Fri
Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging
Posted by Marlow Harris under Real Estate
[38] Comments
The Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) recently announced new rule changes that will impact agents ability to blog about certain homes. There has always been a rule about not advertising another agents listings without permission, but this new rule specifically forbids blogging about a listing if the seller opts out.
The seller will also be able to opt out of having a AVM (Automated Valuation Model) listed next to their listing.
From the NWMLS bulletin:
NWMLS will add two new data fields to the listing input sheets that will give the seller the choice of whether or not to allow certain data to be displayed with the seller’s listing. The first data field is for automated valuation models (AVM) that estimate the fair market value of the property.
If the seller elects not have AVMs appear on the seller’s listing, then Members and subscribers that display the seller’s listing must not include any AVMs for that listing. The default selection in the listing input sheets will be to allow for AVMs.
The second data field will allow the seller to decide whether or not to allow blogging on the public display of the seller’s listing. If the seller elects not to allow blogging, then Members and subscribers displaying NWMLS data on their public websites may not allow blogging on the seller’s listing. The default selection in the listing input sheets will be to prohibit blogging.
If the seller elects to allow blogging on the seller’s listing, the Member may display a blog that allows commentary from the Member, other Members, subscribers, and the public. Members who maintain blogs must comply with certain requirements including removing inaccurate information from the blog and prohibiting profane or obscene content.
With the ability to opt out of AVM, gone will be these embarrassing listings, such as this home for sale for $849K but with a Zillow AVM of $645,000. The seller will now be able to opt out of this at their discretion. In this case, I think it would be a good idea.
Redfin will also have to discontinue their listing/Zillow mash-ups of listing info and AVM’s, if requested by seller and/or listing agent and also they’ll have to monitor their forums more for questions and answers that mention listed properties by address, such as this amusing exchange about a suspected meth hell-hole over on the coast.
These changes will be effective next week, on October 1st.
38 Responses to “ Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging ”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
[...] Revised rules will forbid real estate blogging | 360Digest [...]
-
[...] Revised rules will forbid real estate blogging | 360Digest5 hours ago by Marlow Harris The Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) recently announced new rule changes that will impact agents ability to blog about certain homes. There has always been a rule about not advertising another agents listings without … [...]
-
[...] Marlow Harris, 360 Digest (one of the best RE blogs out there) Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging. addthis_url = [...]
-
[...] Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging by Marlow Harris on 360 degree digest [...]
-
[...] Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging by Marlow Harris on 360 degree digest [...]
-
[...] Revised rules may forbid real estate blogging by Marlow Harris on 360 degree digest [...]
-
[...] There are new NWMLS (Northwest Multiple Listing Service) rules on blogging about listings. No longer can any comments be made regarding any home sales. Since I live in the Kirkland Highlands and know it so well, in the past I’ve given my opinions about why a home may have sold. With these new rules, I no longer can do this, so I’ll just be reporting the facts, which are considered public information. ________________________________ 7 Town homes on the market 2 price reduction 1 sold $545,000 Original list price of $579,000, final list price of $579,000, sold in 54 days for 8% below the original asking price. [...]
-
[...] blog about their listing. For the full official description of the two new listing parameters hit Marlow’s September 25th post for an excerpt from the NWMLS [...]
-
[...] blog about their listing. For the full official description of the two new listing parameters hit Marlow’s September 25th post for an excerpt from the NWMLS [...]
-
[...] There are new NWMLS (Northwest Multiple Listing Service) rules on blogging about listings. No longer can any comments be made regarding any home sales. Since I’ve worked for so many years in the neighborhoods around Microsoft, I’m very familiar with the neighborhoods and homes and it was easy to give my opinions about why a home sold. However, with the new MLS rules, I no longer can comment on other listings. So I’ll keep it short and sweet and report the facts about home sales, which is public information. [...]
I think you have this backwards. The new rule opens things up. Commenting on a listing has always been dangerous for an agent. Redfin got fined over $25,000 for that type of activity in the past.
Now on some listings you can comment, but I’m not sure why an agent would ever select the option where that’s allowed.
