The Modified VOW Policy (Exhibit A) of the (Proposed) Final Judgment contains some interesting provisions which I believe recognizes the seller’s right to control the advertising and marketing of their property on the internet, including the right to:
- withhold listings and property addresses from display on the internet and
- prevent comments, reviews and AVM valuations from attaching to their listings on the internet
– Are you listening Zillow? Do you care?
Section II 5a gives the seller the right keep listings and property addresses “private” and withheld from internet display. This includes the right to have a listing totally withheld from the internet: (To my knowledge, NAR had recognized this right.)
No VOW shall display listings or property addresses of sellers who have affirmatively directed their listing brokers to withhold their listing or property address from display on the internet. The listing broker or agent shall communicate to the MLS that a seller has elected not to permit display of the listing or property address on the internet.
If Zillow recognized this right, they would not allow third parties to list homes for sale on Zillow without the homeowner’s permission and would remove third party “for sale” notices at the seller’s request. Unfortunately, Zillow does not recognize a seller’s right to advertise and market their home privately and will display a home for sale on Zillow at a price designated by a third party, without the homeowners knowledge.
Section II 5c gives the seller the right to disable comments, reviews and automated estimates of value from following their listing around the internet : This is new and powerful stuff and frees a homeowner from having to be an online monitor of misleading information about their homes– flagging systems, like Zillow’s are worthless if a homeowner has no knowledge of the conversation. (boy, I bet those Zillow VCs are nervous)
With respect to any VOW that
(i) allows third parties to write comments or reviews about particular listings or displays a hyperlink to such comments or reviews in immediate conjunction with particular listings, or
(ii) displays an automated estimate of the market value of the listing (or hyperlink to such estimate) in immediate conjunction with the listing.
The VOW shall disable or discontinue either or both of those features as to the seller’s listing at the request of the seller. The listing broker or agent shall communicate to the MLS that the seller has elected to have one or both of these features disabled or discontinued on all Participants’ websites…(emphasis added)
If Zillow recognized this right they would let sellers opt out of the zestimate and disable Q&A on their home. Unfortunately, Zillow will not allow a homeowner to remove a zestimate, even a grossly inaccurate one, and even when the home is listed for sale. Zillow will also let third parties conduct Q&A on a home without the owner’s knowledge. Get with homeowner rights Mr. Barton– it will only help your success with homeowners– these are the folks you have to please.
As it stands, Zillow zestimate APIs on brokerage websites may be affected if sellers opt out of the automated estimates display. Brokers will probably have to disable the API for those opt out listings.
Although the above Policies apply only to VOWs and Affiliated VOW Partners (AVP), they support my long held belief, and that of virtually all sellers, that it is the seller who has the ultimate right to control how their property is advertised, displayed and marketed on the internet.
Appendix A is a Seller opt-out form: (double click for full size)
Power to the Seller!
Technorati Tags: NAR, DOJ, Zillow, Seller opt out, AVM
Ouch. Zillow can’t be seeing this as a positive development for there business model.
Joe -
Just to be clear; Zillow is not a VOW and this agreement is certainly no bill of rights. Far from it.
You have again confused about the feature on Zillow.com that allows users to report homes for sale. Zillow does not allow 3rd parties to “designate” the price of your home. 3rd parties may however report a price you may have “designated” - there’s significant difference there - and that feature is disabled if you’ve already advertised the home on the site. Please just take 2 minutes to try out this feature for yourself; if you did, you’d save us both a bunch of time.
Zillow does not exclusively serve sellers but rather we seek to empower all users of our website. We believe that access to information about real estate is everyone’s right and that buyers and sellers can be simultaneously empowered through information.
Joe, you have made it repeatedly clear that your ideal world is one with less transparency. OK, fine. But please let’s not pretend that depriving the next guy from access to information is anybody’s right. Thankfully those days are long gone.
Correction: “You ARE again confused …”
JF–
This is perhaps the best analysis I’ve seen of the judgment yet. It covers an aspect I hadn’t even considered.
I wonder when we will hear from Zillow on this issue, since it obviously affects what they do/offer.
@Daniel -
Look up.
Dear David,
Wow, that comment says alot about Zillow.
First, it is a statement of rights–you know how rights work– I say you can’t do something (display my address, my listing, an estimate of value) and you must honor that request–you may not see it as a right because Zillow does not honor such seller requests. But it IS a statement of rights and, more importantly, a recognition of who is ultimately in control– the seller– not users of Zillow, not Zillow’s advertisers, and especially not unathorized third parties who Zillow lets list a home as for sale and set the price. I know because I did it.
These rights include NOT listing an address or listing, and disabling AVM, comments and reviews– it is recognizes that sellers are the ultimate authority– not Zillow or third party advertisers looking to mooch off their home. IMO, it sets the tone of what is to come– seller opt out of zestimates and Q&A. (I notice you did not dispute that ZIllow does not recognize a homeowner’s right to market privately. You, as a person, do recognize that right, right?)
