I find it fascinating that an industry that has historically resisted government involvement in the relationship between a broker and their client is now increasingly looking to the government for solutions.
Across the country, states are introducing legislation around private listings, listing transparency and consumer access to housing inventory. Some support it. Some oppose it.
What interests me more is the question underneath it all: How did we get here?
The debate around private listings isn’t new. Neither are the concerns around transparency. We’ve been talking about these issues for years.
Yet, here we are, asking lawmakers to solve problems the industry arguably should’ve addressed long ago.
MLSs should have a seat at the discussion table because housing is too important for MLSs to sit on the sidelines while policies are being written. As more states consider legislation around listing transparency and private listings, MLSs should absolutely be part of the conversation.
But participation and dependence are two very different things.
Today, several states are already considering their own approaches to listing transparency, with more likely to follow.
What happens if eight states become 13? Or 20? Or 50?
Do we really want a future where listing transparency rules vary by state, compliance becomes increasingly complicated and consumers face different standards depending on where they live?
Will agents working across markets have to navigate a patchwork of regulations? Will states eventually need systems to monitor compliance and enforce penalties? I would think that the last thing the industry wants is to invite litigation on top of the complexities that already exist in the marketplace. Will consumers be better served by 50 different interpretations of what transparency means?
Those are the questions we need to consider. Because before we create 50 different solutions, we should first ask whether regulation is actually solving the problem—or simply compensating for the industry’s failure to innovate or lean into the existing rules that lead to transparency for the consumer.
Regulation may feel like a solution today. But is it solving the underlying problem or simply creating a short-term safety net with unintended consequences?
At REsides, we’ve always believed our responsibility is to identify challenges before they become an issue or crisis.
That’s why we introduced flexible listing exposure years ago. We recognized the broker’s and agent’s need to balance listing preparation, marketing and transparency, so we built a solution.
Not because a regulator told us to. Because the market needed and dictated it.
Too often, our industry waits until frustration reaches a boiling point before taking action. We defend what exists and debate what to do next. Then, we look for someone else to fix it.
Innovation doesn’t work that way.
Innovation requires us to challenge the very systems that may have made us successful in the first place. Every day at our company is filled with process improvement and removing barriers for clients.
And right now, we need more of it.
AI is changing how consumers search, evaluate and transact. New platforms are emerging. Data is becoming more decentralized. Consumer expectations are evolving faster than many of our institutions.
In other words, the future isn’t slowing down while we argue about policy. If we’re not careful, we’ll spend so much time trying to preserve what was that we’ll miss the opportunity to build what could be.
Because what we’re protecting isn’t just listing data. It’s trust and expertise. It’s the guidance professionals provide during one of the most significant financial and personal decisions people will ever make.
It’s the human side of housing that’s worth protecting.
But I don’t believe regulation alone will protect it.
I believe leadership and innovation will, with a willingness to critically rethink old assumptions.
The organizations that thrive over the next five to 10 years will be the ones willing to pursue what I call an outrageous, attainable ambition. A vision that is bold enough to force reinvention, yet practical enough to become reality.
So as more states consider new rules, my hope is that the industry spends just as much energy asking a different question: What can we build instead?
Because the next generation of real estate won’t be determined by who writes the most regulations. It will be awarded to those who have the courage to calculate risk and implement solutions before legislation becomes necessary.
The future belongs to the innovators, not the replicators.
For more information, visit https://www.resides.io/.
