Comments on: Realtor.com Gets a Facelift

By: Benn Rosales

Benn Rosales — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:53:25 +0000

Jim, I read that and honestly I think it is nieve. I do not believe that the so called free services out there will always be free- it just isn’t cost effective over the longterm even if the cost is lower than r.com. I do agree with the article that R.com misses the mark on many levels, but nothing in this world is free once the vc money stops flowing. Obviously these are just my opinions, but ones based on real world realities.

By: Jim Duncan

Jim Duncan — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:27:58 +0000

Realty Times has a good story today that is worth a read – if only if the NAR/Realtor.com people would take it to heart.

A sampling:

Why should agents be excited about paying Realtor.com for privileges they can get for free elsewhere?

There are other sites like Zillow climbing up Realtor.com’s back that offer agents a lot more for free.
…
If Realtor.com is supposed to be a member benefit, it’s missing the mark, and making the NAR vulnerable. Franchises don’t owe the NAR the time of day. They compete with the NAR to provide benefits to agents. And they just trumped the NAR big time with their own member benefit – unlimited listings and enhancements on Zillow!

By: Thomas Johnson

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:12:35 +0000

I am not sure I appreciate why the Brokerage information is listed along side the agent’s information in such grand form.

Come on Benn! NAR exists for, of and by the brokers(who, by the way, own the listings). See also, why you can’t get a buyer’s rep agreement to stick, why the seller pays the fees in a world with buyer agency, transaction brokers and all the other joys the Kelman rails about. I, for one will have assumed room temperature by the time that this stuff is resolved.

Thanks for the thorough review. In ERAHouston, with HAR.com (the public side of our MLS) getting a billion hits a month, I rarely look at Realtor.com except to make sure my listings are there. A strong local MLS that has a public facing search function kind of makes Realtor.com irrelevant.

By: Overland Park Real Estate

Overland Park Real Estate — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:34 +0000

Now all they need to do is stop gauging agents on the cost of their profile and added features and they would be in business. They are the only site I know of with an advertising business model and still charges so much for agent profiles and additional images on listings.

My opinion…Take in all the listings content that you can get your hands on from agents and you will attract more traffic. This will give you more click throughs to your ads, which will drive up what you can charge your advertisers. If R.com would have done this from the start there would never been a way for T.com or Z.com to come in and take their market share.

By: Scott P. Rogers

Scott P. Rogers — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:21:33 +0000

Ken — right, without paying R.com, you currently get 1 photo (soon you’ll get 4). If you pay R.com for enhanced listings you currently get 25 photos (soon you’ll get video too).

By: Ken Smith

Ken Smith — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:29:41 +0000

Scott on the page you linked to they say “Basic Features: 1 Photo”. Didn’t realize that we can now add 25 photos for enhanced listings…might be time to start taking more neighborhood photos.

By: Scott P. Rogers

Scott P. Rogers — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:46:18 +0000

It is my understanding that all listings will have four photos --- for free --- without having to be an enhanced listing. If you pay to have an enhanced listing, you will be able to add many more photos, and even videos. I'm sure they will update their enhanced listing sales pitch soon . . . here is the current pitch.

By: Ken Smith

Ken Smith — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:20:37 +0000

Eric they have charged for multiple photos for years. You have to use the enhanced listing package to get them. Have they mentioned changing the pricing structure with the new layout?

By: Eric Blackwell

Eric Blackwell — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:30:12 +0000

My “guess is that they will move into production soon. That is based on the fact that they made a few announcements that came out in BHB (Dave Phillips’ piece).. I think they may well have been waiting more for the announcements on pricing to roll forth…

From the beta, the tech side looks ready to go IMO.

What’s the word on pricing now that they are not gonna charge to have all of the photos up?

By: Scott P. Rogers

Scott P. Rogers — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:54:47 +0000

I am curious why they are still in beta with the new site. Anyone from Move, Inc listening? What is the plan/ time table?