyone involved if we can take a fresh look at this issue:
- Consumers — There are several potential benefits for consumers:
- Commingling — Most portals advocate for allowing commingling to make the search experience less complicated for their users. I haven’t studied this issue, so let’s just take this as a given for now that allowing commingling is consumer friendly.
- Transparency and Trust — Presuming consumers want commingled listings, they also benefit from knowing the source of those listings, because there are all qualitative and quantitative differences, and transparency leads to trust.
- No Watermarks — One valuable piece of feedback on my earlier post from one of the portals is that their consumer research shows that consumers really hate watermarks, because they often obscure something important in the photo. With the right branding design, perhaps MLSs will be less inclined to require display of watermarks on photos provided to portals. Importantly, this is also is a reason that portals seek feeds direct from brokers, because they don’t have such watermarks and this is why, in my earlier post, you see Homes.com not showing the Beaches MLS watermark whereas Zillow does; because, most likely, Homes.com is getting the feed directly from Douglas Elliman rather than through the MLS. So, this possibly could increase the adoption of direct feeds from the MLS as well.
- Brokers — As mentioned above, there should be a way to make broker and MLS branding support and enhance each other rather than conflict. In the screenshot above, adding the listing broker to the pop-up display or whatever other design option is deployed to provide the additional details, should make it clear to consumers the listing broker and MLS that are the source of the listing. Importantly, as noted above, even the most critical brokers recognize the distinct value the MLS compilation provides today and that continuing that value is important, and so an effort like this will do just that.
- Portals — Portals would benefit from serving consumers and brokers as noted above, and by having a standard way to display this important source information. Right now, each portal has to code all sorts of local exceptions to meet the individual MLS requirements, and that simply creates inefficiency and ineffectiveness, because no one knows where to look for the information.
- MLSs — Last but certainly not least, MLSs will benefit from a consistent brand on the consumer portals. Though the prior efforts were admirable, the reality is that they weren’t anywhere near the scale the portals provide today. CMLS’s effort with Source MLS really died before it got started because of the public web site furor. And, Homes.com certainly has a broader reach today than it did prior to the CoStar acquisition. But imagine if the win-win I’m envisioning came to pass and all the portals promoted a consistent brand for MLSs along with detailed sourcing information for the listing brokers and local or regional MLS? We’re likely talking about billions of impressions a year, and that has to have an impact over time.
Every MLS I know is searching for clear value propositions to their members, and the number one distinct value MLSs deliver today is the MLS compilation itself. Let’s stop hiding this value behind local rules that result in a mishmash of ineffective branding and start telling the story that everyone agrees is critical today.