trade offs with statewides, part 1

Some of these trade offs have been mentioned or alluded to in previous posts. One of the problems in writing a blog that focuses on a narrow range of topics is the redundancy factor. Do you assume all the readers have read all your blogs? They probably haven't--this blog already has close to 150 pages of text and they sure don't read like a fine novel. The alternative is to be somewhat redundant and offer an apology to the faithful who will find themselves saying---"Hey, he wrote about that a few weeks back"!

Looking at trade offs is important because the proponents of statewide MLSs seem oblivious to any negative aspect of expanding the area of data coverage to an entire state. Users get more data (in terms of quantity), that data costs less to compile and distribute, users don't need to join many MLSs to receive it and the Sellers get expansive exposure for their properties. In addition, because of the large user base MLS vendors who serve LARGE clients are available with what should be superior technology. It all sounds like a no brainer--why would anyone NOT want a statewide MLS? There are a number of reasons, but you won't hear them at many discussions, because those are all conducted by proponents driving the statewide agenda.

Here are some potential trade offs to consider. It's also important to take a careful look at the alleged benefits to see how many of them are compelling in the real world. We'll fold that analysis into the conclusions.

One size fits all database. Ironically the legendary Six Principles that some infer are driving this whole initiative, include right up front in Principle #1, the standardized of all data with local options. You never hear about local options anymore--funny how that works. Technology could allow local options to be included and tied to the "area" field--do a search that returns a house in a particular area and you see local option fields. You could even do a search for just local options--find out what you were up against if you were working in an area somewhat unfamiliar (of course NO ONE would think of doing that, would they?). The one size fits all database will be either VERY big or VERY general (or maybe even BOTH-LOL).

Here's the kicker!! Will it be the absolute best database possible for the agents and the public in each market area? NOPE! It's ultimately going to be a trade off of quality for quantity. However, the public wants the best possible chance of finding the best possible house--ie the RIGHT house. The statewide database is focused in another direction--reaching a compromise among diverse needs in diverse communities all over a very diverse state. Does the public want to compromise on their chances to find the RIGHT house because of an organizational urge to offer statewide coverage? No one asked the public.

One MLS Vendor for the state. I know, I know there will be two vendors after the merger--for how long?
There is also the conceptualized idea that a large back end data container could be accessed by any one of many front end applications. I had that idea 3+ years ago--seemed really attractive, but there are obstacles galore, centered on power, greed and numbers. In my scenario there would be a default search engine for agents and separate one for the public, but open source code would allow outside developers to create alternative front ends, some simple, some specialized and some super techie. A counter would tally users and make that info available--you could see which front end was getting high usage, or slipping from favor if updates didn't keep up with technology. The OLD Statewide application continued to mention a similar goal, but never got enough users to encourage outside development of anything. After the merger, things could be different, but with two MLS front ends already competing for users and revenue, it's not likely third party developers will rush to write code anytime soon. I suspect there will be one front end within a year.
How does the public feel about agents using a front end that may not be well suited to them finding the RIGHT house from among the huge inventory? No one asked them.

One governance structure for the state. We already see the lack of accountability associated with nested boards drawn from the same population of the like minded faithful in the state association. The Old Statewide Board is populated with the politically astute, not necessarily those with applicable talents in project management, database technology or application marketing. The merged governance will morph along similar lines. Dissenting viewpoints will disqualify prospective board members, as they do now. Changing direction of technology, or rules, or infraction procedures in the whole state will be similar to steering super tankers with canoe paddles. The larger the MLS, the less responsive it becomes. At a statewide level, there will be minimal responsiveness and accountability. Great for the entity in charge. Performance won't matter very much--where are you gonna go? In a small MLS things are different. People know each other and do business with each other. If there's a problem, it's important to get it worked out. At a state level--there's a tendency to just blow things off. For example, exactly what happened to the $3,000,000 and why was the Old Statewide such a failure? We don't know where the money went, or why the application went sideways and we won't know. More importantly, those who made BAD decisions over the past 2+ years of Old Statewide efforts remain anonymous, and may even be making more bad decision right this minute. That's statewide organizational culture marked by little transparency, no bona fide accountability and an arrogant, paternal disregard of alternative viewpoints . The large metro brokers who are also well connected with the state association power base may have modest influence over policy of a statewide MLS, but smaller firms basically have no voice, given the governance structure. How does the public feel about the brokers in the area in which they are seeking a house having no essentially no voice at the statewide MLS level? No one asked them.

The recurring lack of attention to the needs and wants of the public is a clear indication that the real estate industry is a sales industry, not a service/representation industry. The residential real estate industry seems primarily crafted to benefit the industry and the trade associations, not the public. Commercial real estate may be different. Interestingly, it is not as much influenced by trade associations and is actually more consumer-centric. My theory is that consumers of commercial real estate services are more knowledgeable and experienced than residential consumers. They demand and get personalized service and representation from highly skilled firms and individuals. If they don't get what they want, they go find it.

Part 2 of trade offs in next Blog--yes there are more.