Makeover or takeover?
By Matt Carter, Friday, October 31, 2008.Bookmarking Sites
Move Inc.'s makeover of Realtor.com has created a buzz -- our coverage of the rollout of a redesign that's been through months of testing was the most widely read story on the Inman News site this week -- but apparently little enthusiasm.
Judging by reader comments on the story, many Realtors remain unconvinced that their interests are aligned with Move Inc.'s, and question whether Realtor.com (the official site of the National Association of Realtors) works for them.
A comment from Charlottesville, Va. Realtor and blogger Jim Duncan sums up the mood:
"It's time to reclaim [Realtor.com] and give the Realtors access to the data and information rather than keep selling it back to the Realtors themselves - the ones who generate that which gives [the site] the advantage it currently holds."
Phoenix-based Realtor Russell Shaw has created a Web page with links to posts around the 'Net dedicated, he says, to reclaiming Realtor.com for Realtors.
"When it comes to residential real estate it is still the most recognized and most respected name in the world," he says of the Web's most visited real estate site. "I want the National Association of REALTORS to fully reclaim REALTOR.com. Take it back and make it a member benefit."
One of the links on Shaw's site is to a post by ActiveRain Corp. co-founder Jonathan Washburn, "NAR: It's time to make a move on Move."
In short, Washburn -- who also runs his own brokerage, Brio Realty -- says NAR should just buy Move Inc., because it will be hard to get out of the agreement it made with the company to operate Realtor.com, and Move's stock price has fallen to the point where it's within reach of NAR.
Practical? Necessary? Tell us what you think.
All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Antonio Ciccarone on November 1, 2008 - 7:47am.
Practical, yes. It looks much better and performs much faster. There are some pages where organization could have thought out a bit more. The user has no idea where to look first.
Necessary, probably not. Everyone else is doing it right? Isn't that the way to look at it. Seriously though, this site needed a good penetration. The typical agent or broker may have had no issue using it, but random users must have been unpleasantly disappointed.
Submitted by Eric Bouler on November 1, 2008 - 7:52pm.
Eric Bouler
Prudential Gardner
New Orleans,La.
www.neworleanscondotrends.com
www.ericbouler.com
I view realtor.com as a competitor. They are using realtors as a way to make money for someone we did not know. Maybe they can receive a bailout or spread the wealth.
Every large company in this market has their own sites and there is little need for them at this point.
Submitted by Jay Thompson on November 3, 2008 - 3:43pm.
R.com is being spanked in form and function (and cost) by many sites, including a host of IDX providers for agent sites/blogs.
The question isn't so much what R.com has to do from a cosmetic point of view, it's what does "the Official Site of the NAR" do for it's members?
Right now, all it does is wail away on our checkbooks (assuming you're paying for "enhanced" listings, the right to give away free CMAs and whatever else they are socking it to agents/brokers for).
Do consumers need a national listings site? Personally (and according to dozens of clients I've talked to), I think my IDX solution provides a superior search platform for the consumer looking for homes in my area. And if someone needs a home in some other part of the country, then they can search an agent's site there.
I never have, and never will, give R.com a nickle for "enhanced" services. Maybe if more agents would "Just Say No" and spend that money instead on enhancing their own internet presence, then R.com could just go away.
Jay Thompson
Broker / Owner
Thompson's Realty
Blog: www.PhoenixRealEstateGuy.com
.
Submitted by Chris Frantz on November 4, 2008 - 8:52pm.
With all of the competition out there I don't think they did enough research. I think NAR needs to listen to some of their own when it comes to designing a site. It missed its mark at being effective.
Chris Frantz
Exit Success Realty
Hernando County Florida
Hernando County Real Estate
Spring Hill Real Estate
Submitted by Christine Donovan - Costa Mesa Real Estate on November 4, 2008 - 11:39pm.
It seems to me that Realtor.com charges realtors to receive leads after using the material created by realtors (their leads) to obtain the traffic which is then sold back to the realtors. I don't understand why we are penalized for doing our work.
Site: Costa Mesa Real Estate
Blog: Costa Mesa Real Estate Blog
Submitted by James Boyer on November 11, 2008 - 2:07pm.
REALTOR.com as it is currently set-up and the way the want to charge blood for the data we provide to them is a total waste. I have been a paying member of REALTOR.com for all 5 years of my being a REALTOR and it has generated about 1 lead per year. My personal website generates from 1 to 30 leads a week depending on the week. At it's worst my website is doing 52 times better for me than REALTOR.com
It is time for NAR to take back REALTOR.com and make it what it should have been.
James Boyer
Morristown NJ Condos
Morristown NJ Real Estate
Morristown NJ Home Sales
Submitted by George Farmer on November 14, 2008 - 3:57pm.
Realtor.com markets listings and charges agents contact fees based on the idea they own the listings. However the listing is owned by the listing brokeage.
Land For Sale
Submitted by Rajeev Sajja on November 18, 2008 - 10:21am.
It is practical but necessary. Realtor.com has tried to evolve into a business model in direct competition with Agent/broker websites. I feel it is drifting without a real focus on helping agents.
Rajeev Sajja
Technology for Greater Philadelphia Real Estate Agents
Submitted by Jodi Suguitan on December 22, 2008 - 7:09pm.
R.com has been so far behind the curve and the new version of their site does little to catch them up. They know they are losing market share yet don't seem to be proposing anything inovative or new that will reverse the trend. It has been disappointing to say the least.
Park Lane Atlanta Condos | Aqua Atlanta Condos | Ponce Springs Atlanta Condos