Symantec, the Internet security firm, today released what they described as a “code red” security patch for all real estate bloggers currently using the now-infamous “Google Juice Sucking” Trulia widget.

Tipped off by an anonymous Active Rain’er who had come across this discussion thread, which in turn had been prompted by good investigative sniffing [sniff one, sniff two, sniff three] by the pack at Bloodhound, Symantec’s elite Taskforce Realty Internet Permission Experts (TRIPE) worked through the night to come up with a patch. The head of TRIPE, Dr. Francois Viande-Fichu, released the following press statement:

With thanks to the ever-vigilant Active Rain-droppers for tipping us off, we were stunned to find some pretty damning evidence of foul play in Trulia’s widget, which unsuspecting Realtors have been deploying on their web sites in droves. Trojan Horses are one thing, but what they’ve come up with is something far more nefarious: a Peloponnesian Unicorn.

The Trulia widget does the following:

• Sucks out the hosting web site’s Google Juice, especially the Raspberry flavor.
• Decreases the hosting web site’s Google Page Rank to negative 5.
• Installs a little Trulia MarkerMan on the desktop whose eyes follow you around as you surf, and they roll sarcastically whenever you visit Zillow’s site.
• Automatically and instantaneously rises Trulia to the top of the Google rankings for all searches related to the host site.
• Makes the web site owner/blogger start chanting Gregorian hymns in the original Latin.
• Refers all incoming traffic to the hosting site’s owner’s fiercest competitor, in exchange for a 25% referral fee.

When challenged to provide evidence of the above, Dr. Viande-Fichu displayed the following code embedded into each Trulia Widget.

<;?Php Embed Java Script<Trulia Evil Widget.class.nefarious>;
While {5>1 DO:
Trulia.PageRank = Site.PageRank*2 / Slurp.Giant.SuckingSound;
Site.PageRank=-5;
Install.Icon = http:/trulia.com/images/trulia_markermen_icon.gif; option bug eyes=”true”;
If Site.Visit=”Zillow” Do {Icon.Roll.Eyes And Sigh.Loudly};
Google.LocalSearchRankings.Site.City = “Truliawful”;
Trulia.LocalSearchRankings.Site.City = “TopOfFirstPage”;
Launch Latin.hymns.InstanceGregorian;
End Do}
?end Php>

Agents who’ve installed this widget are advised to uninstall it immediately, then put the following badge on their web site to protect them in the future:

To install this widget, do the following:

1. Download this file to your computer.
2. Open the file in Notepad or some other text editor.
3. Copy and paste the contents of the file into a sidebar Text widget.
4. Rinse and repeat.

Full disclosure:

1. I did a consulting project for Trulia last year.
2. Trulia out-ranks my site for many Google searches.
3. My site outranks Trulia for many other searches, including, most significantly, peace corps volunteer botswana real estate palo alto.
4. Trulia’s no-follow policy applies, as far as I know, consistently across all broker’s listings, including mine.
5. No animals, Realtors, or SERPS were harmed in the production of this post.
6. Void where prohibited.
7. Do not ingest.
8. This blog is not a toy. Keep out of reach of children.

[Read more →]

Maybe it’s the frustrated business school professor in me, or the memories of sitting in Professor Barry Nalebuff’s classes during business school, but what has fascinated me the most about the ongoing debate about Trulia’s no-follow outbound listings links (started here by Galen Ward, then continued here, here, here, and here) is not the arcana of the no-follow tag, not the dissection of SEO intricacies, and not really even the question of what is or is not appropriate to do with listings online.

No, what really fascinates me about this debate is how it accentuates co-opetition in the real estate industry.  Co-opetition is simply the notion that companies compete and co-operate simultaneously.  Arch-rivals Northrup Grumman and Boeing go mano-a-mano to get a lucrative government contract … and the winner often subcontracts part of the project to its rival.  Microsoft and Oracle have competing database platforms but often sell eachother’s products.

