(BNL Note: This post comes from the CEO of a Medium/Large MLS. Like all posts of this kind, views expressed here are those of that author, not necessarily of our companies or our clients.)
Dale Ross has been discussing RPR for a few years now at national conferences, there never has been a real buy-in to the concept from my opinion. Now that we have a contract in addition to a concept, things are still not clear to me. Having seen the contract, and having legal representation review, I don’t think RPR is actually promising anything. In our opinion, the silence is deafening when it comes to what they claim they will do in the contract language.
Having seen the contract, I still do not understand how it correlates to what they are saying.
Essentially, I understand they are providing us with ‘free’ tax or public record data. This constitutes a whole plethora of additional questions that although I have asked them directly, there has been no response.
· Access to Free Public Record Data
o That would be great if it contained as much as I am getting now from my current provider but it does not.
o Free from RPR is one thing but I can guarantee you it will not be free to have my current vendor integrate that data into my MLS system.
§ Which then brings up exactly how are they providing this free data to us?
· API
· Raw Data
o Can they come close to matching the integration we currently have between our MLS and Public Records provided to us from our current vendor?
§ Again, silence
o How often is this free data updated?
§ Assessment Data?
§ Deed Transactions?
o I understand that their idea of Revenue Sharing is that they are giving us this data for free.
§ However, as stated above, is it really?
Here are some facts directly from the contract:
· RPR intends to create, or have created on its behalf, business products, services and/or applications using the Licensed Content, and desires to access and to use Provider’s [MLS’s] Content as source material for the creation of such RPR offerings.
· Provider [MLS] is willing to grant RPR the right to access and use the MLS Content contained in Provider’s Database for use in the RPR Offerings subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
o Definitions:
§ Licensed Content: means the content contained in the database that is to be provided or made available to RPR pursuant to this Agreement, including Active Listings, Pending Sales, Off-Market Listings and Participant/Subscriber Roster Information.
§ RPR Customers: Means those Persons who are not NAR members and with whom RPR has contracted to provide the RPR Offerings.
§ RPR Offerings: Means those business products, services and/or applications created and developed by RPR using the Licensed Content, including the RVM Product, the March and Append Products and other products as from time to time developed by RPR.
§ Match & Append Products: Means a list of properties created by the transmittal by an RPR Customer of a data set that includes property addresses to be matched by RPR against its database for the purpose of identifying those properties in the data set that are currently on the market for sale and the list price of such properties.
§ RVM Product: Means automated property valuations generated by an analytical model.
· Grant of License:
o Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, Provider hereby grants to RPR during the term a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferrable License to access and use the Licensed Content for the purpose of (i) integrating the Licensed Content into the RPR Offerings, (ii) granting Authorized RPR Users access to the RPR Offerings via a password protected database, (iii) marketing and distributing RPR Offerings to RPR Customers, (iv) displaying to Authorized RPR Users all Active Listings in the Licensed Content and (v) displaying to Participants/Subscribers and such other Persons authorized by Provider all Pending Sales and Off Market Listings in the Licensed Content.
Does RPR Offerings and Match & Append really describe anything?
What a contract that allows them to create new uses for the Licensed Content without prior consent? (…other products as from time to time developed by RPR…)
From what we have seen so far, there remains far more to be answered that has been done to date. There is no question that the demo indicates a really neat web site but the fact that remains, does this really help our members? If so and our Board direct us to participate, we will support that decision and participate willingly. But I, for one, will compare side by side what features we gain vs. what we lose. If it is a losing proposition, why would we place that burden on our members in an already difficult market?
Conferences just got a lot more interesting this year!
7 comments:
Reading this caused me to also wonder if an MLS will get to retain any of the historical public record data that they integrated into their MLS if/when their agreement with RPR ends.
Assuming no crystal ball, the historical data would quickly be too aged to be of any value. I also believe that the income derived from First American or other potential vendors would fall quite short of what we currently pay for tax data, making "free" extremely attractive.
