COMPASS AGENT: Hey Bill, I just wanted to give you a quick call. Our CEO is in a fight with Zillow and I just wanted you to be aware your house won’t be listed for sale on Zillow.
Bill (Home Seller): Not on Zillow? Why? A fight?
COMPASS AGENT: It’s part of our “3 Phased Marketing” Agreement, remember the agreement you signed when you listed with us?
Bill (Home Seller): I never signed anything that said our house wouldn’t be on Zillow. That’s crazy, we found our house on Zillow ferchistsake…
COMPASS AGENT: Umm, well, we wanted to test the waters, remember, find the right buyer, our CEO says its the best thing eve……
Bill (Home Seller): Are you fucking serious?? I can tell you right now if you don’t put our house of Zillow I’m gonna fire you…
A thought hit me this morning while reading (yet another) piece about Compass suing Zillow over their “three-phased marketing strategy.” You know the one, start off with an “exclusive listing,” then open it up to Compass agents, and eventually put it on the MLS when the seller realizes they’d like actual offers.
It occurred to me: this whole thing smells a lot like the pitch we heard from iBuyers.
Think about it. What were iBuyers really selling? Convenience and certainty. “Skip the open house.” “Pick your closing date.” “Avoid strangers in your home.” That kind of thing. Compass’s exclusive listing strategy is, in many ways, pushing the same emotional buttons. It just has a better front man. Don’t get me wrong. I understand the appeal. I have more Opendoor stock at $22 per share than I care to admit.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Compass says that 94% of their listings end up on the MLS anyway. That stat feels oddly familiar—probably because Opendoor said the same thing when they quietly started syndicating to the MLS after realizing selling homes off-market wasn’t exactly a winning proposition. Hell, they recent shifted their strategy to sending seller lead to agents!
So if Compass listings are eventually going to land on the MLS… what’s the point of the detour?
Offering sellers a “soft launch” gives them a sense of control. Maybe they think their perfect buyer will materialize from Compass’s magical internal network before they have to show the place to the unwashed public. But just like the iBuyer promise of certainty came with a service fee and a haircut on price, the Compass pitch has its own catch: fewer eyeballs, fewer offers, and usually—eventually—a trip to the MLS anyway.
Call it what you want—three phases, soft launch, “concierge listing”—at the end of the day, broad exposure still wins. Everyone eventually runs back to Mama (the MLS).
Exclusive? Maybe. But if the final destination is still the MLS, it starts to feel more like a layover than a luxury.
“Real estate agents and teams often face inefficiencies caused by disconnected tools and processes. By integrating Follow Up Boss with Foundation—including solutions like Boost, Cloud CMA, Transact, and Back Office—agents can now manage their businesses more efficiently, while maintaining a strong focus on customer experience.
“Our mission has always been to empower real estate professionals by providing tools that simplify their daily operations and allow them to focus on what they do best,” said Jimmy Kelly, CEO at Lone Wolf Technologies. “This partnership represents our commitment to open, collaborative solutions that bring value to all agents, brokers, and teams.”
Even companies like Lone Wolf, which are aiming for an end-to-end solution, know they are not going to get everyone to use all their tools. This is especially true when it comes to a CRM. CRM adoption is tough, and once people get used to one, they tend to stick with it.
So I think it is both pragmatic and smart for Lone Wolf to take this path. I know other software vendors take a different approach, trying to lock you into their entire ecosystem or forcing you to use tools like Zapier to integrate.
Kudos to Lone Wolf and Follow Up Boss for making it easier for agents to integrate the tools they already love.
“Compass filed a lawsuit in New York on Monday, alleging that Zillow is breaking federal antitrust laws by permanently banning any listing that isn’t put on an MLS within a business day of being publicly marketed.
“To protect its market dominance, Zillow has retaliated against competitive threats by enacting an exclusionary policy,” Compass argued in its lawsuit.”
Compass is already suing MLS organizations like NWMLS. Even in this industry the blustering that Reffkin is performing would put a carnival barker to shame.
All MLSs already have mechanisms to protect sellers who need confidentiality. To suggest otherwise is just false.
