« Redfin Real Estate Consumer Bill of Rights
The Human Listing Site: Zillowfying Your Privacy Under the Guise of Transparency »

Is Zillow Using Our Homes As Bait?

Published by Joseph Ferrara (2) April 4th, 2007 in Zillow Real Estate, zillow and zillow.com. Comments

zillow4.jpg

Is Zillow using our homes as bait?

First, they publicly displayed your home and put their zestimate price tag on it (and did not let you remove it, even if your sale price was much higher and the zestimate was cockeyed). Now they will allow ANYONE to claim a home is for sale without the homeowner or listing agent’s permission.

How to Get a Zillow Exclusive Your Profile on a Home That’s Not For Sale—Just say it is.

The first any person lucky enough to who claims another’s home for sale gets the exclusive right from Zillow to attach their picture and profile and engage visitors in conversation about the home. In addition, they, and others, can add photos and answer questions about the home. In this way, “home claimers” will get the opportunity to attract clients, whether for that home or another (which they may have the exclusive right to sell).

The only Two ways to have that person’s profile removed are (1) for the listing agent or homeowner to claim the home, or (2) another person to say the home’s not for sale and them re-list it—the result is the unseating of the first person. Otherwise, each person who claims a home has their profile added to the list, the last to claim getting top billing—just like on craigslist or a blog post. This profile jockeying/accumulation continues until the homeowner steps in to claim their home.

Homeowners who do not visit Zillow won’t even know what’s going on with their homes. (That’s one way to get homeowners to the site). Oh yeah, Zillow is selling ads around your “not for sale” home.

Should homeowners have the right to opt-out of this “phantom for sale sign” marketing of their home? A pre-emptive “Do Not Trespass” sign so they do not have to keep returning to the site to shoo away interlopers. Otherwise, Zillow is forcing homeowners to claim their homes. Would they do that?

Questions. Questions. Questions. Once again, Zillow opens a can of worms.

Will listing agents object to buyers’ agents producing buyers that saw their “for sale” sign?

Will NAR play the heavy? Will homeowners object to the use of their homes in this way? Will someone call the cops?

Jonathan Washburn of Active Rain has a fascinating post called Zillow Launches “Advertise another agents listings” feature. The comments are great as well.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Our Zillow Archives (for your dining and dancing pleasure):

Did Zillow Actually Listen To Sellsius?
Discrimination by Zestimation: The Law of Unintended Consequences
Has Zillow Spiked the Google Juice?
Is Zillow Betaproof?
I See, Said the Blind Man to the Deaf Lady
Mining The Elusive Unzillowable
Realtor.com v. Zillow Video
Realtor’s Allan Dalton calls Zillow Carnival Act (warning: selltoon)
Sellsius Conversation with NCRC
The Truth Is: Zillow has a Right To Exist
Unzestimate My Home: Will Zillow Let Owner’s Opt Out?
Unzillowable, To Coin A Phrase
Will Listing Your Home Above the Zestimate Turn Away Buyers?
World’s First “Unzillowable” Listing
Z-Day: Z for Zendetta
Zillow Confesses…
Zillow, Dem’s Fightin’ Words
Zillow Housing Reports: The Statistical Lie of Estimate Truth
Zillow’s Real Prey: It’s Not Brokers
Zillow: Truth by Association
Zillow Ultimate Poll (the only Zillow poll, as far as we know)
Zillow Poll Results
Zillow Zapped with FTC Complaint
Zoophole: Only Humans Have to Post Conspicuous Disclaimers
Will Zillow Let Listing Owners Opt-out now?

Share This Post
  • Brian. We have Manhattan MLS a REALTOR® organization (MANAR local chapter of NAR) Manhattan MLS has only about 10 -15% of the listings. REBNY (Real Estate Board of NY) is not an MLS but is the dominant real estate board. Most major and small firms belong to REBNY. REBNY members cooperate with each other. There are also brokers in NY that don't belong to any board but still cooperate with other brokers they don't have to adhere to any ethics or rules other than state law. Every broker has their own website and markets their own listings on their company websites. Two firms in Manhattan together have about 60% of the listing inventory. The NY Times print and more recently NYT Online has been the media of choice for sellers buyers and brokers in Manhattan.
  • Thanks for the correction. Mitchell. I am completely incorrect in my assessment of Manhattan real estate. i thought Manhattan operated under a closed system when, in fact, there are many little systems cooperating. Is that correct?
  • Brian, I can see how this can be effective advertising for you. As a mortgage broker you are not trying to sell the home and you don't have the ethical/legal dilemema of advertising another agents listing.