@Anonymous: Is there something that leads you to conclude that First American's or others' revenue projections for MLS data licensing are less reliable than RPR's?
-Brian
RPR is a currently, a complete WASTE of money...
Once I was asked by a Realtor... "Who is paying for this".. I smiled and said... "You and the rest of our members are"..
THAT.. is the truth....
FOr many MLS operators, it has not taken months to correctly integrate tax data into the MLS sytems.. It has taken years....
Yet, NAR seems to think that they can do in in a matter of montht, for ALL MLS operators? I mean really.. DO they have a team of 1000 quality assurance technicians, standing by ready to cross check every piece of data?
When do we as members get a say so on what our dues go to? THIS project.. could have been put on the back burner for a few years...
RPR is charging Realtors through dues, for inventing what has already been invented.
As an agent, If I had wanted the service RPR is offering, I would have bought it myself from an outside 3rd party vendor...
Thankls RPR for sepnding so much of our money, when in these dire times, it could have put to use for marketing, promoting the use of a Realtor, and buying a house now...
Thanks RPR for blowing all of us agent's money on another item we did not need..
We appreciate that, oh so very much.
I thing MLS operators should look VERY closely at this service as an opt -In service rather than an opt out-service...
Many ... And I do mean many.. people I have talked to that are angry at this project, do not want any of their listings going to RPR...
I am a Broker of small boutique firm (30 agents) and I am requesting my local MLS to partner with RPR as soon as possible.
The benefits to my agents are obvious from the demo:
1. the best property analytics to ever be assembled as one resource for Realtors
2. expedite the data aggregation/curation process
3. raise the bar on reports while simplifying the process
Any one of these reasons are worth the price of free, but combine them all and it's a no-brainer. Realtors were paying these anyway, it's about time to see the money being well-spent by providing tools to improve the industry.
The benefits to me as a broker:
1. I save money by reducing 3rd Party Vendor services to provide similar, but inferior (according to the demo) solutions
2. I get RPR anyway whether MLS' joins or not. The tools from demo are worth using over my existing MLS 3rd Party Resources right away. Marrying the data to MLS will just increase efficiencies for me going back and forth.
3. A tool like RPR would allow our brokerage to focus less on data and more on service for our clients (isn't this a good goal for the entire industry?)
Brian,
I personally think when NAR decided to sell our collective data and products (AVM) to third parties they have crossed the line. NAR indirectly will be competing with its own members (especially appraisers) with their own intellectual data. I know that local associations and or private MLS’s will be drawn in initially by the money (revenue sharing), but I think this is a very slippery slope.
It’s too bad that with about one million members NAR couldn’t just focus on supporting its members and providing services that the members would value and be willing to pay for.
RPR is a great idea, it just should have been created as a member service. If the dues went up it would be worth it because of the additional value to the members. There also could have been a buy in from local associations and or MLS’s with monies that could have been saved by eliminating duplicate services like tax aggregation.
My guess is that this started in part as a way that NAR could bring value to its membership. Every association whether local, state or national is looking for a way to maintain relevance and value as the industry continues to change with the times. I think it was a good idea, as was RIN and Realtor.com. For a minute they came to their senses and pulled this back from Move.com, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate the middle man by going out to the third parties directly.
All of that said, unfortunately it will most likely move forward in its current proposed state because of the money. There is not an association or an MLS out there that wouldn’t benefit in the short term by a few hundred thousand dollars. I remember when we were all flush with Homestore stock and playing golf on Realtor.com. A couple of years later the stock was worthless, the money was spent and now agents all over the country have to pay thousands of dollars a year to add multiple photos and market our own listing data.
It’s disappointing that the whole conversation isn’t about the value to the members, instead it’s all about the money. If history is any measure of what the future might be, the money won’t always be there and in a couple of years NAR will be left again with a lot of fences to mend.
Two Words. Or is four?
- Remember
- Realtor.com
Post a Comment