IDX, VOW, WTF? The techno-ninja perspective.
I would have thought by now I’d be starting a blog post with the phrase “I get a lot of questions about VOW feeds”. Um…not so much, and I’m wondering why. I think it must be because folks are still trying figure out exactly what the real world implications of that NAR/DOJ agreement are.
I’m no lawyer (not bragging or anything, just saying), and maybe my good friend Das Hahn (The Hahnster? Robtastic?) will chime in if I say something completely wrong or idiotic (always a possibility), but if anyone’s interested in plowing through some inadvertently alliterative parenthetical prose about what a data-geek who’s been in the RE space for longer than he cares to remember thinks about this, here you go. If you want a much sharper legal mind’s take on this, check out Rob’s post. FYI, if you actually are interested in my thoughts on this, you should consider a hobby–I hear free running is a lot of fun, and great cardio.
So what the deally yo with VOW? Some background for the uninitiated (just skip this whole next paragraph if you’re generally familiar with VOW), and here I’m just going to just quote Brian Larson who knows what we in the business call a “crap-load” more about this than I do:
For purposes of the DOJ/NAR settlement, a VOW is:
A web site, or feature of a web site, operated by a Broker or for a Broker by another Person through which the Broker is capable of providing real estate brokerage services to consumer with whom the Broker has first established a Broker-consumer relationship (as defined by state law) where the consumer has the opportunity to search MLS data, subject to the Broker’s oversight, supervision, and accountability. (See Policy Section I.1.)
So, basically, any broker with an MLS participant relationship can serve up listing data online to someone they’ve got a “Broker-consumer relationship” with (more on that momentarily). Well…so what? Isn’t that just IDX?
Duck!
Nope, and the differences are critical and potentially very useful. It may look like a duck, but it quacks like a Hell’s Angel. IDX, Internet Data Exchange, is an agreement brokered by the MLS among its members to allow the limited display of limited listings data on each others’ sites–a marketing quid pro quo. The biggest of those limitations involve the number of attributes (data-geek-speak for “fields”) of which some MLSs only allow a handful in IDX feeds, the outright elimination of certain record types (e.g. most off-market data), restrictions on the display and enhancement of listing data ranging from the merely problematic to completely draconian, and–only in some cases, admittedly–the ability for brokers to opt-out of the program rendering the data-set incomplete.
This is in stark contrast to VOW feeds, which are meant to replicate the brick-and-mortar experience of eons past when listings books lived in every office and could be given to customer to take home and peruse. No really, actual books that were printed on something they called paper–yeah, I know. Those feeds are complete and whole, i.e. the majority of useful-to-the-consumer info about the listing is still there and (critical!) brokers cannot opt-out.
Additionally, these feeds are relatively unencumbered by a user-experience-destroying and ever-changing display policy. Meaning you can take the Christmas tree that is the listing and hang some truly kick-ass ornamentation on it, like really relevant contextual content, interesting search, maybe some tools to improve lead generation/distribution/management for brokers, etc.–even the potential for re-margining broker business in advantageous ways (hopefully we’ll hear more on that later from our resident broker biz expert, Dave Collins).
Say! I might know some folks who can help you with all that stuff. Sweet! Tree-trimming party at Onboard’s!
Before we start doing tequila shots, though, there are a couple of hiccups–some real, some merely perceived–that we need to address. Remember that “Broker-consumer relationship” thing? That’s the one folks seem most concerned with, including our own inestimable Rob Hahn. He sees a threat to brokers here–the prevailing theory being if you have to make people sign-up you kill a site’s “throughput”, providing an overwhelming competitive advantage to sites that don’t (i.e. Realtor.com, IDX-based sites, etc.). Me? I only see advantage, provided they can either negotiate some of the technical (not legal!) hurdles or partner with someone who can.
