I sensed the industry’s enthusiasm for this topic when I wrote a recent article featuring James Rowlett, “IDX reform is the real battle no one wants.” The comments were loud and emotional. This usually indicates that we are nervous. One commenter said, “James Rowlett for president.”
It’s not because Rowlett is trying to be controversial. That’s because he says the quiet parts out loud. IDX was built as an interactive system for real estate professionals to share inventory and assist consumers with their searches. What we have now is a system that can be used to redirect traffic, hide who is actually representing the listing, and monetize consumer confusion.
In Part 1, we explained how we got here. This is about what you can actually do about it.
Rowlett’s point was simple. The solution isn’t magic. They are basic. We are simply asking the industry to stop protecting the wrong incentives.
1. Stop treating agent visibility like a privacy issue
One of the fastest fixes is also the easiest to explain. Listing agents ensure that they are clearly identified in their listings, comments, photo sets, and everywhere consumers make decisions.
There are rules that limit including contact information in public comments, watermarking photos, and including autographs in photo sets. These rules have been justified as protecting privacy, but as Rowlett says, “Agents doing business aren’t concerned about privacy.”
When a consumer is looking at a home, they don’t have to look for someone to represent the home. Agent information listed must be clear and easy to find. Because that’s what creates clarity, and clarity prevents deceptive rerouting.
2. Clarify listing agent attribution instead of being technically compliant
Even when listing information is displayed, it is often displayed in a technically compliant and virtually invisible manner.
Rowlett explained how display rules are manipulated through page design, font stacking, and disclaimers. Platforms can claim that they are “displaying” listing information while filling it out. In his words, “It looks like they wanted to exploit this.”
The fix is not complicated. Attribution should be easy to read, prominent, and close to the main call to action. If a consumer has to scroll, squint, or click through multiple layers to find a listing agent, the system is not serving the consumer.
3. Match what the buttons do
This is where the consumer experience crosses the line from confusion to deception.
If the button says “Contact an Agent” or “Schedule a Tour,” you need to contact the listing agent. Full stop. Mr. Rowlett directly said, “If it says contact the agent, we will contact the listing agent.”
If the industry wants to maintain the option of buyer representation, there is a simple solution. Give consumers two clear choices. One is to contact the listing agent, and the other is to contact the buyer’s agent. The key is for consumers to understand what’s going on before they click, not after their phone starts exploding.
Rowlett also pointed out how these buttons create false expectations. Consumers think they are booking a formal showing, but they may actually be triggering a lead handoff that turns the seller’s home into a buyer’s consultation. In his view, it is retrograde. That’s because the person who knows the most about a home – the listing agent – is the person consumers are least likely to contact.
4. Demand transparency around incentives and referral economics
This is the part that no one wants to discuss because it exposes the actual model.
Consumers think of themselves as customers because they are buying and selling homes, but the advertising market is funded by agencies. Rowlett summed it up bluntly: “They think they’re consumers, they don’t understand that they’re products.”
If consumers are being routed based on who paid, that must be clearly disclosed. If your referral rate is skimmed from the top, don’t hide it behind vague language or small disclaimers. The industry already understands disclosure in other areas, such as business relationships with affiliates. The same concept applies here.
Transparency creates accountability, and accountability changes behavior. It also prevents consumers from being led by invisible incentives.
5. Build a competitive consumer MLS search
Policy adjustments are important, but competition is more important in the long run.
Rowlett gave an example of what a modern consumer MLS experience looks like. It’s a search platform that works like a portal from a usability perspective, but with clear language and a way for consumers to contact the right person without going through a maze of rerouting.
The lines he used left an impression on me because they captured the gap perfectly. “We’re sitting here with Zippo and you’re rubbing the stick.”
Bigger ideas are scalable. MLSs can work together at the state level or through national frameworks to create a modern, clean, and transparent search experience for consumers. The technology exists. Friction is not technical. It is political and usually economic.
The actual goal is fairness and clarity, not deletion
Many are treating IDX reform like an agent compensation issue. it’s not. It’s a question of consumer clarity, which turns into a question of agent remuneration.
When consumers are confused about who they are contacting, they end up having an even worse experience.
When listing agents are unable to convert the demand generated by their listings, they lose influence and profitability. When large referral rates are skimmed off the top, negotiations become tougher and consumers lose flexibility.
The fix is easy. Visualize list representation. Make attribution clear. Make the button honest. Make incentives transparent. Build a competitive MLS experience.
It is not an anti-third party portal. It is a matter of choice on the part of the consumer and fairness on the part of the agent, which is what IDX should have protected in the first place.
Josh Ries is a real estate agent and lead generation consultant. You can connect with him on TikTok and Instagram.
