This is a response to Robyn Hardy’s article posing the question
“Should Local and State Boards Purchase Opt-In Technology With Your Dues?”

It is such an important topic that I thought it important enough to write this as an article... didn't mean to steal your position Robyn...

There are two sides to this argument and it fits any scenario within the ‘broker autonomy vs. board babysitting’ issue:

Side 1 - Some Brokers want to have their own choice because…

a) they have their own 'relationships' and/or
b) what fits one broker's style of business might not fit another.  Some technologies fit large brokers better while others fit the small ones and no one knows the individual broker’s business model better than that broker…

Side 2) – The board is larger, has more resources and better ability to research the products and determine if they fit within ethics and licensing guidelines (which is definitely in the brokers’ best interest).

A recent example of this is when Google came to Vegas looking to develop their ‘Real Estate Widget’.  It all sounded good – free direct exposure for listings on Google.  They approached the largest company in Vegas – who paid me to go there to investigate.  Google paid for the trip itself and I went with the now current MLS chair.  We spent half a day and she was completely enthralled with everything Google said ( I admit, GooglePlex was pretty cool).  When we returned, I told the broker that they could do it but to do two things first:

1. Add verbiage into their listing contracts that more specifically explains the online exposure they are generating for each home and the risks that go along with it.
2. Make sure any agreement with Google includes the right for the Broker to permanently delete any and all listing information if it is found that Google did anything with the data that violated licensing and/or ethics guidelines.  I reminded them that Google wasn’t licensed and didn’t have to worry about losing their livelihood

It isn’t Google’s fault.  We met their entire Real Estate solutions staff which comprised of 2 full-timers and 5 part-timers – NONE of which looked like they were over 30 years of age and NONE who were licensed in Real Estate.  Sure, I want to entrust my entire business and that of my agents to them…

Since one of my roles for my clients is to investigate all technology solutions, I go to all the main conventions and have for 10 years running - scouring the expo floors looking for the good ideas and helping them avoid the bad ones. (BOY do i have some stories...).

So, in the case of Google, the individual Broker was more responsible by hiring an expert that really knew the specialty.  The board has since given Google access to listings and the broker hasn’t.  I can almost guarantee that the small increase in traffic will not make up for the potential for liability (see Google staff specs above)…

So who is more competent to go down this path?  The Broker who doesn’t have time to research the products but knows his/her business better OR the board that has time to research the solutions but doesn’t know the specific broker’s style of business as well?

THE LEADERS OF THE INDUSTRY HAVE TO TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY.  FOR YEARS WE HAD SEVERAL WEBSITE PROVIDERS THAT DIDN’T EVEN INCLUDE EQUAL HOUSING AND REALTOR/MLS LOGOS ON THEIR WEBSITES!!!!!

I heard Bob Bemis of ARMLS discuss his plans.  He said he wants to do the research and offer several options for each category.  I think that is the ideal.  Have the board do the initial research and filter it for the issues it knows – licensing and ethics issues. Then use the diverse experiences of all of its membership (via  committee) to get 3 or 4 ‘screened’ solutions to offer.  They could also keep up with each solution to insure they stay within set guidelines or they get ‘booted’.  Brokers would still have the option to go somewhere else, but the board could spend the money then…