Monday, October 19, 2009

REALTORS® Property Resource: A possible business model?

I have had numerous conversations with folks regarding the REALTORS® Property Resource (RPR), NAR's multi-million dollar initiative shrouded in secrecy. Until now, my view has been that there is no business model for it.

NAR says that RPR, which will operate under NAR's REALTORS® Information Network (RIN) subsidiary, will give brokers better sources of data than consumers have and to make them the consumers' 'trusted advisor.' NAR is supposed to announce the RPR business plan in November in San Diego. I believe two big problems face RPR: (1) NAR has trouble executing real business plans and (2) RPR has no viable business model.

As for the trouble executing, NAR is famous for the fact that RIN itself crashed ignominiously in the late 90s after trying to build some kind of national technology service thing (I was never sure what it was going to be) – the only "good thing" that came out of it was Realtor.com. (Not everyone agrees that is a good thing, either.)

But I have to acknowledge this case might be different, as the "Two Dales" – Dale Stinton, NAR CEO, and Dale Ross, former CEO of MRIS – behind RPR have some pretty impressive accomplishments behind them.

Hard so see the business model

As for the business model, I could not think of a way that it could work. Here's why: Imagine you are a real estate broker in St. Louis. NAR promises that RPR will deliver to you much better parcel-based property data than consumers can get online. But chances are you are already getting access to property tax data from your local MLS, a service for which your MLS pays a third party, and the cost of which is included in your periodic MLS fees. Chances are, too, that if you want more data than you are getting, and if you were willing to pay for it, your MLS would already be providing it. So, RPR is offering something for which you have not been willing to pay until now along with stuff for which you are already paying your MLS. My guess is, you would decline to purchase those services if RPR offered them to you for a fee.

If you are a broker in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or Hilo, Hawaii, matters are worse. There, the MLSs have their own tax databases, in which they have built the best parcel-based data available for their areas. The only place RPR can get data as good as the MLSs provide to brokers is from the MLSs. Assuming RPR licenses from the MLSs, who will want to 'buy it back' from RPR? All the brokers in those MLSs already have access to it, and the cost is built into the MLS fees.

The upshot: NAR will spend big bucks offering these services and the money will have to come from somewhere: reduced costs from somewhere in the REALTOR® community; increased costs to the REALTOR® community; or money
from outside
the REALTOR® community.

I can't imagine any reduced costs, in fact, quite the opposite seems likely (subject for another post, if we have time). There will be quite the outcry if NAR raises dues to make this a 'core service.' And I couldn't think of who outside the REALTOR® 'family' NAR could get to 'sponsor' the RPR with enough money to make it fly – certainly no one out there would want to buy RPR's parcel-based property tax record (and related) data, as it's already widely available, much of it for free on the Web.

So, I had written off RPR. But now I wonder...

REBIG redux?

RPR might be able to get the money to pay for this using a business idea that caused quite a stir a few years back: Licensing MLS data to businesses outside of the REALTOR® membership base. Mortgage companies, credit agencies, insurance companies, and others pay a fortune in fees every year to information service providers to help them predict property values, portfolio losses, etc. Real-time MLS data is almost a Holy Grail when it comes to these types of predictions and valuations.

In the early part of the decade, REBIG LLC (a joint venture of several MLSs) attempted to aggregate MLS data and license it for exactly these purposes. REBIG did not fly. There were many problems with it; key was that many brokers hated the idea that someone would profit from their data. But the projected revenues were impressive: According to some early projections, by the third year of operations, REBIG was supposed to be making more than $150 million per year in licensing revenues from MLS data. But if those numbers were right (even if they were twice the right number), NAR could provide very sophisticated services to MLSs, get MLS data from them aggregated at the national level, and make a handy profit in the process.

Think about the strategic implications if NAR could pull this off. "If" is the key word, though.