Between the time that I left eNeighborhoods and when Marc and Jon came and drafted me back into the fray, I spent two years as CTO of a pure leadgen company outside of RE. Reg-path management is somewhere between a science and an art, and I won’t claim it’s easy, but there are a variety of ways to overcome the objection of consumers to signing up, including some technology-based sleight of hand. Frankly, handled right registration can be converted from being a barrier into being a feature. Think velvet ropes and VIP rooms. Also, that consumer objection to signing up is just generally getting quieter and smaller every day as people’s use of social networking mediums that demand sign-up for participation grows. Add single sign-on mechanisms, either individual or one of the social media platform initiatives like OpenID, etc. and this becomes negligible.
And BTW? There’s nothing in the language of the VOW agreement or any other I know of (big caveat on that one) that precludes a broker from maintaining both of those feeds. That introduces some interesting hybrid UX/reg-path possibilities. This is a very solvable problem.
Another point Rob and I disagree on is whether brokers can be prohibited by their MLS from giving their listings to the Zillow’s of the world–he thinks they can be, I think brokers can do what they please with their listing and tell whoever says otherwise to pound sand. It should be noted that this point is pretty much all legal ground not technical, so Rob’s far more qualified than me to assess it. The only point I’ll make is that from a broker-site functional/operational perspective, I think his point is basically moot (and I want bonus points for using legal terminology!).
Even if his premise is borne out, the only “feature” really compromised is syndication, which was only ever engaged in by brokers out of desperation (though I would contend that more enlightened brokers shouldn’t feel threatened by alternative marketing channels). If brokers can get that traffic back from Zillow, et al, into their site (or potentially some other VOW-enabled broker site for the standard split which defines the central value proposition of the MLS to its members) by creating better destination sites, with SEO-friendly content, a better toolset, etc. as a result of having more robust listing data–that sounds like a win to me.
Good, bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
People in the space–brokers, agents, the MLSs, etc.–are going to make arguments that VOW feeds are good for this, bad for that, whatever. I feel the same way about this as when I hear arguments from developers about which language is “the best” for coding in, or from infrastructure folk debating the virtues of one OS over another. I tend towards the agnostic for abstract mechanisms of any stripe, and save my judgments for how appropriate a specific application of that mechanism is or how well it’s been implemented.
Long story short (too late!), smart management of this newly available mechanism could allow brokers to drive back the interlopers (their word, not mine) who are building businesses on the back of listings that brokers spend time and money farming. And they can do it by using that unshackled listing data to create a far more compelling user experience for the consumer, and ultimately a better buyer/home match and more ideal result all around. The natural traffic generated by (properly deployed and supported) listings comes home like the prodigal son, ready to courted and managed into leads by intelligent brokers, and handed off to caring and knowledgeable agents ready, willing and able to put families in their new homes. Happy brokers, happy agents, happy buyers, happy sellers.
Either way–VOW, IDX…I’m the guy with the listings.
- Liam Dayan
Disclaimer: No lawyers were harmed in the making of this blog post.
Tags: data, IDX, leadgen, listings, marketing, MLS, NAR/DOJ, Real Estate, techno-ninja, VOW.
on Dec 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Smart post Liam. Even with all your “clever” remarks.
Liam: 1
Rob : 0
gr
on Dec 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
I agree with Greg Robertson.
Liam: 1
Rob: 0
Having said that…
Bonus points awarded!
Thing is, I don’t think this is a legal issue as much as it is a business issue. Meaning, an MLS is just a private association, a private company. The broker can, as you say, tell the MLS to go pound sand if the MLS creates rules prohibiting the distribution of listings data to the Zillows of the world. The MLS in turn can simply tell the broker, “You are now declared heretic, and hereby excommunicated”.
FWIW, I happen to agree with you that the smart broker will use both IDX and VOW, and create “hybrids”. This also happens to be what Brian Larson suggests.
And in a strictly non-self serving way, I feel compelled to point out that things like community information will play a major role in the whole “Reg-path management” issue. What better way to get someone to sign up than to offer them detailed information on the schools, the area, the towns, and neighborhoods? I know that sounded like a sales pitch, but I happen to really believe it.
The #1 problem with signup requirements, frankly, is that people need to get something of value back to give up their personal info. Too many brokerage sites offer precious little value in exchange for personal info. And saying, “To view all our listings, sign up!” is inadequate, IMHO.
