Brian Wilson over at the Geek Estate Blog has posted an excellent article about Data Standardization Listing Syndication. I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read it. Brian raises some very valid points and while I don’t agree with them all I do acknowledge his view.
Personally I believe this is exactly the conversation the RE.net should be having. It is quite likely that in the coming years decisions will be made at the state and national levels regarding data standardization and aggregation and by having the conversation now we can ensure that all the perspectives and issues are represented before a decision is made. To my perspective the first step in making MLS data broadly accessible for syndication is data standardization.
My views on Data Standardization are thus:
If we standardize the data we will open up the field to new competitors and innovators. We will make the REALTOR brand and MLS data more flexible to change and enable the data providers to focus on issues such as data compliance and quality rather on how to get the information to brokers and third parties.
The reason why companies such as Zillow and Trulia have done so well is because they have been able to identify and capitalize on a niche market that we left open. Data standardization will be a necessary first step to ensure that such a situation does not occur in the future and that the REALTOR brand will be in a position to enjoy the first to market advantage or select a partner which will reinforce the value of doing business with a REALTOR.
For the larger broker offices there are some excellent advantages to data standardization.
- They can reduce the overhead required to maintain sites that span large geographic areas
- They can make the in house tools and systems they develop market agnostic and increase the utility of these tools for the agents in their firms
- They can expand their service offerings more rapidly as they enter new markets
- They can reduce the cost of developing specialized tools and systems which will give them a market specialist advantage
- They can more readily expand the offerings of an IDX powered site at a cost which is not prohibitive
- They will have a wider field of third party participants to choose from when making a decision about an idx website for instance
- They can exert finer controls over where their data ends up (a point I will examine later)
Smaller broker offices from my perspective enjoy some advantages in the market that larger broker offices do not. They are more agile and adaptable to change but many times they lack the resources to commit to change. Data standardization would allow smaller broker offices to develop similar in house tools to larger broker offices. It would also allow companies to enter the market and offer solutions that they might not have been able to offer and at a lower cost. For instance a smaller broker office might have a great IDX site but what if they wanted an IDX powered mapping site then they would either have hire someone to create it or do it in-house. By having a defined data standard we increase the competition among the third party providers and widen the options available to you the Brokers (large and small) to select from.
As a consumer the benefits to a standardized set of data is not readily apparent. The primary benefit I believe is that if we standardize the data we increase the relevancy of the information they are using. In larger data aggregation sites such as REALTOR.com decisions have to be made about which fields to include; by standardizing the data offered you make it possible for these sites to more quickly add fields and keep their services inline with what the marketplace is demanding.
Data standardization for the association and the MLS provider introduces some excellent benefits for the Brokers and Agents.
From my vantage I believe that once the data is standardized it can then be aggregated and examined for compliance before being distributed to third party providers and the myriad of IDX sites in a local market. By examining the data before it is distributed to the marketplace we can increase the data’s reliability. Also by holding the data to a standard we can raise the confidence that the consumer market has in MLS data and reduce the impact of after market data. I believe the opportunity to do this a narrow window that is rapidly closing. As the data providers out there continue to sign office agreements they raise the quality of their data offerings and minimize the impact of MLS generated data.
Also in the model described above the broker retains the ultimate decision where their data ends up, if you don’t like Google or Trulia then you don’t have to aggregate to them if you do wish to aggregate to them then you are able to. This is nothing new by the way the National Listing Service from Point2 is leading the way in developing the model described.
Ultimately for me the conversation leads to one conclusion as data providers we have to begin securing where MLS data ends up and who has the access to MLS data. By setting the data standard and by opening the access to only those persons or parties which are going to develop products that will benefit the REALTOR community and enhance the REALTOR brand then we can pull the teeth from tools which seek to detract from the value that working with a REALTOR brings.
Mark Flavin
Mark, excellent post. A very related issue that Brian brings up is that syndication (broad dissemination of data) is not necessarily the same as standardization of data. I fully agree with you that data needs to be standardized. I also think agents, brokers, MLSs (and the DOJ and others) need to discuss the terms of use on which listings can be aggregated to one or more sites while preserving cooperation. Aggregation is pro-consumer but aggregation won’t occur in a naturally competitive environment. Point2, which you mention, is a perfect example. They provide great tools for sending the listing data here, there and everywhere, but competition results in little aggregation. Just check out the Point2 listing search itself; the listing coverage is a pittance. So, the question is not so much data standards but syndication standards, or terms of use standards, and how those can be crafted in a pro-competitive manner.
To my perspective the first step in broad syndication is data standardization.
At this point examining syndication to me feels preemptive many MLSes can’t agree how to store data much less how to share it. The broad strokes picture of Data Syndication to me is this; every day the policy for syndication is being written for the Brokers and Agents in the RE community. Each time another brokerage signs an individual agreement with a data aggregator the community loses that much more leverage to create a syndication agreement with favorable terms to the community as a whole.