Mr. Krismer,
I do not “have it backwards”. This new rule does not “open things up”. The default is to NOT allow blogging and will NOT allow AVM’s.
Redfin was not fined for blogging per se, but for violating Rule 190 about advertising other agents listings without permission.
What this new ruling does is allow sellers to opt out of allowing any other member of the NWMLS to comment on their listing or its market value through blogging, unauthorized advertising, forums or comments.
Redfin’s argument was that blogging was an allowed discussion, not advertising. There was no “opt out” option prior to this new rule. Now this is specifically prohibited without permission.
You are right – this doesn’t open up the market at all, but is going to restrict information that really should be free and available to the public. It is the wrong way to try to approach blogging and information that needs to be available for buyers and sellers. You can learn more about my real estate company and thoughts on this through http://www.teamaguilar.com/search-san-diego-homes.html.
Read the 9th post in this link as to why Redfin was fined $25,000–blogging about open houses:
http://forums.redfin.com/rf/board/message?board.id=Seattle&message.id=2076
Uh, Kary? Just because Redfin said it, doesn’t make it so. They were fined for violating Rule 190 about advertising other agents listings without permission.
Glenn Kelman spun it to make it sound like Redfin was fined for just blogging about a listing, but the reality was that there was no specific rule against that until now and they were fined for unauthorized advertising of other agents listings.
That is why I am writing about this new rule change. It is newsworthy.
That was the link I found, but the story there was consistent with my recollection of other links describing the fine which I read back then. It related to allowing people to comment about existing listings on their site.
Since it was on their site, it was considered advertising.
Best way I think is to be sure they opted in and if they have not then call them for permission. If it is good exposure most agents would be glad to get it.
Russ Fielden – The Coastal Guy
http://www.thecoastalguy.com
Kary, this is a very big change. We discuss listings on other sites brought up by consumers who see them on redfin or other search sites.
We discuss them in both positive and negative ways, it’s an open forum. I will ask the Multiple in the morning what this means to us as agents.
Will we be fined for having open discussions about listed properties? If that’s the case it will negatively impact many internet Real Estate business models.
As an aside, we have had, at my office, discussions about rule changes concerning the IDX feeds. This rule was never brought up.
In respects to blogging, I don’t think it’ll have much of an affect, except, perhaps for Redfin. I’ve always viewed blogging about an individual listing as a Rule 190 violation, so I’ve never done it. Most agents blogs I’ve seen also tend to avoid posting/discussing individual listings unless it’s their own listing. Having said that though, it could apply to my blog if a developer doesn’t want public discussion about their project.
Though, I wonder if disabling comments for a particular post is sufficient, since commentary (negative comments) seems to be the real issue.
As new technology expands the bounds of what is possible, regulatory bodies are forever in a position of playing catch-up. As a Realtor, I would not want my sellers’ homes to be vulnerable to negative comments from members of the public or other agents so I welcome this rule change.
I would most certainly opt out of blogging on any of my listings, because it opens it up to negative comments. One of my listings could get scrutiny from unverified sources, and if I didn’t protect my clients from that liability, I wouldn’t be following my duty as an agent.
At the listing signing…
Seller: “So, should I opt out of showing the Zestimate next to my list price? We are asking $849,000 and that darn Zillow/Cyberhomes/Trulia/Housevalues says it’s worth $645,000.”
Agent: “It’s up to you. The buyers are probably going to click right to Zillow anyway to see more data about the place. And if you don’t have the listing on these external sites, we’ll lose some eyeballs.”
This seems so backwards of the MLS to push this policy, when we’re just getting to the point where the information is ubiquitous — I think to the benefit of both agent and consumer. Why try and restrict data on one site when it’s a click away on 10 others?
Ben K is right, rule 190 already has provisions that disallow blogging about another member’s listing. Now it will be clear for those who have misinterpreted the rule up ’til now.
I am surprised there are no comments about the (optional)inclusion of AVM’s on listings. In an earlier reply (to another blog) I addressed my concern about AVM’s. I am disappointed the NWMLS will permit sellers to attach automatic valuations to their listings. It seems as though the NWMLS is presenting the automatic valuation as equal to a professional’s comparative market analysis. .. I think it devalues the work of an agents’ market analysis. Drive by appraisals are no longer allowed, why would agents support the inclusion of an AUTOMATED property valuation for their listings?
