A specialist in real estate web design including IDX, VOW, ILD, RETS and MLS property search with integrated dynamic maps and customer relationship (CRM) automation for multi-branch offices, top REALTORS®, brokers and agents.
The world of the real estate web 2.0 loves a mash-up. Google maps, Yahoo maps … maps, maps, maps. Ooh ahh … sigh.
You would think I was against mapping, to the contrary, I’m just against the superficial way they’re implemented.
Why? Maps are good for people who know an area or need to live in a specific place, but they ignore site visitors that aren’t familiar with an area.
Here’s an internal conversation our fictitious “Joe Re-locater” has with himself:
I’m “Joe Re-locater”, I come to your real estate website…
Nice site, where’s the search?
There it is, click…
I want a condo, 600-750,000, min 2000 sq ft… Searching…
These are all fine and good, The first one looks nice, It’s on “ABC street”
I see it on the map. 2 Miles from the beach, that’s good.
What’s that area like? The map shows me the streets, possibly even a plethora of statistics.
Man, it would be nice if this real estate site has some information about these areas …
maybe even tied to this map?
More visuals, pictures, descriptions, area amenities, local businesses and services …
I mean, can I get broadband, who’s it with, how much is it?
How close are the local stores?
Is there a dump of a building next door?
Oh well, I’ll have to get a plane ticket and go look… Sigh.
Maybe “Joe” will contact you; but most likely he’ll wait until after he’s gone through the area to get a feel for it. By then, he could be with another agent, searching on another site; remembering what a disappointment your website was.
Sure, you had the property search, but you didn’t answer his internal question properly: “Is this the real estate person I want to contact? Can I trust them? Do they know the area?”
The bottom line is mapping has so much more potential. If you give it some additional content.
A revised IDX policy will serve as the foundation for NAR’s continuing discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice.
To resolve a 20-month dispute with the U.S. Department of Justice over certain elements of its Virtual office Web site (VOW) policy, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS took initiative and authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the display of all Multiple Listing Service data on Web sites.
NAR has postponed the implementation of its existing VOW policy until Jan. 1, 2006, to allow time to develop the new policy.
NAR’s VOW policy, adopted in 2003, is based on the premise that real estate brokerage can be conducted online. It regulates the display of listing data on a Virtual office Web site, which typically provides more detailed property information and requires consumers to register, disclose certain information about themselves, and agree to terms of use.
NAR’s Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy, adopted in 2000, governs the advertising display of abbreviated listing data on MLS participants’ sites. Today, IDX displays of listings are the dominant method through which brokers share their listings with one another over the Internet.
New Policy Merges Key Provisions
NAR General Counsel Laurie Janik says that an enhanced IDX policy that incorporates key aspects of the VOW policy would serve as the foundation for continuing negotiations with the Department of Justice.
Janik spoke to NAR Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee on this issue during the the 2005 REALTORS Midyear Legislative Meetings & Trade Expo, which was held May 9-14 in Washington, D.C.
Janik met with DOJ officials May 11 as part of the ongoing investigation. The meeting was preceded by a flurry of media attention that speculated the DOJ was prepared this week to sue NAR for antitrust violations over aspects of its VOW policy.
Contrary to the media reports, Janik said she was told by DOJ officials that a lawsuit against NAR has not been authorized yet by the department, and negotiations will continue. “We are exploring with the DOJ the concept of blending the IDX and VOW policies into one that would govern all internet display of listings,” Janik said.
Enhancements to the IDX policy, which require brokers to update listing data weekly and employ appropriate data security procedures, among other things, were approved Thursday by the Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee, but are still subject to approval by NAR’s Board of Directors on Saturday.
No More Selective Opt-out
The enhanced IDX policy retains an opt-out, but not a selective opt-out, provision. It allows brokers to choose not to have their listing data displayed on all competitors’ Web sites, but it does not allow brokers to select which competitors’ to not participate with, as the VOW policy had provided.
NAR and the DOJ will discuss other policy modifications that could be added to the enhanced IDX policy. That includes the “clean page” provision, which prohibits advertising around the display of another broker’s listings online, and the referral fee provision, which prohibits brokers from operating a VOW primarily to obtain referral fees.
The Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee also authorized NAR’s leadership team to negotiate with the DOJ on listing display policy modifications in the interest of expediency. “It is in NAR’s best interest to reach agreement with the DOJ as soon as possible,” said Janik.
MetalSoftware, the MetalSoftware
Logo, and related marks are trademarks of MetalSoftware, Inc. 13435 South McCall Rd. Suite 125, Port Charlotte, FL 33981, USA.
"Transforming Real Estate into Real Results" is a Servicemark of MetalSoftware, Inc.
Copyright 1998-2007 MetalSoftware, Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Page generated: 07/11/2007 19:18:19 A specialist in real estate web design and Web database business tools including
IDX real estate, VOW real estate and MLS database integrations. In the following US States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Washington DC.