I agree with you Michael that the Point2 listing search is severely limited but I think that is partially because most agents are not aware of it yet. I believe the idea is where we need to go, by allowing brokers to make the choice individually of whom they wish to share their data with we create an enviroment of cooperation. If an individual broker does not agree with Google’s practices then he does not have to share with them if he wishes to share with he should be able to and most importantly he should be able to terminate that agreement on his own time frame and terms.
When we can get NAR and the state associations to agree on an aggregation policy we will be a lot closer preserving the competitive space while giving the consumer the greatest access to the widest possible array of MLS listing ideas. Data standardization in my mind is a first step to that broader goal. I am glad to see this topic is getting the attention it deserves it is I believe among the most important decisions we as a community will be facing in the coming years.
I believe the idea is where we need to go
But doesn’t broker choice already exist? I’m not aware of any MLS that restricts what a broker can do with their own listings.
The bigger question seems to be the compilation of all listings, which requires agreement among competitors as to the terms of use. The web requires re-evaluation of those terms of use, as the controversies over virtual offices and what it means to “advertise” listings changes. When is a web site providing information and when is it advertising? When it comes to the listings of a single broker, this question is irrelevant. When it comes to the aggregation, however, the competitive nature of advertising complicates everything. Aggregation is where the Point2 model fails; it does fine at providing choice for individual brokers and agents on advertising decisions but without some pre-defined terms of cooperation, the individual competitors will naturally choose disparate advertising venues resulting in a lack of complete aggregation. That’s why the MLS is necessary but the existence of the MLS begs the question of whether the aggregation can be leveraged to the benefit of the consumer. The MLS community has gone far with IDX and now the question is whether that can or should be extended across MLSs.
Regarding data standardization, the RETS efforts are moving along well right now, I believe. I’m heading to Boston next week for yet another payloads definition meeting, where we’ll be focusing on the schema for listings and properties. As important as data standardization is, I believe that the terms of use for syndication of MLS data is even more important. You may well be right that the community can only handle so much. But, to a great degree, standardization of data is only going to be addressed by a small group of interested individuals. On the other hand, the terms on which data can be aggregated and syndicated are ultimately decided by all brokers and agents together through their participation in the MLS. They all care a lot about this issue, as demonstrated by Brian’s post. So, perhaps their is attention for both issues simultaneously.
Brokers do have a choice of where they can syndicate their listing but generally that functionality is not built into the MLS. For instance on the Paragon platform agents simply may check a box that says Internet Sites and then the listing is submitted to the IDX system.
The way I feel that it should work is that within the MLS or a parallel system a broker should be able check boxes to say where his or her listings are distributed ie. zillow check, google check, craigslist etc…. If down the road the broker decides that he does not want to syndicate to the third party then he can simply uncheck the box and his listing are no longer submitted to that content provider.
What I am trying to suggest is that the MLSs take up the position of securing that content. Brokers from my point of view should be able to give and take access to his or her listing data with a minimum of effort on their part.
I believe once brokers can leverage that fine grain control over their listing data they can and will drive the conversation with the third party providers to terms which are beneficial to them. I believe that most brokers would want to share their information if they could secure it in such a fashion.
Another aspect of this is the value to the broker in sharing their data. As it is each of these companies offer one thing only it seems, page views. What does a page view mean to a broker not a whole heck of a lot. If we could figure out how to secure the information with a discrete control mechanism then perhaps we could identify a monetization strategy for brokers. Say they get a fee for each time their listing is viewed on a third party provider’s site. I know that is a pipe dream but that is really where the conversation should be leading.
I agree with you 100% that as an industry we need to secure data sharing agreements which are beneficial to everyone and a huge part of that process must be to identify what is and is not acceptable use of MLS data and hold the content providers responsible if that data is misused.
I guess the entire point I was trying to say with my post and my comments on Brian’s blog is that data standardization is the first step towards reaching that goal. By making the data more accessible we can make a national aggregation system which could managed by a state or national entity in which brokers will be able to determine where their data is shared, who it is shared with, and what it is used for.
On a side note: Michael I am personally very happy to see an MLS provider taking such an active part in this conversation. I think it speaks volumes about your organization that you take the time to consider issues such as this.
Yes, that makes sense. I agree that MLS vendors need to do a better job at providing easier data syndication or export. We’re expecting to have syndication to at least the major sites available in just a few months and we’ll be leveraging RETS in the hope that we can get others to work with the industry standards instead of us reinventing the wheel for each recipient.
Wow that is awesome to hear I will be sure to convey that nugget to our MLS Council, this kind of thinking is exactly why I have told anyone who will listen that I believe FlexMLS to be the at the top of my list for the most forward thinking MLS provider in the industry. Though I know my opinion currently means little, though to a few a little more, I am constantly impressed to the degree in which you involve your company in the RE community and reinvest in yourself to stay ahead of the curve.
[…] Geek Estate Blog posted an excellent article about Listing Syndication, this prompted me to write a post about Data Standardization because in my crazy way of viewing the universe they are interrelated. What I would like to examine […]
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
7 Comments