In our industry, co-opetition reaches nearly incestuous levels.  For instance:

• Brokers John and Betty compete for the listing at 123 Main Street.  Betty wins and puts the property on the MLS.  The very next week John brings potential buyer clients to the property.  Sure, he would rather have won the listing, but that’s in the past.  Now he’s working with Betty to consummate the transaction.  No hard feelings.
• Realtor Bob hangs his license with ABC Realty.  He puts an ABC Realty sign on the front lawn of all his listings, and the ABC Realty logo is prominent in all his media ads.  He’s co-operating with his real estate brokerage to promote their brand, and he in turn benefits from that brand awareness.  Co-operation.  A phone call from a prospective buyer of one of Bob’s listings, however, may well go through to the agent on “floor duty.”  That agent turns this phone call into a client, who goes on to buy a different listing, not Bob’s.  That’s competition — Bob would have loved to get that phone call and turn it into another client, but his competitor — the other agent, and to some extent his own broker — snagged that client.  Co-operation plus competition = co-opetition.
• A thousand local brokers — each fierce competitors — co-operate to run a local MLS.  They put their competing listings up on the MLS, and they compete to bring buyers to each of the listings.  At the close of each transaction, we again have co-opetition — competing parties co-operating for the sake of the deal.
• Broker Tom snags a listing and puts it on the MLS.  Via the wonders of IDX, that listing spreads its tentacles onto a thousand other sites, including that of arch-rival Broker Sarah.  As long as Broker Sarah indicates that Tom is the broker of record, it’s all good.  Her site is much better than Tom’s, so she gets more traffic and hence more clients online.  The fodder that draws in those visitors?  Listings … not only her own, but also Tom’s.
• Broker Rachel gets the listing at 789 Elm Street and puts it on the MLS.  She also puts it on Trulia, which, like the MLS itself, exposes the listing to a much broader audience than she could reach on her own.  She benefits from the increased exposure, and Trulia gets more inventory to display.  It’s a win-win — co-operation at its finest.  The next day, a prospective homebuyer passes 789 Elm Street and Googles the address to find out more.  Who’s on the top page?  Trulia and Broker Rachel’s listing site.  Now they’re competing — for web traffic.

There really is nothing new under the sun.   This business has always been a co-opetitive one, and we’ve always simultaneously co-operated with and competed against not only every other broker, but many of the third-party advertisers, aggregators, and media companies.

[Read more →]

With surprisingly little fanfare, Redfin, that pesky little Seattle brokerage the real estate industry loves to hate, announced yesterday their “Redfin Select” program, which looks suspiciously more and more like … a traditional brokerage offering.

Redfin’s initial business model, which made great sense in the VC’s conference rooms, was to outsource a big chunk of the buying process to its clients in exchange for a big chunk of the buy-side commissions.  For better or for worse, however, that model has continued to run dab-smack into the middle of the reality of real estate:  the listing agent, though representing the seller, is not usually responsible for showing the property to every interested buyer.  That service is usually provided by the agent representing the buyer.  The problem?  In order to make offers on a property, Redfin’s clients have to actually, well, see it.  If they don’t manage to hustle there during an open house, then they’re SOL — unless a Realtor-magic-key-toting Redfin agent comes by to open it.  And just like that, poof! goes half the business model.

Fast forward to today.  If you’re a Redfin client and you want a regular set of property showings, just give up a portion of the commission that was coming due to you and have Redfin show you around, just like a traditional broker would do.  Instead of getting 66% of the commission back, you get 50% back.

Possible explanations come from two different fronts:

First is my “Innovator’s Dilemma” proposition:   Redfin as a classic disruptive company, will first figure out how to be profitable serving the lower end of the market, the price-conscious clients that traditional brokers don’t mind losing.  Then it will move upmarket, charge more, and offer more service — ie. become more like a traditional brokerage, but with fatter margins.

At first glance, Redfin’s move seems to fit this pattern.  However. by Redfin’s own admission, they’re not growing as quickly as they would like, their business model is not as scalable as they had hoped, and they certainly are too young of a company to have taken significant market share yet.

So perhaps the better explanation comes from Mike Simonsen over at Altos Research.  Mike suggests it’s a simple pragmatic response to the harsh realities of the market place and their VC backers:  they need to become a $100M company as quickly as possible, and doing it at $10000 rather than $5000 per transaction will bring that about more quickly.