Getting brokers and MLSs to permit RPR to license MLS data could be tough. If RPR is not an MLS (and NAR says it will not be, at least for now), providing MLS data to it will be a use of MLS data that is not part of the core purposes of MLS. Under NAR policy (which I assume RPR would honor), listing brokers have to be given an opportunity to opt out of any such use. Some brokers would choose to opt out or would work hard to keep their MLSs from signing licensing deals with RPR, even if there were clearly defined benefits flowing back from NAR. That's because listing brokers very naturally dislike the idea that others will profit from their listings.

So RPR as REBIG redux might not work. But I had not considered it previously because I was blinded by my own experiences with REBIG. I wonder what other business plan possibilities for RPR I've overlooked. With smart people and lots of money at their disposal, the Two Dales may yet have something very interesting to tell us in San Diego.

So now, all of a sudden, I'm kind of curious and excited to see what they announce. I'm trying to be more open to the possibilities of RPR, too. What do you think?

-Brian

(Disclosures: I was an employee of REBIG for nine months and did some legal work for its founders early in its formation. My firm has done legal or consulting work for some of the MLSs to which I referred above.)

15 comments:

Matt Cohen said...

That was a fun brainstorming session. As discussed, we could take the scenario further - for instance once all the MLS data is in one place, create value-add features, at some point add MLS-like features, then turn on direct listing maintenance...

And in exchange for the data usage, what if the core (National MLS) service were free?

We can spin these scenarios out far and wild.

mwurzer said...

A couple of possibilities, both centering on the border-less (or national) scope of RPR: (a) RPR could provide an API to MLS vendors for including property records in the MLS system; and (b) RPR could provide agents access to MLS data they otherwise wouldn't have through their local or regional MLS.

Even though both already exist in some form, they don't exist in border-less forms. For example, let's say an MLS has the bulk of its listings in 5 counties. They likely have those public records but the benefits of acquiring the bordering counties do not justify the cost. However, if the data is accessible through a nationally standardized API, the cost could be lower and thereby make it more readily accessible. In that regard, Dale Ross responded no to a question about whether MLSs should renew contracts with their public records providers, because he expected there to be an API that could take the place of a public records vendor.

Of course, as Matt points out, the same is true with MLS vendors. Even without replacing the MLS (vendor), though, RPR could provide benefits to brokers without going the REBIG route. Many brokers would benefit from a single, borderless data feed for their back-office, IDX and VOW systems.

Once the data is feeds are in place, again, as Matt points out, it's a small step for RPR to turn on listing maintenance to eliminate the costs of the MLS altogether, especially as they would already be providing big brokers with something of value in border-less data feed. Many brokers would love to enter listings first into their back-office system and then publish to the MLS, and this could be a vehicle for delivering that benefit.

Brian N. Larson said...

@Mike: I guess my question has never been, "Can RPR add value?" It has been, "How will RPR be paid for?"

You said "RPR could provide agents access to MLS data they otherwise wouldn't have through their local or regional MLS." That's true, but the question is whether brokers in the local market will be willing to pay RPR for that service when they are already paying the local MLS for data that satisfies of their needs and much other data is available free or at small charge from other sources...

Will RPR be able to bring together the data that brokers need on the local level more cost effectively than Fidelity or First American (or the MLSs that build their own DBs)? I don't think so. The inefficiencies stem more from the number of taxing entities from which you have to obtain data than they do from the number of folks doing the standardization and aggregation.

You said, “However, if the data is accessible through a nationally standardized API, the cost could be lower and thereby make it more readily accessible.... Dale Ross responded no to a question about whether MLSs should renew contracts with their public records providers, because he expected there to be an API that could take the place of a public records vendor.” That would be cool, but whoever is providing the tax data to RPR then has to agree that RPR can bulk-license it down to the local MLS level. That vendor will expect RPR to compensate it for the local use, because the vendor would then be competitively foreclosed from that market.

If you premise the plan on RPR REPLACING costs at the local MLS level (public records, data feeds, etc.), that's cool. But someone has to pay for the RPR suite of services, even during the transitional period. I don't think that brokers or MLSs will be willing to do so. NAR dues increase? Hard to stomach. So that's why I envision the REBIG-style trade (with all its problems) or something like it that brings revenues in from outside the "REALTOR family."

-Brian

Troy said...

