According to no less an authority than an editorial in The Washington Post, "not only have the 6 percent commissions earned by purveyors of real estate begun to seem outlandish in an era of exponential growth in housing prices, there is evidence, nationally, of local real estate agents trying to preserve their high fees by preventing or hampering online and discount competitors." "(Electronic Competition ", May 20, 2005)

This is a remarkable editorial comment from a remarkable institution, and it should certainly raise a question: Just what standards apply both to The Washington Post and the rest of the world?

For instance, let's consider those "outlandish" 6 percent fees.

"Consumers," says The Wall Street Journal, "are bargaining harder with real-estate agents over commissions, which have become much more lucrative for agents as home prices have soared. The average national commission has fallen to about 5.1 percent from 6 percent in the early 1990s, industry publication Real Trends estimated last year." ("Realtors May Revise Internet Policy ", May 16, 2005)

So commission rates are actually falling -- exactly what the Post advocates and expects. And there must be fee and service competition, otherwise how could consumers bargain?

Commissions, says the Post, have "begun to seem outlandish in an era of exponential growth in housing prices." In other words, as home prices have risen, the Post's expectation is that real estate fees should decline.

If there was a lack of real estate competition one could agree with the idea that fees are somehow fixed, but brokers who offer something other than traditional services and fees seem to be doing quite well.

As an example, Help-U-Sell Real Estate -- which describes itself as "the nation's first and largest set fee real estate company" -- says it has saved sellers $130 million in the past 12 months. The company also reports that it ended 2004 with 700 offices, up 780 percent since 1999. Help-U-Sell says it expects to have 1,800 offices by 2008.

Why is it, exactly, that real estate fees should decline with rising home values? For instance, has the cost for advertising in the Post been reduced as local home prices have risen?

Imagine that an editorial writer can work at a newspaper with a circulation of 20,000 or at a paper that sells 700,000 copies a day. Which paper will pay more? Is not an editorial which keeps a large enterprise competitive more valuable than the same editorial in a smaller outlet?

The Post's editorialists say "there is no reason why the cost savings and productivity increases that the Internet has brought to many other industries -- and that have often been passed on to customers -- should somehow fail to touch the real estate industry, too."

The assumption here is that Internet development always results in reduced consumer costs. But is this true?

For instance, despite tons of medical and legal advice online have legal fees or medical bills declined? And with thousands of newspaper sites on the Internet, what has happened with the Post subscription costs and ad rates?

Imagine that circulation at the Post rose. Would not the paper be entitled to bigger advertising fees? Alternatively, if circulation fell would it not be logical to believe that advertising rates should decline?

In fact, here's what actually happened at the Post during the past quarter:

"Print advertising revenue at The Washington Post newspaper increased 2 percent to $145.7 million, from $142.1 million in 2004 ," according to the company.

Well then, surely circulation must also have increased 2 percent. Right?

"For the first quarter of 2005, Post daily and Sunday circulation declined 3.8 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively, compared to the first quarter of 2004."

Earlier this year the Post explained to readers that "circulation loss in itself is not debilitating from a revenue standpoint. In general, paid circulation accounts for about 20 percent of a paper's revenue, with the rest coming from advertising. But ad rates are set by circulation figures: As circulation drops, so too will the amount papers can charge advertisers." (See: Hard News , February 20, 2005)

And yet, somehow, ad rates at the Post have risen in the face of declining circulation.

The company told investors in its 2004 annual report that "general advertising rates were increased by an average of approximately 5.3 percent on January 1, 2004, and by approximately another 4.5 percent on January 1, 2005. Rates for most categories of classified and retail advertising were increased by an average of approximately 3.2 percent on February 1, 2004, and by approximately an additional 3.4 percent on February 1, 2005."

Ad rates are up and circulation is down. Didn't the Post tell readers that ad rates decline when circulation falls? Is a correction in order?

You have to wonder: Where are the editorials regarding Post ad pricing? Where are the investigations? Why aren't principled Post editorialists demanding lower salaries so that subscribers and advertisers pay less?

No doubt, inquiring minds want to know.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here .