I have tried it and was able to list a property as for sale at a price I determined, NOT the owner. (I did get the owner’s permission to do it BTW)
I know Zillow is not a VOW– I never said it was. Also read the last paragraph… it only applies to VOWS
My ideal world is simple– recognize seller rights & serve the homeowner– the sooner Zillow comes closer to my world the sooner it will be an overhwelming success– Z has just missed the boat– the person they need to please is the homeowner.
Joe -
Exactly; your ideal world ignores the homebuyer. Ours doesn’t. That, very simply, is where we disagree.
This is an agreement between the NAR and the DOJ. Period. The seller opt-out is very clearly and simply designed to delineate a seller’s rights from that of their brokers and does not in any way grant new rights to sellers.
David,
I guess we were writing our comments at the same time. . .
Good debate.
I’m gonna be frank here, I don’t use Zillow all that much because there isn’t a lot of data for my area (David and I have discussed that before). At what point does a home become a “listing?” Does Zillow list and/or advertise homes? I don’t think it does. Not all the time, anyway.
For example, if I go to Zillow right now and look up my home, there is information there. Albeit, all of the information is wrong, but it is there. I can’t stop Zillow from displaying that info, since it is all public record. People are free to ask questions about my home, leave comments about my home, whatever, even though my home isn’t “listed.”
It seems to me, that on Zillow, I can go and claim my home and change the data so that it is more accurate. If someone left a comment on the house that I didn’t like, I could respond. Like I said, the info is public record.
So I guess my first question is for Joe– What do you want out of Zillow?
And for David– How does Zillow handle ticked-off sellers?
Just wondering. . .
David,
I think we agree as to our fundamental philosophical/legal difference– Zillow is buyer biased & I am homeowner/seller/listing agent biased. I place the homeowner’s rights (advertising/marketing/PRIVACY/CHOICE etc) above the prospective buyer (tell me everything about everything, even if you have to zuess). I think I am right and Zillow is wrong. The right to information is not without limit.
I do not ignore the buyer but believe the homeowner/seller has a superior right by virtue of the home being their property– which they alone can choose to advertise/market/display as they see fit– not how Zillow sees fit.
It is all well and good to suggest to homeowners to be transparent– but, and here is where we cross paths— I would not force it on the homeowner/seller. IMO, Zillow forces its vision of transparent nirvana on the homeowner. Big mistake in my book. Zillow ignores the power of CHOICE and sacrifices it on the altar of transparency. A sin.
If you embraced the homeowner, Zillow would have my blessings and I would become an evangelist. You do a lot of things right but the few you do wrong are enormously harmful in the long run. Just one bloke’s opinion.
Daniel,
Good question. Here is what I think homeowners/seller want from Zillow
1. The right to opt-out/disable (pick the word that makes you feel most comfortable) the zestimate, especially when the home is listed for sale. (the modified VOW sees it this way)
2. The right to eliminate a grossly inaccurate zestimate– this alone can lead to greater succes for zillow– there is more to it but I’ll need a check for that advice
3. Only let homeowners or their agents list a home for sale(save the semantics that Z does not let 3rd parties “list/advertise” a home for sale– the data is already there — simply adding a ‘for sale’ sign = listing a home for sale. That is advertising someone else’s property in my book)
4. The right to opt-out/ disable Q&A on their home. Why should they be forced to deal with this?
5. Do not allow anyone other than owner or LA to have a conversation on a home without notifying the homeowner). You must understand that a conversation which the seller has no knowledge of is a disservice to that homeowner. Flagging is a joke if the seller does not know about the conversation. This is another missed opportunity for Zillow.
Q&A should be opt-in.
BTW, I do not believe the burden must be on the seller to correct data about their home for the ultimate benefit of Zillow— if it’s wrong, take it down. Again, I see Zillow forcing homeowners to “claim” homes in order to stop 3rd party interlopers.
Does Zillow list/advertise homes for sale? Does a lawn sign?
IMO, Yes. Zillow displays the virtual lawn sign, provides data about a home, including the address and displays the home, with views & photos, as “for sale” on zillow.com. They also sell ads around it. The purpose is to attract buyers to facilitate a sale. This invitation to do a real estate transaction is the essence of advertising and listing a home for sale. Ask Zillow– do you want buyers to look at that home for sale? They would say Yes ( I assume). Question 2: Why? The answer should be to lead to a sale for that homeowner. What is missing that makes it NOT advertising?
If Zillow were only a publishing company, like a newspaper, they would let 3rd parties provide the ‘for sale’ notice AND THE DATA. By providing the data, they distinquish themselves from newspapers and other publishers.
