If you dislike MOVE and thier overcharges and tactics and think that it is time for a change... take a look at this proposal.

Visit: www.takebacktheMLS.com and click on the link "The $50 Solution"

Fixing the system is beneficial for all practioners and can be profitable. If you know how the system works it's achievable.

the "new" system would have to be fully up and running for agents to be able to use it. to coordinate an effort like that would be very hard to do.

for example. say you went live with your new mls and i decided to go on there, i would still have to use my current mls or i would be doing a disservice to my client by being on a site/mls that agents do not use. so for the beginning, it would mean multiple entries into 2 different mls systems.

my area has only 1 mls and it works pretty good. i would hate to create a system where we need 2 mls's to get the information out there. i know some areas have it, but it is just simpler if there is 1 place to get all information.

Please visit the site for info. This is not proposing having you switch from your current MLS... rather aggregating data from existing MLS's.

There is no change in anything you do except that there will be a new national site aggregating MLS data that is owned by the agents and brokers that created that info.

Long-term if agents want to switch to a different local MLS system (that they own rather then the local Realtor board owns) that is thier option. Once agents realize the true costs involved in running an MLS... they may seek to do that.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a complete overhaul of the MLS ***but***

Although many agents may realize the true costs and that their dollar is better spent on a totally different business model, you don't stand a chance going up against the real estate commissions (even if you pick up a few agents here and there), and then dealing with each State. It would be a better strategy for you to gain a seat at NAR, and propagate your ideas downward from there, instead of the bottom up. In part, that's how RET's made it's way down.

You would have to have an extremely convincing plan that you would be able to get EVERY MLS office to participate with your aggregating. Have you any experience in MLS politics?

P.S. There is more to an MLS than providing data.

Kind regards.

This has nothing to do with real estate commissions and dealing with state regulations... how are you reading that into this?

The reason that this will work is that agents and brokers make up the MLS. All they have to do is sign on and say "we want you to send a feed to this site". At the same time they can say "we don't want to use R.com anymore".

Agents make up MLS's... not MLS employees.

Oh ok. My bad. Your post says to "take back the mls" but in fact you are just trying to replace R.com.

Maybe the thread should be titled, "Replace R.com"?

You say:

"A neutral business entitiy is established that develops a new national site for aggregated MLS data." (you may want to run a spell check on your site) So that's your objective?

I don't care about R.com, or any replacement thereof. Only maybe a very, very, very, small percentage of my business comes from them. And even if I did, what are your credentials for pulling off a successful corporation on such a grand scale? The first thing that comes to my mind is: Small and very skimpy site, generated with a free CMS system, being pitched by some anonymous guy, collects my $50 and tanks. The end.

Just being honest. If you are looking for interest (or lack of) and/or constructive criticism, you'll definitely get that here.

You're asking agents to take part in such an undertaking? Do you have any idea what we have to contend with as it is? My primary objective is to sell real estate. Ever think that maybe R.com is the way it is because agents aren't interested in yet another project? Once you have something substantial to present, *maybe* you can get some agents on board.

Per your "we want you to send a feed to this site" - have you even seen an MLS application? I didn't see anywhere on either of my two State Broker MLS applications to provide a feed to another source. I would have loved to see it though, because I would have requested to provide a feed to *MYSELF*. My *secondary* application was for a feed to *me* and it cost me an extra $100 to setup, at a $200 yearly renewal.

"Agents make up MLS's... not MLS employees." Isn't that synonymous to, "We the people make up the United States....not the United States government?"

Agents either want to fix the system or they don't. Everybody complains but nobody does anything about it.

I am well aware of everything that goes on and how things work... far more knowledgeable than most agents, agency owners and MLS staff.

To address some of your points:

- no money would be asked from any agent until there was enough concensus to make sure it is sufficiently funded. The $50 figure was not picked out of thin air and the total amount raised is estimated at 30MM.

- this proposal is not cheap - there are real costs involved and staffing something like this is expensive - but will cost far less then MOVE.

- this is an agent-owned endeavor that can be profitable to all participants and should be viewed as an investment in the future.

- agents should understand that if they let anyone else besides themselves create or offer this or any kind of service... they lose further control of their profession.

I am all for taking the MLS back but I have no interest in giving it to you.

I would rather see the existing system fixed than to help you start a new one. How are we to know that you will be any better? Your post itself is creating doubt with its misleading title.

You don't want to take "BACK" the MLS, you want start your own which we all know will be very lucrative for you. There are a number of entities trying to start a national MLS already. None of them have my interests in mind.

I wish people would read the site. It is not me doing this... it is agents and brokers themselves. Why is that so hard to understand?

If I were to create the url: takebackRealtor.com or putmoveoutofbusiness.com it would get taken down pronto.

The existing system can't be fixed... it's too corrupt and the only way to truly "take it back" is to start anew.

It would be very easy to go out and buy feeds from MLS's and start a site and there are dozens doing that now. The key ingredient in this proposal is that it is done by agents for agents. It can't be done for free by someone else and be wholly owned by it's users. Anyone presenting this option (such as activerain) has ulterior motives that are not in the best interest of this industry.