-rsh
on Dec 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I concede the possibility that they could pull an “Angry Pope” routine, Rob, but I guess I just give the MLSs more credit than that. True, some are having a tough time redefining their value proposition to their membership–and one of the ways those struggling orgs seem to latch onto is a death’s grip on the listings (keyword: death), but I don’t think that’s a very effective tactic.
Ultimately I think cooler heads will prevail and the MLS will get back to its core membership benefits of cooperative exchange, governance, local knowledge, membership toolkit, and representation of its membership in the larger space. That’s a topic that probably deserves more attention, since I think those core values have to a large degree gotten lost in the “noise” of the internet conversation. I think people like Bob Hale (HAR) and David Charron (MRIS) are doing what they can to lead the charge for MLSs that are willing and able to participate in that conversation, and pretty effectively, at that. Look at what Bob’s done with that site–fully half (or more by now) of the traffic which had gone to more SEO-capable 3rd-parties is now going directly to his membership. That’s value delivered.
I’m also with you about having to offer more than just “the rest of the listings”–that’s altogether too lame to be compelling enough to get (most) people through that path. It is, however, a start and one reason why VOW feeds (to get back on point) are worth further examination. Also, from either a self-serving what-we-sell perspective, or a more altruistic place of creating consumer value–context needs a place to happen to have…er…context. While not true for all applications, for most in this space you need those listings to make the magic happen.
- lsd
on May 12th, 2009 at 11:01 am
[...] the comments of this great post by Liam Dayan, our CTO, I wrote: And in a strictly non-self serving way, I feel compelled to point [...]
on Jul 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am
[...] quick post this morning inspired by a Kristen Carr tweet about Liam Dayan’s post some time ago about using IDX and VOWs together. A quick excerpt from Liam’s post: [...]
on Aug 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Can you recommend a great VOW provider which allows us to host our own site/database and customize it?
on Sep 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Liam,
Thanks for making this information available. I’ve been researching the VOW/IDX issue for weeks and have found for the most part bloggers agree to disagree on definitions and interpretations because DOJ and NAR have lawyered up the settlement language in a way that many interpretations may be made, so many arguments may arise, so many lawsuits may be filed, so many lawyers may get paid…All because some folks wanted to get MLS information for free that others have paid dearly to develop and compile.
Before the DOJ/NAR settlement and compliance instructions from NAR were sent to MLS cooperatives, our local MLS made the executive decision to limit the same information uploads to the VOW sites as the IDX participants…that is, no sold data, etc. This is accomplished by restricting the fields the VOWS may upload from the host servers.
One of the requirements of the DOJ/NAR decision is the agent must give the option to the seller of any listed property to opt out of having their property displayed on VOW,IDX, Address ID, Blogs, or auto vlauation on the VOW IDX sites.
Real Estate agents are marketing people and for the most part do not care to understand the difference between VOW, IDX definitions well enough to satisfactorily explain these options to the seller so the seller will be informed enough to make a decision. The technical experts disagree on those same definitions and interpretations, so you can imagine how difficult it will be to get thousands of agents to simply tell the same story!
Since, in our MLS, the IDX and VOW uploads contain exactly the same data, what would be wrong with simplifying the explanation to the agents and sellers by asking these Questions:
Mr. Seller, do you want your home to be advertised on the internet?
a. Answer: NO. Then the three choices below automatically default to NO.
b. Answer: YES. Then the seller will need to make three additional decisions that include:
i. Do you want your address displayed? Yes or NO
ii. Do you want Your home to be automatically valued on the internet? Yes or No
iii. Do you want Your home discussed or opinions published in a blog? Yes or No.
Again, since our VOW and IDX uploads contain the same data, AND they are both going to end up on the internet, they are listings displayed on the internet…just under different agreements.
Simple terms, Simple explanations, reduced risk of confusion that leads to lawsuits!
I’m thinking this approach will reduce the risk to the seller, the agent and to the MLS.
As far as I can tell, NAR gives the MLS the latitude to establish local business practices that best benefits the members in the area, so what if any is the downside to this approach?