Other commentary:

• The Bloodhound notes that the rules around home showing seem strict and, well, a bit school-marm-ish.
• Greg Tracy suggests Redfin is becoming what they hate: a traditional brokerage.
• Jon Washburn notes the progression leading to this model and wonders if Redfin may end up becoming simply a lean-and-mean traditional brokerage.

[Read more →]

Michael Parker of Blackwater Consulting Group, writing in the Texas Realtor Magazine, says “Yes”:

I respectfully call social networking and Web 2.0 great hype with great future promise. I just don’t think they help sell houses today in any proportion to the emphasis they are receiving.

[Sidenote:  What's Michael doing writing an article about social media in a Realtor magazine?  Shouldn't he be protecting diplomats in Iraq?  Oh, wait a minute -- that's the other Blackwater.]

Michael raises some very interesting points, definitely worth addressing in a future post.

Sherry Chris, CEO of Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate*, however, begs to differ.

Friend and business colleague Pat “Transparent Real Estate” Kitano and I had the privilege of meeting Sherry and Camilla — BHG’s new head of marketing — over breakfast recently.  Sherry’s team has the exciting task of building a brand new nationwide real estate franchise from scratch, but with the incredible advantage of using a name with incredible brand equity.  They’re pulling out all the stops in their pre-launch efforts, including some very interesting online social media initiatives, with participation from the whole executive team.

Taking a page from Rudy and Joe, Sherry always has a video camera with her, and she made the mistake of interviewing Pat and me.  Whether it was the content or the participants that caused this, I’m not sure — but the hotel did give her grief about filming without permission.

* Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate is a client of Domus Consulting, a sister company of 3 Oceans Real Estate.

[Read more →]

Zillow, the perennial surprise-maker of online real estate, has just launched its long-anticipated foray into the mortgage world with a “Mortgage Marketplace.”  The company’s original online real estate product — the controversial “Zestimate” — is a computer algorithm estimating the value of homes.  The logical mechanism behind a “Mortgage Marketplace” would thus also be a computer algorithm — say, a mortgage pricing engine that spits out rates from lenders based on the borrower’s situation.

In a delicious twist of irony, however, the mechanical Turk behind this new product is … a person.  As in, homo sapien.  Specifically, a mortgage professional.

In a pre-launch briefing with “What would David Gibbons do” David Gibbons, he described the all-too-typical grief that a potential borrower goes through with many lenders, whether online or offline:  bait-and-switch salesmanship, hidden fees, inflated rates, and perhaps most egregiously, a complete lack of anonymity.

Zillow’s solution?  Let consumers ask for mortgage quotes without revealing their name.  Let mortgage brokers respond to these requests.  Let consumers sift through the responses and choose the broker they want to work with; then and only then does the buyer have to reveal his or her name.

What about the whole bait-and-switch thing?  Zillow deals with that in a very Web 2.0 way — consumer reviews of mortgage broker performance.  Plus, the participating mortgage brokers are vetted — at least minimally — to confirm that they are, in fact, licensed mortgage brokers.

And here’s something sure to make at least some mortgage brokers sweat a bit:  the competing mortgage offers are visible not just to the consumer who requested them…but also to the other mortgage brokers who submitted offers!

The cost to mortgage brokers?  Zero.  In David’s words, Zillow remains committed to being an advertising platform.  The data they can now gather about consumers — what their home is worth, other homes they’re interested in, and now their income and credit score — makes it possible to target-advertise with nearly pinpoint precision.  David assures us this is not being done in a “Big Brother” kind of way, but if I understand him correctly it may soon be possible, for instance, for Mercedes to target ads that will appear only in front of prospective buyers with an income of at least $100K and a credit score of at least 720.

Other commentary:

• Todd Carpenter likes it.
• Tribute Media reviews the product.
• Further explanation from Rich Barton, Zillow CEO.
• Drew Meyers weighs in.
• Greg Swann notes that this product reduces the information asymmetry in the mortgage lending business, and sheds further light on how Zillow manages the wealth of personal information they’re able to gather about consumers.
• Joel Burslem has some questions, but is submitting a loan request as we speak.