Marlow, this rule change is healthy, and timely.
In my opinion negative comments are another opportunity. I have an example:
A person in my office and I did a market analysis for a house in Bellevue. The sellers ex husband fell down the stairs and died from a head injury. We were of the opinion she should disclose that and another agent thought is was just another estate sale. A year later it was still for sale and went into foreclosure.
The death was a tragedy. It was a negative about the property. My opinion was that an open discussion would have helped a sale.
We are always concerned about the negatives, but if a property has issues it’s better they get discussed than ignored.
Phoebe, sorry about the delay in screening the comments, as Gordon did discuss AVM’s.
And David, anyone is welcome to discuss whatever they want, but to allow strangers to comment in a public forum on someone’s death in a house seems like an intrusion. Don’t tell me you’d put that in the comments!
The NWMLS Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Inspection Addendum 35 give buyers plenty of opportunity to inspect, explore and discover any and all material facts about the property. A death in the house is not necessarily a material fact or defect.
Two deals died because of the nondisclosure. The neighbors were all too happy to provide details. Then after two deals died the agent still didn’t say anything about why the deals died. I would have made the disclosure on the comments of the Form 17.
In an open forum some one maybe could get past the idea, in my opinion. It’s a beautiful home inside. The guy really did love the house with a lot of custom work with added features. He happened to have a heart attack, they think, from working in the yard.
I think open forums for real estate are a great thing. I’ve never liked the term transparency, but have learned to see the value.
Finally. I have been advocating the right of home sellers to opt-out of the zestimate since Zillow was in beta:
http://ow.ly/rBzt
And which opt out right owners have demanded from Zillow:
http://ow.ly/rBzS
Hi Marlow,
Spencer from Zillow here.
Zillow gets our listings directly from brokerages like Coldwell Banker Bain and Windermere, not from the NWMLS. For this reason, NWMLS rules don’t directly affect Zillow because we don’t have any relationship with them.
That having been said, listing agents and their brokers, along with the sellers can choose to market their homes however they’d like. The point that is critical to remember about Zillow is that the property is already listed on Zillow regardless of whether it’s shown as for sale or not: we have pretty much every home in our database already. So it’s significantly to the seller’s advantage to make sure that it’s listed as For Sale on Zillow because posting it For Sale allows buyers to see the listing price, the photos, the property description and the listing agent contact information. We also re-Zestimate the property based on the new property attributes that the listing information includes. Furthermore, we remove the Zestimate from the Map page and replace it with the For Sale price, and we move the Zestimate down on the listing page to the bottom.
If the seller and his agent/broker don’t put the listing on Zillow, buyers still see information on that property, but they only see the Zestimate and the public facts. In short, sellers are MUCH better off having their listing on Zillow than not.
Yes, I know you’ve dropped your NWMLS membership and therefore don’t necessarily have to abide by their rules.
But the new Revised Data Use Policy does say this:
“The Available Database must be under the Member’s control at all times, including when a Member has contracted with a third party consultant to process the data”. It then goes on to say:
“The Member is responsible for ensuring that the franchisor’s republication of the Website Fields is in compliance with NWMLS Rules and Data Use Policy.”
So I’m wondering if this can be construed as to apply to Zillow, not just to the Members own website and affiliate sites?
I posted the new Data Use Policy here: http://www.seattledreamhomes.com/PageManager/Default.aspx/PageID=2145638&NF=1
It still seems open to interpretation to me. Perhaps it’s something that will have to be clarified when the rules become effective. It’s my understanding that though the rules become effective Oct. 1st, members will have until the end of the year to comply.
“The Member is responsible for ensuring that the franchisor’s republication of the Website Fields is in compliance with NWMLS Rules and Data Use Policy.”
I think that only pertains to the listing data itself, not other information that might be on the same page even. If the blog information were separated by a link, then this would be even less likely to apply.
Unfortunately the NWMLS rules are not the best written rules out there, so determining exactly what they mean takes a lot of guesswork.