Got another idea on how to fix things? Let's hear it.

OK...I went to the site and from what I have read you are already violating a slew of SEC regulations regarding the sale of "stock". Perhaps you should consult a securities attorney before you launch a website mentioning dividends, "potential" ROI's, and share prices.

The fundamental problem with such an approach is the sheer cost. It isn't $50 million. It is literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why?

Such a site requires data feeds, massive server capacity, advertising to drive traffic, and constant, cutting-edge upgrades. Plus, a huge staff.

My understanding is that the raw costs of REALTOR.COM have totaled about $1 billion.

Most of the other national real estate sites have similar, massive costs. ZILLOW has required several hundred million in investment. FRONTDOOR is now being funded by huge expenditures by HGTV. TRULIA has attracted massive sums of investment capital.

This stuff isn't cheap.

That's why NAR partnered with a private corporation. They couldn't come close to paying for what was necessary. A couple years ago, I heard an estimate by some of the NAR tech folks that it would require about $300 every year from every NAR member to create a site like REALTOR.COM.

Remember these are not one-time expenditures. A significant national site like this requires huge investments every couple years.

One can criticize what was done by NAR but there was a reason. The determination was that it wasn't fair to impose the cost on every NAR member. Instead, the decision was made to have those who paid for upgrades subsidize the site.

This is not an easy one . .

Joel1972 -

You are right about the SEC and stock sales. There is no offer to sell stock - this is just a proposal for agents to consider that they themselves put together. If it were to take hold, the proper paperwork would have to be filed with the SEC and a stock transfer agent assigned. This is all figured into the $50 figure. You also can't give away stock without registering with the SEC and jumping through hoops. This is one reason it can't be done for "free" and agents have to understand that there are real costs involved if they want to take back control of their own data. You of course could donate $50 with would be easier.

Staggart -

You are off on the cost involved in this. There would be about 30MM raised (after the expenses of the stock distribution, accounting, etc.) which would be plenty to develop a world-class site and then some. Remember that a site like this earns income from a variety of sources... so it has cash flow to support operations. The history behind MOVE is one of waste, greed and inefficency and they really don't have our best interests at heart. The NAR has plenty of money - don't be fooled - and all you have to do is a search for their Form 990 to see their cash reserves. Agents should question strongly what they are getting charged.

A key ingredient in this is that THE OWNERS OF THE COMPANY - YOU THE AGENTS - want data sent here and want it to thrive.

I really can't understand the hostility being put forth by agents regarding this. This is for agents by agents to benefit agents. It reflects a paradim shift in thinking where practioners decide to be self sufficient instead of relying on others to manage and monitize their data - by far thier most valuable resource.

Anyone here use IDX? This same company could offer a competitive alternative for use by agents and any money paid in is in essence paying yourself.

Realsys --

You are still massively underestimating the costs. A site like this is not an individual agent site or company site. A high traffic national site is expensive and resource intensive.

Here are some of the costs I can think of:

-- Building the site -- Zillow required $67 million to build their site. I've heard that HGTV has spent close to $100 million on Frontdoor.

-- Server capacity -- huge ongoing dollars for a high traffic national site. Must be dedicated, linked and high speed. And, many national sites have several server locations.

-- Upgrading the site. Remember that the site needs to be rebuilt every couple years.

-- Promotion. This is usually the most expensive item. You need traffic. It doesn't come easily or cheaply. I know HGTV has estimating that they are putting about $50 million a year to promote FrontDoor on their own channel. REALTOR.COM used and uses extensive TV. Zillow has done the same. Then, there are the large pay-per-click expenditures.

-- Staff. It requires at least several hundred people staff an enterprise like this.

-- Revenue from third parties. If you get the traffic, you can get some revenue from banner advertising. But, it is hard to get in the first place and still won't provide enough to cover the costs.

My simple point is this. If it was so easy to build a national site like this, there would be dozens of this. Instead, we have a relatively small set of sites -- each with enormous financial backing. $30 million is a drop in the bucket and would be insufficient for the ongoing costs.

staggart,

So in essence what you are saying is that 30MM is massively cheap to do this so agents should jump at the chance. I wish agents would understand this and see what a good opportunity it is rather then bash the concept.

What you have to understand is that with this proposal comes a built-in sales force of 700,000 agents as well as an unbelievable amount of free publicity. Zillow, FrontDoor, Trulia and others have to fight and spend because they don't have ALL the data and need other ways to draw in the consumer. Each has taken a different tact torwards achieving their goals.

I understand the economics, technology needs and staffing requirements behind what has been proposed. They have been flushed out over years of research and talking with the appropriate people -- some of who would drop everything to help set this up. It will work and the money is sufficient. Personally I'd like to see $100 from each agent to do this as well as some other related businesses where agent spend their money.

It will take money.. lots of money.. and agents have to understand that. It's doable if everyone gets on board. Ask yourself why these other companies have invested (supposedly) 10's of millions to develop their sites.