[Read more →]

A while back Joel Burslem — author of FutureOfRealEstateMarketing.com — joined Inman.

Today we hear that Rudy of Sellsius has joined Trulia.

Other (still unconfirmed) transitions we hear are in the works:

• Redfin buys Bloodhound Realty and its associated blog, and Greg Swann becomes Redfin’s Arizona broker-of-record.  Redfin CEO Kelman, distressed at Swann’s self-proclaimed disinterest in national parks, sends him off to Yosemite to distribute Redfin stickers, with strict instructions to send back Latin-only postcards.   Russell Shaw, sick of the traditional broker model, is seen handing out the Book of Kelman on street corners in Phoenix.
• Overwhelmed by her increased workload, Redfin media maven Cynthia Pang brings aboard uber-consultant Marc Davison — at Greg Swann’s recommendation.  Marc and Greg are spotted writing press releases in Haiku.
• Rudy’s long-time business partner Joe Ferrara joins Zillow as its “Chief Zestimate Accuracy And Opt-Out Evangelist.”
• Brad Inman, founder of Inman News, having successfully convinced the real estate industry to adopt electronic signatures, heads to the Middle East to replace Tony Blair as peace envoy.
• Athol Kay gets hired by Kodak.  His new job?  Do nothing, absolutely nothing.  In particular, PLEASE DON’T POST ALL THOSE BAD PICTURES!!! It makes our industry look bad.

• Marlow Harris, burnt out with real estate, moves to Memphis, TN, and becomes a Graceland docent.
  
  
• Daniel Rothamel moves to Masai Mara, Kenya and becomes a safari guide.  On weekends, he heads into Nairobi to coach and ref basketball games.
• Dustin Luther, missing the corporate life, moves back to Move.com.
• Brian Brady gets an emergency call from Washington.  “Bernanke quits.  We need you.  P.S. Leave the suspenders in San Diego.”

[Read more →]

Insomniac Dustin Luther couldn’t quite stay up late enough last night to witness the launch of the US version of Dothomes.com. But here it is, yet another real estate search site: dothomes.com, already live in South Africa and the UK.

I commented yesterday that recent property search entrant Roost.com’s business model is clever, unique, and possibly illegal non-MLS-complaint.  [1/30/08 update:  I’ve been thinking about my choice of words, and “illegal” is definitely not the word I should have used.  “Illegal” is mugging somebody, or stealing something.  What Roost is doing is 100% legal and above-board.  It may — and I emphasize may — be viewed by some as being non-MLS-compliant.]

A first glance at Dothomes suggests a similar, though unfortunately more damning verdict: extremely clever, very unique, and definitely illegal non-MLS complaint.  [1/30/08 update:  What Dothomes is doing is absolutely 100% legal, but again may be interpreted by some as being non-MLS compliant.]

The clever and unique part is easy to see: they’ve managed to pull off what Google Base real estate could have been, and may well still become: a Google-ish type search experience — with a whimsical “I’m feeling wealthy” instead of “I’m feeling lucky” button — where instead of choosing your criteria from input boxes or sliders, you simply type in what you’re looking for.

Right-oh then, let’s give it a try, shall we?

And, as the Brits would say, “Bob’s your uncle!”

A quick glance at the 99 results confirmed that they all had 3 bedrooms and were under $850K. Pretty slick! (As a sidenote, many of the results were in South San Francisco, an entirely different city. But I’ll cut them some slack on what is, after all, a pretty new product.)

So that’s the clever and unique part. Here’s the (tragically) illegal non-compliant part: per their own FAQ/blog, they get their data from either a feed that a broker sets up or by crawling the broker’s site.

From a feed the broker sets up: So far, so good…as long as it’s only that broker’s listings.

By crawling that broker’s site: At most MLS’s this is strictly verboten.

Most of the first few pages contained only listings from Realogy brands Coldwell Banker and Century 21. Since Realogy has been fairly open of late with distributing their inventory online — e.g. with Trulia — it is possible that Dothomes has an agreement with Realogy, though I have not heard such news.