Re: correcting comments (flagging)
You can only do this if you know there is a comment. Recently, one owner discovered their home was listed for sale on Zillow at a different price & another home was not for sale. This happens because Zillow does not notify the owner— I say no home conversation on zillow unless the homeowner consents. Sorry, that’s what I want as a homeowner– an owner does not have the time, or desire, to monitor conversations about their home on zillow.
Public data:
To the extent information is public record, let the sun shine in. But zestimates are not public record, nor is 3rd party content.
Power to the Seller!
Austin
It will affect Zillow to the extent brokers have their clients sign opt out forms for disabling automated market valuations on homes listed for sale on the internet.
@Austin -
It doesn’t really impact our business model. I know this post reads that way but it’s not an issue for Zillow; we’re not a VOW.
@Daniel -
It depends on the seller. This market and the desperate state it’s left folks in can bring out the worst in people and some of them are looking for someone to blame but I really enjoy working with sellers and their agents. We give them the data they need to understand their Zestimate better and to explain it to buyers that may ask about it. Sometimes I’ll use Home Q&A to leave a note that addresses the seller’s concerns but if these folks are going to sell theior homes, it’s important to get beyond a discussion of their Zestimate value. When we do, I try to spend some time demonstrating how tools and features on Zillow can assist in the sale of their home (photo’s, listings, EZ ADs etc.). Interestingly, I am yet to meet a frustrated seller or agent whose listing was well marketed.
Daniel
There are many frustrated homeowners on zillow. Just visit the discussion forum.
http://www.zillow.com/forum/site/Index.htm
David,
When an owner lists on Zillow, they voluntarily agree to the state of affairs on Zillow. When a third party says a home is for sale and comments on a home without the homeowner’s knowledge– that is something else– there is no seller consent to the Zillow state of affairs in that case.
If a seller opts out of AVM, can a VOW broker display the estimate, via Zillow API or otherwise, for that home? No
Can the broker put a link to the zestimate? No
These are impacts– the degree is yet to be determined.
David and Joe,
This is a great discussion. This is why social media rocks!
Just thought I would throw that out there.
Joe, do you think there will be lawsuits over zestimates and comments? Are there already lawsuits?
As you can see from David G’s comment, Zillow favors the buyer over the seller. Just because Z thinks the buyer should know everything about a house (even their starting point guesses), does not mean a seller has to go along with the program. (I am not talking about public data– I’m talking zestimate and 3rd party content)
Yes, I think there will be lawsuits over zestimates and comments. (There are rumblings– go visit the Discussion forum. I have a post coming– Overheard at Zillow: Owners speak out). IMO, a seller’s rights will be recognized to trump Zillow’s transparency mantra.
It could be brought by a seller for publishing misleading information which interferes with the marketing of their home.
Or a suit under any number of state or federal Consumer Protection laws– again, publishing misleading information about a home for sale. It will be determined that seller’s do not have to “claim a home” (to Z’s benefit) to have misleading information removed.
Re: 3rd party interlopers
The fact that 3rd parties can advertise on a home for sale, or conduct a Q&A, without the homeowner’s knowledge is so blatantly illegal in my opinion that it would have to be stopped— Zillow would be forced to either notify the seller that a 3rd party has listed the home as “for sale” or (better, IMO) prevent anyone other than the owner or LA the power to list it for sale. Why must homeowners be policemen for their homes on Zillow?
Re: comments
IMO, Rich Barton’s justification for the Q&A on Z by 3rd parties without owner knowledge using the construct of the coffee shop klatch talking about a neighbor’s homes is so misguided as to be misleading. As I’ve said before, talk in the coffee shop is transitory and between a few folks– Q&A on Z is permanent, possibly seen by millions. Not the same by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Let’s say Gossip Gerdy says (over a tall latte) that the Smiths have termites — she saw a Terminex truck in the driveway— that untruth is not made suddenly OK because it is published as a comment on Zillow. If untrue, it is unfair to the homeowner– how is a homeowner to know– Z does not tell– yet it lives on in internet eternity. To say a flagging system can work if a seller does not know about the comment is a big hot pile of do-do.
Ask Zillow this– if a comment is flagged as untrue (the termites) will Zillow remove it from Google? David?
IMO, the modified VOW recognizes a seller’s right NOT to participate in the participatory web when it comes to the advertising and marketing of their home on the internet– AVM (& link), listing, address & comments to be disabled if seller say so. The fact it is directed to VOWS does not mean it could not, and should not, be extended to Zillow– what, do you think Zillow should get a pass?
Stay tuned.
Is there any follow up to this?
I fully agree that Zillow should not be allowed to exploit homeowners with all the bad data they use.
Any other articles planned for the future regarding Zillow?
No follow up Taz. Z still doing its thing, as you know.
Yes, Zillow is a favorite topic.
See our zillow posts here:
http://tinyurl.com/4cxmd6