Competition laws regarding price fixing are in place to prevent monopolies and lack of choices. The MLS system, however, is just one of many marketing vehicles. To place a minimum rate for advertising on the MLS does not impair choice in any way.
I personally advocate a minimum ad rate of three per cent to the selling broker. The listing broker could, of course, choose to pay more for more aggressive marketing, or choose to pay less with another marketing medium, and, of course, choose to sell his/her own services at whatever rate s/he wants. There are a plethora of websites, magazines, newspapers, TV, radio and billboards from which a Realtor may choose to market his/her listings if s/he is unhappy with the MLS’s rules. What a travesty to allow a small number of Realtors to erode our powerful marketing system by hiding behind the Competition Act!
Witness recent articles in REM. Mark Annable proudly proclaims that the “technology developed by his real estate company” gives independent sellers access to MLS, which sells 85 per cent of all homes in his area, for peanuts so that they don’t need to pay a “traditional Realtor”. Meanwhile, it is the blood, sweat, and dues of traditional Realtors that has made MLS the desirable advertising vehicle that it has become.
“Let’s start recruiting” says REM’s publisher, since CREA membership has dropped by one-third in the last decade. Is it possible that scrapping for commissions has anything to do with that? How about the letter from Rob Angus, defending his own status as a discount broker? He appears to be onside. He claims that he sells his own services for less in order to get the listing, but always pays the co‑operating brokers the prevailing rate. Or Graham Millward’s letter answering the posed question, “What’s the most important issue facing the industry?” He certainly links the loss of 30,000 Realtors and the non‑attraction of young people to our industry to the erosion of our commissions.
And what about “image”? Do the respected professions -‑ doctors, lawyers, accountants-‑ to which we aspire to belong, consistently try to undercut each other? Most set marketplace fees and stick to them because to do otherwise is neither professional nor respectable. The public knows this and judges us accordingly
The MLS is like the newsletter of a private club, in which dues-paying members of the club are allowed to advertise their products and services to one another. It is a privilege of membership that you can access that newsletter, but you still pay for your ad. Is that unfair or price fixing?
Let us imagine that Time Magazine (another well recognized marketing vehicle), suddenly allows its advertising sales reps to offer its ad pages at whatever they can get from the advertiser. A feeding frenzy ensues, with Time sales reps fighting each other to sell the pages at lower and lower rates in order to get any sale at all. The revenues of the magazine plummet, its credibility plummets, Time sales reps quit in droves for greener pastures, and finally Time exists no more.
By allowing a hand‑full of Realtors to give away our MLS, this is the road we are on. Use of the MLS is a privilege, not a right, of CREA membership. It has rules. We CREA members, the owners of the MLS, by majority vote must set a minimal, and decent, rate for advertising in it. This would encourage new registrants into the industry knowing that at least some aspect of their commission was assured and it would be one more step up the ladder toward that professional image we say we are seeking.
Jane Moysey
Tri-W Realty Inc.
Collingwood, Ont.