    As you know Manhattan has always done business different than other markets in the country. Because we do operate different than most markets, we never had a dominant MLS and have never really shared proprietary information between brokerages other than co brokering listings. I would say we have been an open sysytem. Open to the consumer. The consumer has the same access to information as brokers. All properties for sale are marketed directly to buyers not only to other brokers. IDX is different than a website allowing
    anyone to enter anything on it's website. I have IDX on my website. I can not change any data or information on a listing in the IDX. The description comes directly from the listing agent the agent that has the knowlege about the property. While it has my contact information on my website it also gives the name and firm of the listing agent. Consumers searching MLS listings on an IDX know they are searching on a brokers website. They can still go directly to the listing agent if they don't want to use a buyers agent. I guess since I'm not in a closed market system I don't see how a seller would get a higher price from a third party broker intercepting traffic that would normally and probably go directly to the listing agent anyway.
  • I would have no problem putting my own listings on Zillow just like on Craigslist and Trulio and many other web sites.
    But as both a real estate broker and a consumer I have issues with 3rd parties being able to list properties for sale. The majority of my business comes from the buy side so it would be great for me if I advertisied another listing agent's exclusives. Ethically I could not do it. The seller did not hire me to market their home - they hired another agent. To me this is the opposite of transparency - it adds another layer between the consumer and the property without the consumer's (sellers or buyers) knowledge or permission.

    As a consumer I have a problem that my home has no protection from third parties making claims or offering it for sale. Someone can photograph my home and get copyright protection for the photo of my home but my home real proprty or personal property (coop) is not protected. Intellectual property is protected by copyright laws what about real property? Can I copyright my address? Can I get a trademark or a patent on my house or apartment?

    I don't think Zillow will have any credibility if it becomes known that anyone with or without claim can list anything on the site.
  • Well, let's start off with this question. Is the home for sale? If it isn't and it's being used as bait on Zillow by an ambitious mortgage broker, than Mitchell is correct; it's classic bait and switch.

    Is it for sale? Yes? Than who cares who promotes my home? IDX feeds have proven to be more effective than a closed market system.

    Joe, you and Mitchell operate in a fairly closed market system, don't you? La Jolla is a great example of one here in San diego. No signs, no open house promotion, a separate MLS. La Jollans long loved the "exclusivity' of their closed market system until it's time to sell.

    I support the right for the owner to get the highest price in a free market; the traditional listing agent in a closed market system is proving to limit that right. Understand that I come from a completely different side; mortgage banking and brokerage. We fight for our right to earn the business up until the funding whereas the "exclusive listing model" severely limits price and performance competition.

    Our respective points in this discussion may be a byproduct of the markets with which we are familiar.
  • Good points Mitchell. Especially the bait and switch.

    Yes, an agent need only say a house is for sale that isn't (e.g, do it on a home that just recently sold), get the advantage of a profile on the home. Then when a lead is generated just say, "my mistake or it just sold BUT I can show you something else." Classic Bait & Switch. Our friend Craig Newmark knows how tough "bait and switch" is to weed out. Zillow will also have this problem.
  • Brian,

    Whether you wish to focus on the privacy issue (photos of the homeowner skinny dipping in the pool) or property rights (the homeowner does not want to advertise the home for sale on zillow), the point is a BURDEN is being placed on homeowners and listing agents by zillow to police their home on Zillow---to force them to claim their home and monitor it. We support Tim's position. We do not feel that burden should be placed on owners & listing agents & submit that they have the right to object to a stranger listing the home for sale, without having to "claim" it. Does anyone support this right of listing agents and owners? do you Brian?

    BTW, on your credit bureau analogy---yes, it's an interesting comparison but there are marked differences---your credit history is not for public consumption and strangers cannot ask Q&As; on it or put comments on it---so not quite the same exposure. Agreed?
  • Is Zillow Using Our Homes As Bait?

    If a home or any other product is advertised for sale that is not for sale and the advertiser tries to sell something else to the consumer who responded to that Ad it is an illegal practice called "Bait & Switch" Nothing technologically advanced here just good old fashioned fraud that has been around for centuries.

    Re: Credit Bureaus...Easy to Opt Out. Put a security alert on your credit every 6 months. No one can inquire about your credit or offer you credit without calling you first for authorization.
  • The privacy argument could potentially ruin Zillow or champion its cause. A house is a house whereas a reputation is a reputation (human site).