A few pages later I see a few listings from my ex-Broker Alain Pinel Realtors. Now the warning bells sound. Unless things have changed dramatically since I left a few months ago, Alain Pinel would never ever distribute its listings to a non-IDX site — Trulia being the exception (probably because Sami is such a sweet talker!)

My prediction: tragically, Dothomes will be forced fairly quickly to adopt an alternate and legal listings acquisition strategy: either MLS-by-MLS, or broker-by-broker.

Further commentary:

• Future of Real Estate Marketing weighs in.
• Mashable wonders if Dothomes will be able to compete against Trulia et. al.
• SearchEngineLand notes that in real estate search, just like travel search, there is no one comprehensive site with all listings. (Realtor.com could lay claim to the title of “most listings” by virtue of having most broker-listed homes, but it does not include FSBO’s…plus the site just, well…sucks)
• Todd Carpenter, in what I believe is a quote from Dothomes founder Douglas De Jager, says:
  

  Because DotHomes does not serve up those details pages, they do not need permission from the listing agents.
  

  I hope this isn’t Dothomes’ understanding of what most American MLS’s allow, because if it is, he’s in for a nasty surprise.

[Read more →]

Trulia! Zillow! … and now Roost! Where do they come up with these names?

Roost, a new startup in the increasingly crowded real estate search space, launched last week to a cacophony of commentary from the re.net. Joel Burslem covered its feature set, its performance, and noted that Roost has the complete MLS inventory because it gets its listings from MLS’s, albeit indirectly. Greg Swann fawned over its business model and complete inventory.

If I understand Roost’s business model correctly, it intends to make money in a way that’s clever, unique, and possibly illegal non-MLS-compliant.  [1/30/08 update:  I've been thinking about my choice of words, and "illegal" is definitely not the word I should have used.  "Illegal" is mugging somebody, or stealing something.  What Roost is doing is 100% legal and above-board.  It may -- and I emphasize may -- be viewed by some as being non-MLS-compliant.]

The unique aspect of its business plan: it offers brokerages the opportunity to sponsor search results and get the resulting click-throughs to their own site. A search in Sacramento, for instance, reveals that the current sponsor is Sacramento heavyweight Lyon Real Estate.

The first three listings I see are from VM Group, Gold Financial Services, and Prudential CA Realty, all clearly identified in compliance with Sacramento’s Metrolist MLS services.

Here’s the tricky bit…if you want more information, you click on “View Details on Featured Broker’s Site.” When you do that for, say, the Prudential listing, you get information about the Prudential listing on the Lyon Real Estate site:

This sleight-of-hand is accomplished through a too-clever-by-half url manipulation, much to subtle to be noticed by the average consumer, but apparently kosher enough to pass muster from the Sacramento MLS — at least for now. What if Prudential gets upset that the click-through on one of their listings on a public MLS-ish site goes through to one of its competitors?

Here’s how (I believe) Roost and Lyon defend themselves: Look at the url. When you search in Sacramento, you’re not actually using the Roost site at all; you’re actually using the Lyon site (GoLyon.com). For as long as Lyon is the sponsoring broker, the search is being conducted at golyon.roost.com — a (sub)domain under the control of Lyon Real Estate — and hence in compliance with those silly old arcane MLS rules.

Watch what happens when you go back to the site. In my case, I ran another search, and this one was sponsored by Intero. Same results, same look and feel, but the search is now running at InteroRealEstateIDX.com…and sure enough, the click-through goes to Intero’s own site.

Very, very clever. I really like this part of their business model, for reasons I’ve explained before: The current real estate business model heavily favors the listing side of the equation, and I’ve been clamoring to the likes of Zillow and Trulia to think about buy-side advertising offerings. If I’m a small brokerage in Sacramento, and I currently only have, say, 5 listings, I could decide to spend, say, $5000 sponsoring X number of real estate searches in that market. The number one bait that still seems to draw eyeballs in real estate is listings, listings, listings, and if I don’t have many of my own, why not leverage those of my competitors?