One of the coolest notions about the whole idea is we really can only scratch the surface with a standardized national database of real property.

From an investment vehicle standpoint, I would imagine a solid business plan outlining the initial capitalization, on-going expenses, and potential near-term revenues would sell very well in the venture world.

Brian N. Larson said...

@Troy: I think U R right. But I wonder if NAR will avoid VCs and their focus on taking company to IPO or acquisition.

If NAR wants strategic value out of this, maybe it will keep itself directly in control (unlike what happened when NAR took REALTOR.com into the public-company space)?

-Brian

JAXRONS said...

WOW is this a real world business model? The current business model for most MLS’s in the country is paid for by a broker and all agents licensed with the broker type of revenue stream. Even if we could get 800 MLS’s, 100's of vendors and 1,000,000 REALTORS to agree, how would the model survive as a pay for service? Today I'm guessing only one third of the membership actually uses the system. Most never log in.
What would we do? Raise the membership dues for ALL REALTORS even if they don’t use the system?
Charge the actual cost (three times) of providing the services to those who access them? Generate revenue through resale of the data REBIG style? Is there real world revenue there? The REALTOR organization is non-profit.
MLS is a for profit operation.
None of this is impossible but it is very unlikely.
Ron

Troy said...

I see the MLS subscriber as a key participant but paying a small piece of the revenue. One step forward, imagine a world where the MLS subscriber was actually compensated directly for updating and maintaining accuracy of the information. Kind of 'adopt a highway' program with direct pay-for-performance.

The commercial aspects of this homogenized data is almost too vast to grasp.

GertieCranker said...

I’m looking at RPR from another perspective: that is, the plan is a giant step for NAR to free itself from the limitations of being a geography-based association in an internet-centered world. NAR was founded on a ‘market area’ structure which has been outdated for more than 50 years. It is also limited by a real estate licensed-based membership model, and we all know that the real estate business community is comprised of many important players who don’t hold real estate licenses.
NAR has spent huge resources protecting this archaic infrastructure. RPR is founded that a viable national property database supersedes geographical limitations and, hopefully, is based on the principal that a national property database functions in more ways that to sell property: in fact, if it is not an MLS, selling property is really not its principal value.
In these ways, then, RPR is revolutionary and, I think, even a necessary member service if NAR is to survive: geographical and business function limitations will eventually strangle the organization is something radical isn’t done—soon.
I don’t know what the business model is or will be. The only caveat I have to offer is that RPR be free to Realtors. To charge members or their MLS operations for RPR will be certain failure: it will set up the competitive and adversarial relationship between members, their MLSs, their associations, and the NAR. Even an infinitesimal charge to members will nickel-and-dime away the success: Realtor.com is a perfect example of the resentment and ill-feelings that arise in such circumstances.
We live in a world, after all, of “free” as a business model. As Wired columnist Chris Anderson remarked over a year ago, “To follow the money, you have to shift from a basic view of a market as a matching of two parties — buyers and sellers — to a broader sense of an ecosystem with many parties, only some of which exchange cash.” And if the two Dales need convincing of this, I’d suggest they read Anderson’s article in Wired, “Why $0.00 is the Future of Business.”
It’s not a new concept: real estate brokers know that income from the proceeds of a sale is not a substantial part of the company profit. By the same token, I hope the RPR business plan is based on the sale of data, advertising, enhanced memberships, publications, and the value of finding that the Realtor is, at last, the Voice for Real Estate information.

Jeff Allen said...

MLS data is ridiculously valuable. The richest, cleanest and most up-to-date information available related to real property in the world. While the primary reason this quality emerged is because it provides brokers with a significant value-add, I've long felt that brokers, associations and MLSs are leaving serious $$$'s on the table that could arise from packaging the data to third parties and/or providing statistical analysis to interested parties. I've yet to see a business model presented that could convince the owners of MLS data to effectively leverage it, but I'd love for it to exist. Could mean substantial revenue which ultimately could mean free services.

RPR isn't required to make that vision a reality, but it could help by centralizing data with one provider. The real question is why more local MLSs haven't formed a co-op of sorts to sell data.

