We’re about to release a new customizable dashboard for flexmls Web, but the upgrade won’t be available to users of IE6. Why is this? Because IE6 is eight years old and is so limited in its support for web standards that it’s impractical, if not impossible, to develop web applications that take advantage of the power of modern browsers while also supporting IE6. Accordingly, we’re left with the choice of either not taking advantage of the capability of modern browsers or developing them and limiting support for IE6. We choose the latter. We’re not alone in this choice. Just yesterday, Google announced that it’s Google Docs and Sites products will no longer support IE6.
We understand that some corporate IT departments still require IE6 for their computers, and so we’re deploying the new customizable dashboard in a way that will maintain the old dashboard for IE6 users. So, we’re trying hard not to break things for IE6 users and preserve their current experience even though they won’t have access to the new features. Importantly, however, the fact that IE6 is now so incompatible with modern browsers that we cannot develop new features supporting IE6 is a strong signal that this is the beginning of the end of support for IE6. As new features are added that cannot support IE6, there will come a time where we can no longer maintain backward compatibility. The hope is that everyone is able to upgrade to a modern browser by that time. Keep in mind, for security and many other reasons, even Microsoft strongly urges all IE6 users to upgrade.
One last point is important: We spend a lot of time in our development efforts working on browser compatibility issues. Supporting old browsers like IE6 make it difficult to support newer browsers like Chrome from Google. We now officially support recent versions of IE, Firefox and Safari, and we expect to be able to officially declare full support for Chrome soon as well. Being able to put IE6 and other older browsers behind us will help a great deal in that effort.
Kathleen Shulte from the Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS is retiring this coming summer after a long and illustrious career as NMAR’s Corporate Executive Officer. Kathleen was awarded the 2009 Terry McDermott Community Leadership Award from NAR and has led NMAR to be one of the premier Associations and MLSs in the country. Whoever takes over for Kathleen will have some big shoes to fill. If you’re interested in applying for this executive position, you can find details here (PDF). NMAR is located in beautiful Northwest Montana, where the mountains and lakes provide all your entertainment needs. We’ll all miss Kathleen a great deal and we wish her the best in her retirement!
Phil Sexton from John Hall and Associates in the Phoenix area has a great series called flexmls Feature Friday at the John Hall blog. I always look forward to seeing what flexmls feature Phil highlights on Friday and occasionally I send him an idea or two.
Today, Phil honored one of my ideas with a guest post. The highlighted feature is the different ways users of flexmls can use the system to help improve the accuracy of the mapped listings. These features are relevant for all our customers and so I encourage you to check out the post and help move towards our goal of 100% accuracy in mapped listings.
The value of MLS content is one of the big questions facing MLSs today. The Realtors Property Resource (RPR) from NAR is seeking to license content from MLSs in exchange for software (the RPR web site) and access to public records data. Is that a good deal for MLSs? The answer depends on how much the MLS content is worth.
Similarly, CALREDD (an offering from the California Association of REALTORS) offers Associations MLS software in exchange for ownership of the listing data. Yes, that’s right, joining CALREDD means the local Association no longer owns the MLS compilation. The CALREDD offer is particularly interesting because it conflicts dramatically with the typical MLS vendor/Association relationship. Typically, contracts for MLS software are crystal clear that ownership of the MLS data (compilation) remains with the Association or MLS. In CALREDD’s case, the MLS software vendor (CALREDD) also is an MLS and, as such, claims ownership of the data.
The importance of this change in ownership depends on the value of the data. If the data is valuable, then the true cost to the local Association of the software provided by CALREDD is far greater than the fees CALREDD charges for the software they provide. The NAR’s RPR business model — premised on selling analytics from MLS content — suggests that there is indeed some value in the data. Importantly, early word on the license agreement with RPR is that the license is non-exclusive to RPR. In other words, the MLS or local Association also can license it to others who may find value in it. In stark contrast, striking up a deal with CALREDD means that whatever value is in the MLS content is now owned by CALREDD — in exchange for MLS software.
What do you think? If you were an MLS or local Association considering using CALREDD as a vendor, would you add to the price tag anything for the value of the MLS content you’re surrendering to CALREDD? How valuable is the MLS compilation?
