![]() |
Real Estate News and Advice |
July 10, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
Why Realtor.com Isn't Out On A Limb
by Blanche Evans
When news got out that Realtor.com wasn't going to pay MLSs for listings anymore, a little speculation began that the company had put its future in a very precarious position. Some believe that MLSs will pull their data in a huff, or agree to give Realtor.com the data but with less frequent updates. Tsk-tskers are also saying that Realtor.com is making itself vulnerable to no longer being the listings king. According to Mona Beckham, Realtor.com's vice president of MLS relationships, none of those speculations have come to pass. In fact, she says, the exact opposite has happened. Realtor.com hasn't lost a single MLS of the 121 that have come up recently for renewal under the new terms. The company is still number one in terms of number of listings, delivering traffic and consumer stickiness. Sellers are demanding their listings are seen on Realtor.com. And, it's free with no referral fees to pay, she says. "We began the terms of the new program in late June," says Beckham. "because we have nearly 900 MLS contracts in place that would expire between July and the first quarter of 2005. We have 121 MLSs which have come up for renewal and reached expiration, and 100 percent of the MLSs have renewed under the new terms. These 121 have decided that there is a great deal of value in having listings on Realtor.com, the value is there even without the royalty payments." Further, notes Beckham, of the three MLSs that stopped sending their datafeeds to Realtor.com earlier in the year, at least one has renewed its contract, and Realtor.com is working on the other two. "It's interesting that they decided to leave when we were paying royalties and come back when we aren't paying," notes Beckham. That's because agents can't do without it. How do you tell your seller you aren't going to put their home on the most widely trafficked site on the Internet which is free to you as a Realtor? "It's easy to forget that one of the ways we drive traffic is because of our distribution we have so heavily invested in," she adds. "In addition to our traffic partners like AOL, Realtor.com powers RE/MAX, GMAC, Prudential, California Living Network, to name a few. All of those Websites are gateways on Realtor.com. You get framed Realtor.com data. If an MLS were to remove the Realtor.com datafeed, those brokers listings would also fail to appear on those gateway sites." "If an MLS takes our free exposure away, it puts their members at a competitive disadvantage," suggests Beckham. "If the MLS's charter is to level the playing field, they could instead create an opportunity for big brokers who have the technology to dominate the market. It is not our objective to replace datafeeds with broker data feeds, but if we have no alternative, we don't want a dark market. When you sit down broker by broker and say -- Do you want this exposure for free or do you not want it? -- of course they will tell their MLS that they want it." Some MLSs have lamented that there is a "cost" to providing third parties with listings, but Beckham argues that those costs should be nominal by now. "Initially there was a cost to set up the datafeed," says Beckham, "but I don't know any market that is bearing all the costs of data integration. The MLS provides a raw feed. We take it, and format it and populate the site with over 900 data feeds. If an MLS like Houston provides us with a datafeed, their MLS vendor may charge them for setting up the initial datafeed, but that cost has long been paid for over and over. MLS vendor Rapattoni has 65 customers, and he is making the RETS standard interface (Real Estate Transaction Standard) a free upgrade to all his MLS customers, so there is no charge from the vendor, in his case." So much for MLSs pulling their data in a huff. But will they let the timeliness of the listings lapse? According to Beckham, Realtor.com has invested millions in new software to pull the listing data -- as often as every 15 minutes. "We've invested significantly in a process to manage our data aggregation," Beckham explains. "We leverage RETS where we can, and we can improve our process and frequency of updates. Our system will support updates every 15 minutes, and our service will only get better." But don't expect 15-minute updates in every market just yet. "There are multiple versions of RETS," explains Beckham. "It is the nonstandard industry standard. We have found holes in RETS. If we implemented RETS in several markets, we would lose data, because RETS doesn't define certain field names, so we closely mimic the data we have but we leverage value from the RETS standard. We were working with a large MLSs over this past weekend, and discovered 6 or 8 key search criteria that disappeared from the new RETS standard. It isn't this magical thing. Different vendors interpret RETS different ways. The industry isn't ready to support a standard that pulls features away from consumers." Are sellers pushing for it? "We have a customer base in every market," replies Beckham, "that may pay us for services, we consider them customers. They get it for free or they can buy other stuff. These agents who have listings in some form or other generate leads, and they don't have to pay for those leads, and 99 percent of the time they will say their sellers demand their listings appear on Realtor.com." Word is out among sellers that consumers are on the Internet, and that they are on Realtor.com, says Beckham. "We have spent millions evaluating consumer behavior on our site," says Beckham, "and in April we did a complete redesign and figured out what we needed to do from a site standpoint to get consumers to listing pages faster and keep them there longer." But has Realtor.com conceded its listings crown to IDX, VOWs, referral sites, MLS sites and others? "Data can be found in a zillion places," responds Beckham, "but according to Comscore.com, consumers stayed 46 minutes total on our site, and that is an increase of about 30 percent. Before the revamp, they spent 36.8 minutes. That's a 10-minute increase." That's a lot of time considering that some people spend little more time than that with their own families in a day. "The whole objective is to get people to look at listings," she says. "You don't see virtual tours on many MLS databases or multiple photos. In terms of total minutes spent, consumers spent 256 million minutes on Realtor.com, an increase of 55 million minutes over a year ago. And they come back. The number of minutes per visit is 19.8 minutes." In short, exclusive listings are no longer Realtor.com's competitive advantage. "Exclusivity was part of our business plan, but with IDX and other outlets for data that we no longer have exclusivity. Now our competitive advantage is that we get the consumer there, we keep them there, and there's no charge to the consumer and there are no referral fees charged to the Realtor." To sum it up, MLSs should have little complaint. While Beckham didn't go into Realtor.com's new revenue-sharing program for MLSs, they know one will be offered. In addition to that, the NAR has opened a precious vault to Realtor.com -- the new member list, which will be part of a joint promotion. New Realtors are estimated to join the NAR as new members at a rate of approximately 10,000 per month. That's a lot of prospects. The advantage to new Realtors is that they are most likely to adopt a NAR-sponsored product in their enthusiasm to get found on the Internet while supporting their national organization. The significance of this can't be underscored enough, as Realtor.com would offer these new recruits an easy, sensible way to market themselves and their listings online. No, Realtor.com isn't in any danger of losing listings, and has every possibility of gaining a significantly larger customer base. Published: October 10, 2003 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws. Related Articles:
|
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Spotlight
Today's Headlines
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
|
||||||||||||||||||