I have to say that Inman’s recent article on Dezireh Eyn’s private listings and the Compass-Anywhere merger is both timely and thought-provoking. She makes solid points about transparency, the illusion of choice, and what happens when “private” stops being a niche option and starts becoming the default.
Her view that “freedom is the ability to decide whether to go public or private” is a true “choice is informed” view, which is especially true in today’s environment.
Participate in the INMAN Intel Index Survey
However, while reading it, it got me thinking. Discussions of MLS vs. private networks tend to center around the idea that the goal is always to get the most exposure at the most price. And for the average home in the average market, that’s probably still the case. Generally, the more eyeballs you have, the more offers you get, which usually translates to more money.
Still, we don’t know if that equation applies as cleanly across the board as we think.
There are a lot of high-value assets that sell for top dollar because they don’t get a ton of exposure. Rare Ferraris, vintage wine collections, works of art, championship horses, luxury watches and more, these deals often take place behind the scenes.
Quiet conversations, referrals through trusted channels, and only vetted buyers. It’s not because sellers don’t care about price, but because in certain circles scarcity and privacy are not just features, but part of the value.
Now, I’m not saying you should sell your average suburban three-bed, two-bath Colonial like a rare Ferrari. That would be ridiculous. However, the idea that public exposure alone brings the highest returns may not be as universally true as we have always assumed. Perhaps the definition of success for a seller is more complex than “I want to be seen by the most people.”
“Out-of-market relationship-driven model” for luxury goods
Some private real estate companies are trying to mirror that off-market, relationship-driven model. They built a platform where listings are shared among a select network of agents, allowing for quiet marketing and selective exposure. The sales pitch is simple. If you can control who sees your property, you can probably control the narrative and potentially control the outcome.
And to be fair, sometimes this works. Some buyers value being first in line and having access to a home that no one else knows about. It creates urgency. Exclusivity may also drive demand. This is true in other markets as well, and real estate should not be thought to be immune to it.
However, the problem is that it only works if the network is completely private. If it gets too big or becomes the default setting within large brokerages, the whole idea starts to fall apart. If a private network has so many agents, offices, and listings that it starts to behave like a parallel MLS, will it still be a private network, or have we just created another type of gatekeeping?
This is where Eyn’s point about defaults really resonates. When sellers are presented with the “choice” to go off-market, but agents, intermediaries, and the entire system surrounding them gently nudge them in that direction, is that really a free choice? Or is it simply the path of least resistance in a system designed to include both sides of the transaction?
We’ve seen this kind of thing done in other areas of the industry before. For example, dual agency often sounds benign to consumers until something goes sideways. And they start asking who really represents them. Private networks can fall into a similar pattern. All seems well, until the seller realizes that his property is not actually exposed to the full market. At that point it’s too late.
This brings us to another important point: certainty. Eyn writes, “For the majority of sellers, the goal is no secret; it is certainty.” They want to know that the market has determined the value, not a select few. They want to believe that if a better buyer existed, they would look at the property. This is difficult to provide if access is restricted, even unintentionally.
To be honest, this topic raises more questions than answers. I’m not against private networks. I don’t even know if I’m against integration. However, I think it’s important to be calm about the trade-offs and stop assuming that all sellers fit into the same mold.
It’s also worth asking who benefits most if the list is kept within a private system. Are you a seller? Are you an agent? Or is it a company that can capture both sides of a deal while avoiding competition?
In a world where committees are under greater scrutiny than ever before, and where the Department of Justice is already committed to increasing transparency and compensation structures, we feel this is worth discussing sooner rather than later.
One of the biggest risks is that we don’t realize that change is happening. When private listings are rare and selective, it feels intentional. But if, as a matter of policy, habit, or incentive, more and more listings are funneled into internal networks, then a structural change is occurring under the guise of strategy. And they are much more difficult to relax.
So where do we go from here?
For me, it goes back to the idea of true informed consent. Sellers can choose privacy, but they need to understand what they are giving up in exchange. Agents can offer exclusivity, but they must be transparent about what that means for exposure.
Brokers can build internal networks, but they must be prepared to answer difficult questions such as who actually has access, and whether sellers are being served or simply guided.
Maybe MLS isn’t perfect after all. Maybe it’s clunky, maybe it’s slow to innovate. But it’s still the only tool we have that allows us to get our listings in front of everyone, not just those invited behind the curtain.
That alone makes it worth defending, or at least seriously reconsidering what to replace it with.
Last but not least, if every luxury car dealer in the country stopped posting their inventory online and only offered it to their own VIP customers, would you still believe you were seeing all the best deals, or would you start wondering what you were missing?
I think that’s a question that sellers will eventually start asking as well. I hope you get a good answer then.
Dennis Norman is the Broker-Owner of MORE, REALTORS and Chairman of the Board of MARIS in St. Louis, Missouri. Connect with him on Facebook or Twitter.
