I agree. No matter what the “buzz” was, the only way I can tell is to kick the tires and find out for yourself what really is going on. Whenever something as controversial as this is announced, you can be sure that the pitch is going to be what they want you to hear. I’m just sayin’ . . .

I did like Rob Hahn’s “Civil War” post, though.

Same here, pretty much.

I’ve always found that the best way to figure it out for yourself is to just go visit the sites in question, poke around a while and see how it hits you.

Sort of like watching sports with the sound off. A third the time the announcers are full of it, a third of the time they are just spouting the obvious, and the last third they are completly missing obviuos key things – like a key player limping off after a play. (they are too busy reading their stat sheets trying to sound overly brilliant)

Not sure any of that applies now that I reread it, so just stick with the ‘visit the sites yourself deal.’

lol

As much as a post like this can come off as a criticism of the NAR, it actually isn’t.

From the get go this has been a very difficult subject to wrap ones mind around because as Todd points out, it’s two projects in one, with many many layers- it is really big both in concept and in what it means to the association now and in the years to come.

Even for those in the know, it’s difficult to even write about because the communications strategy here isn’t built in bite sizes. There is no catch phrase, there is no grass roots, there are not a whole lot of things that grab agents by the scruff psychologically. On the HouseLogic side, that’s not a good thing, and on the RPR side, it may just be because it’s really early in the game, the ink has barely dried. At the end of the day, what happens after and during the convention this week should be a buzz on the street, as many non-online folks will have seen it at the convention, and I should hear agents next week talking about it in our local starbucks.