Yes, I agree.
But read this part, Section 2G:
Seller Choice: A Member´s website that displays any Website Field must comply with the following seller requirements. If a seller elects not to have certain data displayed, no Member may display the data, link to the data from the listing, link to the listing from the data, or otherwise subvert the seller´s election.
Doesn’t that mean that Zillow will not be allowed to link to the listing from the AVM, as it does now?
The NWMLS has no control over Zillow, but it may be the individual companies that allow this to happen, who will get penalized.
Zillow’s listings won’t necessarily be the problem — they can be controlled by the participating broker, which can abide the rule by not feeding Zillow the OPT OUT listings (we feed our listings to Zillow in this fashion, but don’t exclude any at this point).
But most sites take the listings directly through the IDX. Finding which IDX listings are being shown on websites with AVM’s will be impossible to police; there are thousands of agent and broker websites that show Zillow’s and other valuations alongside the listings. I see a train wreck coming for trying to uniformly enforce this. And I’m a chair on the MLS disciplinary committee, so it will be interesting to see the evolution if the MLS chooses to keep this new policy intact.
To clarify —
This new policy affects IDX sites but does not affect Zillow’s listings directly.
So let me use an example.
Say a Keller Williams agent takes a listing from a seller and that seller opts out of having their listing displayed on sites with AVMs. When RPA takes the NWMLS IDX feed onto RPA.com, RPA will now need to take the Zestimate off of that listing page of the Keller Williams listing. However when Keller Williams sends their listings feed directly to Zillow, that feed will still have the listing in question in it, and it will still appear on Zillow with the Zestimate next to it.
So this policy does affect Zillow in the sense that it will somewhat reduce which listings pages our Zestimate can appear on on OTHER website where we power valuations (e.g., Redfin, RPA.com, and others) but it doesn’t have any bearing on the listings that are on Zillow.com
Are you sure about that, Spencer? It may reduce listings available on Zillow, given this part “link to the listing from the data”. Here, I’m assuming the “data” is the property page on Zillow.com. If an agent takes a listing where the seller has opted-out of AVMs, that agent might not be able to list that property on Zillow with a link back to the listing details on their website.
The rule specifically states “member’s websites” so it doesn’t apply to Zillow.com. However, if a seller is adamantly against AVMs, then the broker may need to drop those listings from its feed to Zillow in order to comply with the rule (linking back to the listing from AVM data) as well as the seller’s wishes. It seems to me that it may have a bearing on what listings appear on Zillow.com.
When zestimates were higher than list price this didn’t seem to concern the Real Estate industry. It was annoying, but kind of a joke. Now that zestimates show directly the price declines it’s a problem for the Real Estate industry, but it is information that consumers want and will use.
The second part is that, in my opinion, from what I am reading, positive comments about a listing are not the issue, it’s when some one points out flaws or makes negative comments that we need to limit or discourage those.
How will the consumer respond? During these past five years of web 2.0 transparency the NWMLS has promoted web sites and made it’s data more accessable. Now that the Real Estate market has changed they come out to stifle negativity to the industry.
Ben,
If the seller doesn’t want his listing displayed on Zillow he can tell his agent not to put it on Zillow. But that’s nothing new, and it’s not directly affected by the new NWMLS rule. I suppose you’re right that the new rule might force the conversation to occur more than it otherwise would have. But just to clarify again: the new rule doesn’t specifically affect listings on Zillow.
I still maintain that any seller in the Northwest would be MUCH better off having their listing on Zillow (which I think is the most visited real estate site in the Northwest, though I’m not certain). Remember that if their home is not listed for sale on Zillow, its public facts and the Zestimate will still appear on Zillow. Hence, it’s to their benefit to put the listing onto Zillow so the listing price, the photos, the listing agent’s contact information and marketing text appear on the site.
Ok, so they block the AVM’s.
Can you put a big Red Notice saying “SELLER HAS BLOCKED ALL AVMS” and then link to zillow?
Heck the consumer is gonna jump over there anyhow.
I do something similar on my site for blocked blog comments. You block comments, you get a big red notice to call the reviewer directly for voice to voice comments.
Frank