    Intent could potentially be Zillow's legal defense should this become a legal issue. Their intent is to create a more efficient marketplace. I pray that NAR doesn't become the plaintiff in such a class action suit or it will damage the reputation of the Realtor brand.

    Tim Maitski says: "So they are creating a problem that they will then provide you a free tool to help monitor it and make a ton of money in the process. I think this stinks so bad I can’t stand it."

    My response: Do it yourself, Tim. Start a Zillow monitoring service and make a pile of money (I'm not being sarcastic). It's a great solution to a potentially big problem.

    I like this discussion a lot. Lot's of interesting thoughts from bright people.
  • Tim, you might just have figured out Zillow phase 6. Zillow will become the credit bureau Brian Brady referred to.
  • I think that you are absolutely correct that this will force every homeowner to monitor their home's reputation on Zillow just like they monitor their credit and identity.

    To claim their home and make rebuttals, they need to first register which involves giving Zillow their email address.

    The money for Zillow now flows from all of the advertising that they can sell on all the emails that they send out to the 77 million homeowners across America. I can see them sending out weekly emails giving people an update on what's being said about their home. I'm sure there will be an advertisement in each message.

    So they are creating a problem that they will then provide you a free tool to help monitor it and make a ton of money in the process. I think this stinks so bad I can't stand it.
  • Brian,

    Yes, there are good and bad from anything but a "bad" that infringes on my right to control how and WHERE my home is listed for sale may not be legal. I don't know whether this "right" is privacy (doubt it)or a "property right". Using your example, the automobile did not excuse you "trespassing" on any settler's land. (park it on a homestead & you're gonna end up with that towing bill--did the settlers have tow trucks?)
    As to credit bureau entries, I suspect entries that are damaging in their untruth can be removed. Illegality is never excused by technology.

    David,

    We all can easily agree that communicating online is fine & dandy so long as no one gets hurt from untruth. Remember, the sale of a house is a commercial transaction, the interference of which can be illegal.
    I believe the online discussion, the Q&A;, is most likely legal and the only liability involves untruths that interefere with the marketing and sale of a home---i.e "this home has termites", if untrue, is likely actionable. I suspect you would agree that anyone who made that untrue statement can be successfully sued. If you agree, we are left with the flagging issue, which I submit is inadequate protection.

    The purpose of Z's Good Neighbor Policy & flagging is to try to prevent these damaging untruths. But having the policy does not guarantee that even a temporary posting of "this home has termites" would not be seen by a potential buyer and have an adverse effect on the homeowner.

    Here is an example to the point: It is possible the only one who can "flag" the false comment "this home has termites" is the OWNER & until the owner does that, it remains as poison in the well. Z is, in essence, forcing owners to visit Zillow to police the Q&A;, a burden I don't believe should be placed on a homeowner. I suspect there are other damaging comments only the owner would know to be untrue and flaggable. Just because a "policy" exits means it works to "actually" protect the homeowner. Do you see where the homeowner is vulnerable here?

    Still, the crux of this biscuit is the owner's (or LA) right to say "No listing my home for sale HERE on Zillow". What would zillow do, if an owner said "I object"?

    As always David, thank you for commenting.
  • File this one under "Friday Philosophical Thoughts":

    http://activerain.com/blogsview/71328/Zillow-com-The-Insidious

    Great discussion
  • I understand it can be a shock to see people actually communicating online ;-) but I personally think that the reason this feature set makes sense is that it facilitates the same discussions that happen around homes off-line today.

    I'm under no delusion that some folk may consider posting maliciously. If you see a home posted for sale incorrectly, please change its status. Find something in Q&A that violates our Good Neighbor Policy, please flag it for our review and if someone merely posts "hot air", give their answer an unhelpful vote.

    Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy:
    http://www.zillow.com/howto/GoodNeighborPolicy.htm
  • "BUT, our point remains—should homeowners have a say about their homes being listed on Zillow by a stranger, photos being posted and Q&A comments?"

    Yeah, I agree that it's kind of an insidious premise, however, I accept that we lose privacy with every technological advance. (as the settlers did when the automobile was invented).

    I'm answering with a question for the academic argument only.

    Should borrowers have to defend themselves against arbitrary entries on a credit bureau made by some other person? The scoring system was created by a private company, sold to lenders and goes under the same insidious "guilty until proven innocent" premise.

    There are good and bad things that come from technological advances.
  • Thanks Brian.