Michael Audet said...

As a former colleague at REBIG (hate to admit it most times) I have to say I have similar thoughts regarding what the end game thinking is for RPR and how they may intend to monetize it. Should be interesting in San Diego.

I also agree with your comments regarding the value to brokers and agents, in that, I don't see any real, new compelling values that are not being provided today by the good MLSs with the exception of a national view/source. It's just another way to package it with the added value of providing national views to data. Does that have value? Definitely, but how much and at what cost? If you put RPR in between services that originally went from supplier to MLS, such as tax/public records/parcel data, it is hard to imagine the price will go down. Also, there are a huge number of issues that will result from existing MLS/tax agreements, local control, restrictions on reselling data, etc.,that will make adoption of these new services challenging at best.

If we look back, as you also mention, NAR's history has not been impressive in many of its previous undertakings. I believe this is because the initiatives have often set up a basic issue of NAR competing when they should be supporting. The RPR initiative is being done "in spite" of local MLS initiatives nationwide rather than "in synch" with these initiatives. Look at what has been going on in California as a great example of this.

In theory, putting this database together under the Realtor umbrella could be great for the industry but I would feel more confident in its success if this was being done by the MLS community who best understand what has to be dealt with to achieve adoption.

Richard said...

As an MLS that recently provided their members public record/parcel based data for all 100 counties in the state, and did not hit their members up for any additional fee's to access, I also wonder what benefit will be derived from providing the 'national' data based on the old adage of "Real Estate is Local". Although that cliche may have lived and died, I realize that many boundaries have been erased with the advent of so many business models (whether or not they are entirely viable or not remains to be seen), and with so many brokers listings being syndicated 'everywhere' on third party data aggregator sites, it begs the question of who will this serve?

Speaking for one little MLS, we are trying to bring value added services that will help our members become more productive and profitable while hopefully reducing the amount they spend in fee's. If RPR could provide that nationally, then Matt is right, they are just a listing maintenance step away from becoming a national MLS and 'dictating' what fees all member Associations would pay, if any.

One concern would be the vast miriad of rules inplace at so many disparate MLS's across the country...certainly interested in the debate...

Brian N. Larson said...

An MLS exec suggested privately that RPR could do a trade with MLSs:

1. RPR signs national licenses with public records providers, buying out their MLS contracts and licensing their data (a) for RPR's own system and (b) to sublicense to MLSs.

2. RPR GIVES public record data to MLSs, substantially reducing their costs or providing a new valuable service, if MLS does not already have public records data. In case of MLSs that build their own public records DBs, NAR could pay the MLS for the data as if it were a national data provider.

3. And in return, MLS provides MLS data that RPR could license REBIG-style.

I have no idea how much it would cost for RPR to 'buy out' the MLS market from the public records providers, but that seems like a place where RPR might enjoy economies of scale. How much would it cost per year? $10 million, $50 million, more?

The problem with the REBIG model was, in part, that MLSs/brokers were not sure they would get the financial benefit they were promised. With this approach, they get it up-front.

MLSs might then begin to depend strategically on NAR as some of the earlier comments suggested. If NAR adds more services to the RPR package being supported by license fees from MLS data, brokers and MLSs could become addicted to the revenue.

Do you think your MLSs and its brokers would go along with this? Why or why not?

Of course, this is all probably just a sort of conspiracy theory. I expect the Two Dales could have much more sophisticated ideas.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments!

-Brian

Anonymous said...

Thanks for mentioning our MLS here in Minnesota. We do have a record for every piece of property at least in the 13 county metro area through our property tax data base. We have all the data we need. sadly they did not include a report writer. I have been able to get all of the charts and graphs I need for my blog by exporting the data into MS excel. Most agents don't know how to do all of that. So to most the data is not there at all except for looking up individual properties

teresa boardman said...

oops! the last comment was me I forgot to sign in.

Michael said...

say same thing I said over at Notorious R.O.B. – one thing missing in this mix, GOOGLE – thoughts?

http://maps.google.com/help/maps/realestate/data_provider_faq.html