Now for the questions of MLS legality compliance …without going into all the details, I tried something like this trick about 2 years ago. It involved subtle manipulation of a url so that searches on a heavily-trafficked site were done — technically — using a url that was under my control. A good lawyer could easily have argued that this was in strict compliance with all the MLS rules. No dice. Within hours I got slapped down — not just by the MLS, but by my own broker!

I certainly wish Roost all the best, but I’m afraid they’d better put a sign on their front door that says, “Couriers please deliver cease and desist letters here.” Any business model that requires MLS compliance involves by definition an order of magnitude more headache. Why do you think Trulia and Zillow decided to get their listing feeds straight from the brokers?

Further commentary:

• TechCrunch, predictably, gets a few facts wrong. It’s not clear they understand the difference between a broker (e.g. Redfin) and a listings site (e.g. Roost.) Also, if I understand this bit of fine print on Roost’s site, they don’t get their data directly from the MLS, but by piggybacking on broker IDX sites. Subtle but important difference.
• Dustin notes that piggybacking off IDX feeds is a great way to scale your listings database quickly, but it puts some pretty onerous restrictions on what you can do with the data.
• Michael Price explains the url sleight-of-hand.
• Jay Thompson notes that, once again, the business model is about brokers providing listings, then paying for traffic.
• Sellsius praises Roost’s comprehensive and accurate results.

And still more commentary:

• Brian Boero* notes the irony that Roost is built on fairly antiquated technology — IDX — but provides a pretty rich user experience.

* At the last Inman, Brian and I finally answered that great conundrum: Did his ancestors add on “o” or did mine drop an “o” at Ellis Island? The answer: neither. His ancestors are Italian, and mine Dutch. So no, we’re not related — except of course, through Lucy.

[Read more →]

I had the privilege of speaking on a panel titled, “25 Things You Must Do To Web 2.0 Your Company.” Also on the panel were Sherry Chris of Better Homes and Gardens, Marc Davison of 1000 Watt Consulting, Don Lawby of Century 21 Canada, and Charlie Young of Coldwell Banker.

A few hours prior to this panel, Brian Boero — also of 1000 Watt Consulting — had given a presentation entitled [something like] “50 Technologies You Must Understand” so Brad Inman went off in a slightly different direction in the panel and only made us come with 5 or so items. Later on I’ll post what I think the 25 things are.

Here’s the video, enjoy!

[Read more →]

The Zillovians have been busy lately…first, singing a Zillow-fied Christmas carol…then, more substantively, releasing their new Smart Search technology, which, if I understand correctly, presents different information intelligently, based on where and at what zoom level you’re searching.

At the San Mateo county level, for instance, I get this:

At the city level, this is what I get for Menlo Park:

If I want more info on Menlo Park, I learn that local residents

• are well-educated
• are often multi-lingual
• are likely immigrants
• spend more money on housing compared to others
• ride their bikes to work

With the exception of the latter, it seems spot on.

Nice new features, but nothing earth-shattering.

What I’d really like to see from Zillow is something I’ve talked about before: addressing the advertising needs of buy-side Realtors. The Sellsius twins have weighed in on this issue as well.

Here’s what I have in mind: The advertising emphasis in real estate has always been on the listing side. If a home is for sale, that represents more than just an upcoming commission check for the listing agent: done correctly, it’s also marketing collateral. It’s an excuse to send out more branding postcards, to take out an ad in the paper, to hold open houses, to put out a sign…all things designed more to enhance the branding of the agent than to necessarily sell the home in question.

If the fact that I am selling a home or I just finished listing and selling my client’s home is good marketing collateral, why not make something of I just helped my clients buy a home?

We do a bit of this in the industry already: witness the occasional “represented buyer” newspaper ad — which is often just space filler around the more prominent “just sold” ads.

Zillow has a perfect opportunity here. While most of the online real estate conversation is about homes currently on the market, Zillow’s repository of all homes is perfect for telling a broader story, one which includes the buyer’s agent.

Hey Zillow — in your next product release, make it possible for the buy-side agent to tout their recent transactions too!

[Read more →]