It’s American. Freedom. Great.

My stance on the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) is simple: home sellers deserve the freedom to choose how their property is marketed regardless of whether they use a Realtor®.

Our industry has been debating this topic without the voice of the home seller.

The home seller deserves a choice. The American way of choice.

Don’t take my word for it – research demonstrates home sellers and brokerage companies want a choice.

First, a high-level review of newly published research on homeowners’ point of view. Then, I will review the perspectives of three other recognized industry leaders.

1000watt Original Research (November 2024)

This Original Research offers a fresh, homeowner-centric lens on MLS practices and alternative marketing strategies, summarized in industry writings. While I can’t share the full report due to its proprietary nature, I do encourage you to buy it. Here are some highlights:

• Limited understanding of MLS: 41% of prospective sellers and 16% of experienced sellers admitted they didn’t fully understand the MLS.
• Privacy concerns: 4% of experienced sellers kept their property off the MLS for privacy reasons, with another 4% doing so at their agent’s suggestion.
• Transparency hesitations: Nearly half of respondents (48%) were uncomfortable with both the original and reduced prices being displayed on the MLS.
• Dual agency acceptance: 61% expressed openness to same-agent representation.

I find this research enlightening and refreshing. The data challenges industry assumptions and underscores the need for consumer-first solutions rather than one-size-fits-all NAR mandates. If you extrapolate the 8% of home sellers who kept their properties off the MLS, per above, on ~ 4 million home sales, that amounts to ~ 320,000 home sellers preferring an alternative to the NAR mandate.

Three alternative perspectives are as follows:

1. WAV Group’s Fall 2024 CCP Brokerage & MLS Survey offers feedback from a broad range of small and large brokerage leaders and MLS leaders on CCP and its impact on their unique property marketing efforts.

• Removal of CCP: 43% of MLS and Brokerage leaders surveyed recommended removal of CCP. 51% of Brokerage leaders wanted CCP to be removed.
• Modification of CCP: 40% of MLS Leaders recommended modification to CCP.
• Maintain CCP: 28% of MLS leaders and 25% of Brokerage leaders prefer to keep CCP in place.

Brokerage leaders believe CCP interferes with the unique marketing approach they have built that helps differentiate them from their competition. They do not believe it is the purview/mandate of NAR and its MLSs to limit their marketing approach.
 
2. James Dwiggins’’ Positions via Podcast and Inman.
James is a vocal advocate for CCP, but several of his claims warrant scrutiny.

• Sweeping generalizations: James claims no seller, at his brokerage, has ever complained about their property being listed on the MLS, yet offers no data to support this. How many sellers were asked, and were they provided alternatives?
• Profit-driven accusations: James suggests CCP opponents prioritize profits over fairness. Yet, he does not substantiate this with facts. What about the monopolistic nature of the rules, mandates and governance of NAR, their MLSs, and related profits?
• Misrepresentation of research: His references to a 2013 study showing high off-market activity (15 to 30%) in the San Francisco Bay Area (1 to 8 cities) lacks clarity and citation. Industry veterans Rainy Hake Austin, Gino Blefari, and I dispute these figures based on our experience in the San Francisco Bay Area circa 2013.

James’ voice oversimplifies and exaggerates complex home seller issues. One of his unreasonable solutions is to have MLS executives interview home sellers, to be sure they are properly educated. More control, more mandates!
His statements, often without facts, are misleading.

3. Carl Medford’s Contributions
Carl offers a more balanced perspective, recognizing the diverse needs of sellers. However, some of his claims still need clarification.

• Market exposure misconceptions: Carl argues that maximum market exposure always yields the best outcomes for sellers. Yet, home sellers may prioritize privacy, quick sales, or personal preferences over the highest price. Where is the home sellers’ choice?
• MLS benefits to buyers, not sellers: His reference to the MLS as a tool for buyers to identify price reductions and slow-moving listings raises questions about how this serves sellers' best interests. 

Again, where is the home seller's choice about property marketing?

While Carl acknowledges the need for flexibility, his arguments often revert to defending CCP without addressing its inherent flaws. Carl does not embrace change and does not think of the consumer first.

The Path Forward: Advocating for Choice

It’s clear this debate requires more transparency, data-driven arguments, and a commitment to the home seller’s voice. 1000watt research highlights a disconnect between industry practices and homeowner needs. The WAV Group clearly articulates the divide at the MLS and Brokerage level. This divide also screams for choice vs NAR mandates.

Dwiggins and Medford reveal the deeply entrenched narratives that must be challenged.

Key Actions:

• The voice of the home seller must be present.
• Shift the conversation toward empowering home sellers with informed choices rather than imposing NAR mandates.
• Develop a system that balances fair competition with the freedom of choice to opt out of NAR-mandated practices.

We have an opportunity to lead this conversation with integrity, backed by facts and a genuine focus on the home seller. I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas on how we can amplify this message effectively.

Thank you for engaging in this critical discussion.

This is Where We Are Now!

Thanks!
Mark