    Yes, we can see this is a novel approach to listing homes and "may" be beneficial to buyers and sellers and prove as needed as rabbit ears on my grandmother's TV. (We could write a post on how "transparency" could lead to LESS houses being sold for LESS money, but we'll leave that for another day.) We'll have to wait to see what people experience.

    BUT, our point remains---should homeowners have a say about their homes being listed on Zillow by a stranger, photos being posted and Q&A; comments? Should listing agents have a say about another agent's profile on their listing? What say they?
  • Sellsius,

    You make a good point when you use the pond analogy. It isn't fair; but neither are the credit bureaus. At least Zillow gives you a chance to explain yourself; Experian tells you that you must get a royal edict to correct their "secret" system.

    I think our grandparents had these discussions about television (they can shove that camera in your face and profit from our misery by selling ads to the show).
  • Thanks, Gent
  • Landed Gentry
    Brian: That's a fair response and it makes sense.

    Keep doing great things....
  • As the listing agent (or FSBO), the home is your bait to find buyers (so long as you have a contract with the owner). You have the right to fish the listing in any pond you like.

    What Zillow is saying is "Dear LA (FSBO), it seems you have a home as bait but you're not fishing in our pond. I hope you don't mind but we'll just borrow your house bait so someone else can fish with it in our pond". So long as fishing happens in Zillow's pond they can sell tickets to watch (ads).

    Now, this may be great for the Zillow fishermen, the owner, and ultimately the listing agent (because a buyer may be caught) BUT what if the owner or the LA objects? That is the zillion dollar question.
  • Everyone is using our listings as bait they are the currency that makes the web sites work so that the middle man between the middle men can make money too. Not planning on claiming my listings just now. Just watching . . . think we could all learn from Zillow. they are by far the best at viral marketing, getting agents and companies to promote their web site by writing about it. I admire their marketing ability and think we can all learn from it. I find the social,aspects and implications of this too facinating to ignore. I did not write my post Tuesday night like everyone else did but will have something up next week.
  • "The hard sell approach is wearing on the credibility"

    That's potentially true, Landed Gentry. I recognize that. I am an overly enthusiastic person and that is often my downfall. I think Zillow has tremendous potential as a marketing tool for Rs and LOs if approached correctly.

    I am an active marketer of loans. I'm not a tech guy. I originate every single day and teach 5 others how to do this job. I'm a back-slapping, garrulous, hand shaking sales guy. I go at something hard when I think it has value. Having disclosed that to you, it might explain my motivation. Take my "endorsements" with a grain of salt; I'm just a salesman who thiks he found a cool way to market.

    FWIW, my overly enthusiatic activity in Zillow in my home zip code resulted in a slap on the wrist from the Z-folk.
  • Dangling unclaimed homes for profiles, targeted zip code ads and Q&A; should get a lot of buyer agents in the Z boat.

    Zip Code ads and Q&A; are nothing new. Conventional bait. But offering up someone's home to allow a profile to be attached by someone other than the owner or listing agent is novel. It allows Z to get the listing, not thru the conventional way, i.e. owner or listing agent, but through another person unconnected legally to a home. This will likely be tested in court.

    We will be curious to see the reaction of homeowners and listing agents. We suspect many homeowners who just want to sell won't mind so long as a lot of potential buyers see the home for sale. They may object, however, to Q&A;, especially if inaccurate, or unflattering pics of the house or other misleading info. Ultra-exclusive property owners or those wanting privacy, may see this as an infringement on their right to control the marketing of their property.

    Not so sure about the Listing agent reaction. Stay tuned.
  • Once more we see expectation overtaking content. Perhaps this system will collapse as a result of its own voluntary internal policing.
  • Landed Gentry
    Am I the only one that thinks that Brian sure seems overly enthusiastic on Day 2 for someone ostensibly providing pro bono support to Zillow not only on his own blogging mechanisms but also on other blogs as well....??

    The hard sell approach is wearing on the credibility.

    Unless, of course .....
  • Brian, you nailed it. Zillow wants owners and listing agents to CLAIM (list) the homes. Since they haven't, they are getting others to list the homes by attaching "for sale" signs---a creative way for Z to get a listing on the site which neither the owner nor listing agent agreed to.

    Regarding the opt-out. We have said from Day One that owners should have the right to prevent zestimate price tags to be put on their homes---an opt-out of being zestimated. Further when Z let owners list for sale,the opt-out right should have allowed owners to say "take that totally bogus zestimate away from my listing".

