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.

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.

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.