Update: Brian Larson reviews the terms on which NAR’s RPR proposes to license MLS content. Maybe MLS content isn’t worth very much after all?
Some excerpts from a conversation on Twitter this evening:
A bit later, after more conversation . . .
The issue here is the possibility of RPR participating in the RETS with the aim of using the RETS for the RPR public records API. RPR’s willingness to consider participating in standards development is good news.
This could be the opportunity to roll some simplified web services APIs into RETS, because I’m not sure it makes sense to use RETS 1.x for the RPR public records API unless the public records are not standardized and lots of metadata is needed. Where I think RETS could play a very important role with RPR is by offering participating MLSs a repository for exchanging data with their data sharing partners. I’m learning from my hero Kristen, one step at a time, and I’m very appreciative that RPR is listening.
Last week at the Inman Connect conference in New York, Dale Ross, CEO of NAR’s Realtor Property Resource (RPR), was asked by Brian Boero why RPR wasn’t trying to create a national MLS. Mr. Ross initially responded with the same thing Marty Frame (RPR’s President) said during the RPR Reverb panel I moderated the day before: RPR is a small company that doesn’t have the resources to become a national MLS. However, Mr. Ross added that politics would get in the way and there were a “lot of mouths to feed” in all the MLSs involved today.
I was a bit confused by the “lot of mouths to feed” comment at at the time he said it and, even on reflection, I’m not really sure what it means. Does it mean they feel they would have to buy out the existing MLSs? Does it mean they believe they’d have to hire a bunch of people from the existing MLSs? Or something else?
Overall, the statement leaves me uneasy. To date, RPR has clearly stated they aren’t trying to become a national MLS, which seems backed up by their apparent willingness to include a non-compete in the MLS data license agreement. At the same time, statements like those made by Mr. Ross give one pause to consider whether RPR isn’t really a Trojan horse. Looking back, we all can remember that the initial gateway/archive/library, etc., vision was to be a national MLS. Only after there was a lot of resistance to the creation of such a monopoly did NAR hone its message into what is now the RPR pitch for cool tools for Realtors and free public records for MLSs in exchange for MLS data.
I think this is important because a single, national MLS would be a monopoly that would hamper innovation in the long run, and so letting in the Trojan horse would be a big mistake. Importantly, there are legitimate arguments that the pain some brokers experience from overlapping market disorder would be improved by a national MLS but that same problem can be addressed through standards without the long-term negative consequences of enduring a national MLS monopoly. If there are concerns with MLSs today, they’d only be exacerbated years from now with a national MLS monopoly.
Importantly, RPR could do a lot to foster innovation and addressing broker concerns of overlap by promoting standards and data sharing but they’ve also been pretty clear they don’t intend to do that. If I was running RPR, my sole mission would be to create a platform that would foster competition for new technology. Instead, RPR appears intent on being the sole vendor of technology. So, what do you think? If there weren’t a “lot of mouths to feed,” would RPR be positioned as a national MLS? Do you agree with me that monopolies are bad or do you think a national MLS would be a “good” monopoly?
Here’s another thought from the Inman Connect conference. This morning, I first heard several people on stage bemoaning the existence of 800 MLSs. Next I heard a guy from Meetup say he thought Realtors should get together locally — you know, meetup. What a crazy idea! That made me think of a post I wrote quite awhile ago that seems quite relevant today. Here’s the part I love the most, my version of the history of MLS:
Step back and consider the history and future of the MLS through the eyes of Joe and his progeny:
A long, long time ago, two real estate guys are sitting in a coffee shop:
“Hey, Joe, I hear the Smith place is up for sale.”
“Yep, know anyone who might be interested?”
“Maybe.”
“I’ve been trying to get that place sold for awhile. If you bring me a buyer, I’ll split my commission with you.”
“Deal.”
A week later, back at the coffee shop:
“Joe, this is Mary from our office, she’s got a few listings, too.”
“Great, I brought Ann, who’s been working with lots of buyers lately.”
A month later, still at the coffee shop, but a much bigger table:
Mary says, “I couldn’t sleep last night so I wrote down all of our listings on these recipe cards and organized them in this shoe box. Pretty cool, huh?”
“Awesome, can I copy those?”