    County records v. zestimate> A zestimate is NOT public information. It is a proprietary creation which USES public records. We believe this opt-out right should apply to the "for sale" listing being created on Zillow by OTHERS. In other words, I am the owner or listing agent and I CHOOSE not to list my property on zillow---so don't let others do it and force me to claim the home to prevent it.
  • "Once this starts to happen, then the listings agents will have no option but to go to Zillow to reclaim their listings"

    Dead on, Jonathan. County Tax records don't provide an opt-out for the homeowner either; they're public AND readily available. I think Zillow is providing a marketplace akin to the NYSE or NASDAQ online.

    Sellsius brings up valid concerns in this post but I think the peer pressure from the users of the community will right the wrongs.

    So...here's the rub...The listing agent MUST go to Zillow now and claim the listing now (one more pain-in-the ass thing to do but all the more reason to use a Realtor). Zillow forcibly created a national MLS last night; I don't think that's a bad thing for the consumers.
  • Can of worms is an understatement! Among other things, this falls into the gray area of whether this constitutes one agent advertising another agent's listing for sale (not allowed).

    Seems like Zillow is full of surprises and has multiple faces. It's hard to tell which side of their mouth they're talking out of anymore.
  • For a consumer site, Zillow gives homeowners very little control over what is displayed about their property. As it is, homeowners cannot opt out of the zestimate & can't prevent it from displaying with their list price. In fact, the only way for an owner to prevent others from claiming their home now is to claim it themselves---somewhat of a burden in itself.
  • Why should a homeowner be burdoned with having to go to Zillow to put a "Do not claim my house" opt out notice. I understand that posting a house for sale on Zillow is free and open to everyone. If the homeowner, or their agents, wants to post their home on Zillow then, and only then, should their listing be displayed there.

    By the way, what Zillow is doing is a brilliant tactic. I can easily see this catching on (with buyers agents) and Zillow walking away with a national MLS, seemingly overnight.

    I have already personally heard from more than a few agents and loan officers who are planning on hiring an assistant to populate the Zillow database with current for sale listings that they will obtain from sites like Realtor.com or their local MLS. Once this starts to happen, then the listings agents will have no option but to go to Zillow to reclaim their listings.
  • OK I did test and found that more than one person can have a profile attached to a property (is there a limit on how many profiles there can be on one home?).

    The first person to claim a home (other than owner or LA) gets the honor of being called "Who told us first" but they can be unseated by someone who goes in and says the property is not for sale and then they claim cit is & they now get the "first to tell us spot" (which is down on the totem pole). So it seems the last person to claim a house for sale gets listed first---like how craigslist works, or a blog post---in reverse chronologial order.

    We will not call it "exclusive" because of this. It is yours until someone else jumps onboard. Thanks for clearing that up David.

    Now that we have your attention, will zillow let an owner put a "do not claim my house" opt-out? If your answer is no, why not?
  • Did you try it?
  • Ahhh...c'mon David. I was just screwing with you. It's not the worst idea ever.

    Re-electing Bush takes that vote.

    Just a joke. Just a joke.
  • We are not talking about updates, photo inputs or information. We are simply talking about ONE person's picture and profile in the sidebar of a particular home that has Not been claimed by the owner or the listing agent. That one person is the first person to claim a home for sale (who is not the owner or listing agent). True?
  • I'm glad i'm not the only one that sees this as Bull Sh!t
  • Nope -- anyone -- not just the first person who updates the for sale information will have a link to their profile on the page. Likewise, anyone can post photo's. This is importantly not an exclusive arrangement -- the entire Zillow community keeps this information updated.

    Why don't you both try update a house and post a screenshot?
  • Holy crap. Other than electric powered rubber duckies, that's the worst idea I've ever heard.
  • We mean--if the owner or listing agent has not claimed a home, then it appears that anyone can step in and claim it and they get the benefit of their picture and link to their profile, exclusively.  It remains until the owner or listing agent comes to claim the listing.
  • Yes, of course profiles belong to the first person to claim a home for sale, which need not be the owner. Only that person's profile appears on the page, correct?

    Can you send us a link to a home that has more than one profile "displayed"?
  • Profiles belong to users, not homes. There could be links to multiple profiles on any homes detail page if multiple visitors contribute to the content regarding that home.

    Try it out!
  • Does that mean there can be more than one profile per home?
  • Hi Guys,

    Please correct this post.

    It entirely incorrectly describes the report for sale feature as exclusive -- it is not -- anyone can update the status of a home that any other user has reported for sale -- and they both get attribution.

    Please, please please get this story straight.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Blog Widget by LinkWithin