Thanks for the provocative post.

As CEO of NationalBLS, the Buyer Listing Service I read Ken’s Article with interest. I agree with a lot of the content and have evidence of its success but I also think this is an industry response reacting to, rather than embracing, the prospects of change.

First, I’ll directly answer a few of the article’s details.

I am a fan of the free market – I like choice and shy away from mandatory compliance. Every time I see the word “mandatory,” I think opportunity, as the web has a great way of working out solutions for those who don’t want to play by someone else’s rules. My first suggestion is to make the Buyers MLS opt-in for agents and buyers. If it doesn’t provide the intended benefits, people should not be forced to use it. Nothing makes organizations less consumer focused than if people HAVE to use them.

Exclusive Buyers Agency Representation Agreements are what every agent would like to use, but many buyers shy away from them. I would love every buyer on NationalBLS to be represented by an agent, but I am not forcing them to be. We need to look at WHY buyers don’t want to sign these agreements. I think there is a very good argument for agents to say “if I were to market you publicly as a buyer to every listed and unlisted property and help you close that transaction, will you sign this agreement confirming payment for my skills and effort?” From my own experience, I know people shy away from buyer agreements because they feel the agent will only help them buy a selection of properties where the agent will receive commission. A public Buyers MLS will take a big step to build trust between the buyer and the agent.

I think NAR and the real estate industry in general need all the help they can get. Every industry needs a healthy stream of innovation from entrepreneurs who have a breadth of ideas and will try new things. I will be the first to admit that not all ideas are good ones, and some do actually hurt the industry, but as soon as an industry tries to control innovation or repel it, it is signing its own death warrant. NAR should watch and learn and get involved with more of this entrepreneurial innovation.

I agree with Ken on the benefits he states and that everyone wins. Fundamentally, illuminating the demand side of the real estate market will result in a lot more transactions. It will also give more evidence to agents and help them convince sellers what their home is worth. Faster transactions means that sellers can buy again, which will only help drive liquidity in the market.

Finally, Ken’s comment about brokers and Associations “committing self-suicide by providing this rich new data to third parties” is wrong on so many levels. This is the information age! The days of protected data silos are gone. I think it would be suicide to NOT provide this data and try to restrict it. NationalBLS has designed our system in cooperation with Realtors, keeping them at the center of the transaction. We have also designed a partner model which allows MLS’s to provide us with their buyer data while continuing to own that data, in addition to receiving a healthy revenue share. The MLS’s we are speaking to fully realize that if they do not lead the solution for a Buyer Listing Service, then someone else will, and it is unlikely to have their members’ interests at the heart. NationalBLS has many levers we can pull to tweak this model. We have a vested interest in ensuring that Realtors stay at the center of the transaction, and our business.

Thanks for the mention. DL.

Two years ago, I had a couple that narrowed their search down to 2 homes. Both homes were very similar. We decided to try something different by calling each listing agent to in effect “bid” on the buyers. Instead of us writing up the contract, I told the listing agent to write up the seller’s best offer, then the buyer would chose. Neither listing agent would do it. So we moved on and bought a home the “traditional” way.

The sellers are so used to be “sought after”, that your proposal might require a radical change in attitude.