“Sure, if I can copy yours.”
“No problem.”A few years later, no longer at the coffee shop, because there isn’t a table big enough for all the people participating:
“Hey, I ran into Peter at the Print Shop the other day, and he saw my shoe box and said he could print them up in a book for us if we want.”
“That sounds great!”And several years later, at a meeting of the Board of REALTORS:
“Joe, have you seen these new computers some of the folks are using?”
“Yeah, those are pretty handy. But man, who’s in charge of that anyway? I hardly know anyone involved in this any more.”Many years later, on a Usenet news group for real estate, Joe’s son types:
“I’m working on a web site to show all the listings in the MLS system.”
“You’re what? Are you sure you can do that? Will the MLS allow it?”
“Hey, I’m doing it. I don’t care about those idiots at the MLS; they’re all old school, just trying to protect their turf!”A decade later, Joe’s grandson, Joe III, posts on his Facebook wall:
“Joe III is sick of the stoopid rules of the national MLS and so has created a Real Estate Sharing Group for like-minded people.”
A few weeks later:
“Joe III is holding a meetup at Starbucks for RESG, see you there!”
At Starbucks:
“Hey, Joe, I hear the Smith place is for sale . . . “
I’m at LaGuardia airport ready to head home after the Inman Connect conference in New York this week. The conference was great and I applaud Madelyn, Brian, Brad and everyone associated with Inman for putting on another great event. My biggest take-away from the event is that I’m sick and tired of hearing people say the MLS model is broken. Last time I checked, we live in the United States of America where competition proves value. On that fact alone, MLSs are proving their value every day.
For anyone out there who says the MLS model is broken because there are too many MLSs, the answer is straight-forward. Start your own MLS, write your own MLS software, and put down all those stupid MLSs that supposedly just protect their turf and provide lousy support. As I listened to Joel Singer from CAR talk about calREDD this morning, I thought I was being thrust into the novel 1984 and that black was now white and white was black. According to Joel, the MLSs and MLS systems today are antiquated, redundant, and his calREDD system is the solution. Really? The market is speaking pretty loudly to refute that claim.
In addition to Mr. Singer, Brad Inman and others repeatedly said that it was ridiculous that there are so many MLSs. BS. The MLSs are the ones competing and proving value. There is nothing to stop anyone at any time from starting a competitive MLS anywhere. You have a better idea how MLSs should work? Prove it in the market. You’ve got better technology and think everyone else’s is lousy? Prove it in the market. Until then, I call BS.
I also counter ahead of time comments or responses about how the existing MLSs are barriers to entry and that there really isn’t any competition. That claim is BS, too. The fundamental value proposition of any MLS is that they’ve gotten brokers to agree to cooperate with each other in terms of offers of compensation and sharing their listings with each other. To compete with that, you need to organize the brokers and get them to work with you. If you can’t do that, too bad, you’re a failed competitor or a cry baby, nothing more.
I’ll put our MLS software up against any system any time. If you think you’re more innovative, bring it. I’ll also put the community building power of the 110 MLSs we work with up against calREDD, RPR, Zillow, Google or any other MLS wannabes any time. Think you can build a better community and attract more brokers? Bring it. Until then, I call BS.
One of our MLS clients received an email yesterday from a representative for NAR’s RPR. In addition to this being interesting because it is the first sighting I’ve had of email marketing from RPR, there were a few interesting tidbits in the email:
I’m moderating a panel at Inman Connect in New York City next week called “RPR Reverb: Should MLSs Love It or Fear It” and would love to hear questions you have about RPR. The panel will include Marty Frame (RPR’s President), Brian Larson (attorney and consult to MLSs everywhere and author of MLS Tesseract), and Jim Duncan (broker at Nest Realty and author of RealCentralVA and original NAR PAG member that envisioned what became RPR). This is going to be a great panel and it will be better with your questions, so fire away!
Two anniversaries for FBS have just passed and I want to acknowledge them publicly, because I think they’re both pretty cool and important:
These small acts are about right for us in terms of celebration. We’ve increased the value of FBS by more than a factor of ten in the last five years by doing more than celebrating, and that’s why, even after ten years of success, it feels like we’re just getting started.
