Indie CEO Desiree Hein writes that as the industry consolidates and privately listed networks grow, transparency and fairness are essential.
Now that the Compass-Anywhere deal is complete, the discussion is no longer about scale or survival. It’s a question of whether sellers are being offered real choice or simply more choice.
In a market where size increasingly drives listing activity, the distinction between having a choice and making an informed decision has never been more important.
When a single ecosystem grows large enough to encompass hundreds of thousands of agents, multiple legacy brands, and a significant share of national inventory, the decision-making framework begins to change. Not by force, but by default. And the defaults have a way of silently shaping the results.
Selection requires context
One of the most common arguments in favor of expansive private networks is that they give sellers more choice. But choice and freedom are not the same thing.
Freedom means being able to decide whether to list publicly or privately. You will be informed of your selection. You need to understand the trade-offs.
Even if sellers are given a clear perspective on these trade-offs, most sellers will still choose the open market. The reason is simple: it doesn’t change. There is a direct relationship between exposure and price. More eyes means more competition. Increased competition creates leverage. And using leverage will yield better results.
Private listings make sense when privacy is a product in itself. This is typically the case for ultra-high-net-worth sellers in the eight-figure category, where discretionary power outweighs price maximization.
But for most sellers, the goal is not confidentiality. That’s for sure. The certainty that all qualified buyers will have the opportunity to view the property. The certainty that the market, rather than a select few, will determine prices.
It’s not an ideology. It’s market behavior.
Consumers don’t choose brands. they choose an agent
Another assumption built into the integration is that consumers are loyal to a brokerage brand. Actually not. Buyers and sellers choose agents. Trust is personal, not corporate.
As long as the transaction is going well, few consumers question what’s going on behind the scenes. Integration is not a problem for them. Conflict feels abstract. This reflects how dual agency is perceived, unpleasant in theory but rarely questioned until something goes wrong.
But the market has a way of turning abstractions into lived experiences. It only takes one dissatisfied customer to pay to reveal a system-level problem. The Sitzer-Barnett decision was not about a single transaction. It was about accumulated frustrations meeting legal triggers.
Large systems are often based on the assumption that consumers don’t think too deeply about how the system works. It’s not a moral failure. It’s a risk calculation. But it’s fragile.
When a private network becomes the default
This is where the conversation gets even more interesting.
When private networks become predominant, there is a lack of visibility. Not theoretical access, but verifiable access. The ability to confidently say that a listed company is truly exposed to the entire market, rather than being filtered through a single ecosystem.
At a certain scale, private networks stop feeling selective and start to feel structured. Once that happens, the seller will start asking different questions. It’s not about who saw my property, it’s about who didn’t. This wasn’t anything special, but it was perfect.
This accelerates subtle shift integration. Transparency no longer means differentiation. It will be about peace of mind, evidence and auditability. Ability to prove that the market, not a company’s pipeline, determines prices.
Large systems are better distributed. They are far less effective at explaining their blind spots.
When transparency becomes a test, not an issue
Perhaps this is where the industry is headed next.
If Compass-Anywhere Real Estate becomes functionally unavoidable, it will be judged more like an infrastructure than a competitor. And infrastructure is not measured by ambition or vision. It is measured by impartiality, neutrality, and reliability under stress.
Consumers already instinctively understand this. That’s why platforms like Zillow persist, despite agent complaints. Buyers and sellers may question the data, but they trust the assumptions. Everything is visible and no single party controls the gate.
In such an environment, transparency is no longer a position for boutique brands. It will be a test. Who can reliably demonstrate openness at scale? Who can articulate incentives and constraints? Who can withstand scrutiny when something goes wrong?
The Compass-Anywhere agreement does not end the transparency debate. Force it to be published. When scale begins to resemble infrastructure, trust becomes a real currency.
The next benefit comes from proving fairness, not from controlling access. The companies that will survive will be those that can explain, without argument, how their publicly traded companies are distributed and whose interests that system ultimately serves.
Dezireh Eyn serves as Chief Executive Officer of Platinum Properties. Connect with her on LinkedIn and Instagram.