The real question is: does limiting exposure to a handpicked group of “right” buyers help most sellers? Maybe—if the home is ultra-unique. But for 99.9999% of listings, broad exposure is what gets results.
Remember the story of a seller usingCompass’s “three-phase plan” who got her “magic number,” declined, then went public—and sold for $100K more.
Compass is selling a marketing strategy that only works in a hot market. As things cool or shift to a buyer’s market, that approach collapses.
Also worth noting: per NAR, 1 in 6 minority homebuyers reports facing discrimination. Does anyone really think keeping listings hidden improves that?
“Homes.com is going to support any agent who gets blackballed or blacklisted on Zillow, and boost their listing,” he told Inman exclusively on Thursday, adding that access will be free to those impacted by Zillow. “We don’t think it’s right to ban people’s listings for your economic interest.”
But what about the economic interest of the seller or the buyer?
There’s a lot I think Homes.com does well, but every now and then (like now), Mr. Florance seems to be driven by a personal vendetta against Zillow. And look, I’m not always the biggest fan of Zillow either (for example, I don’t think Homes.com ever sued their own clients).
But in the end, this feels like a hollow threat.
To put a finer point on it, I updated the graphic that accompanied the Inman article today.
“Consumers should not have to wonder whether the home that might be perfect for them is hidden behind a gate they didn’t know existed. And agents shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just to show their clients all the homes available to buy.
Zillow was founded on the principle of free and fair access to real estate information and listings and we have not wavered in that commitment. We are the most trusted consumer brand in real estate, with the largest audience of movers who expect to see all the publicly available listings on Zillow. We have a responsibility to deliver what consumers demand and deserve. We will continue to advocate for the best interests of consumers, as we always have. “
Zillow sounds like the Dad who… just about had enough of this bullshit. And I’m here for it!
“Rocket and Redfin’s approaches to lending and brokerage service have always been two halves of one vision to make the whole home-buying process magical,” said Glenn Kelman, CEO of Redfin. “We want a customer to be able to check her phone to find out what she can afford, see which homes are just right for her, schedule a tour with a local, expert Redfin agent, and get pre-qualified for a loan, all in a matter of minutes. Varun and I see how much better real estate could be when AI guides customers not just through that first step in their search, but all the way home, through the sale, the loan and then a lifetime of accumulating equity and wealth.”
Talk about attachment rate! But in the end, Redfin had to do something. I remember reading their last announcement about laying off 450 people due to their deal with Zillow Rentals and thinking, “Do they still have 450 left?” There were rumors swirling about Zillow acquiring Redfin, but I never took those too seriously.
I’m still processing what this means for Glenn Kelman—or GFK, as I affectionately refer to him. In an industry dominated by big personalities, Glenn was the guy who was going to fight the good fight. I’m sure the biggest reason this happened was that Glenn saw it as the best path for Redfin’s survival.
“A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against REX Real Estate, affirming lower court rulings that threw out its antitrust claims against the National Association of Realtors and Zillow and denied the now-defunct real estate brokerage a new trial against Zillow.”
Even the DOJ couldn’t help…
“On Feb. 13, the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in the case, with each side and the U.S. Department of Justice getting a chance to speak. Alice A. Wang, counsel to the assistant attorney general at the DOJ’’s Antitrust Division, asked that the case be sent back to the district court, arguing that “an optional rule could be mandatory in practice,” “the adoption of an optional rule can itself be concerted action,” and “an optional rule can serve as an invitation for others to join in a common plan.”
But the three-judge panel disagreed.”
I’ve never fully understood REX. Always seemed like they had ulterior motives. 🤷♂️
“Having booked over 2 million showings across our MLS partners is a huge milestone for us. We continue to add new features to Aligned Showings, which has led to over 91% of active listings using the platform in RMLS alone,” stated Kurt von Wasmuth, CEO of RMLS in Portland, Oregon.”
Many MLS software solutions are bundled or provided at little or no cost. The drawback to these tethered solutions is that they limit choice and competition. Additionally, many of these vendors require licensing and terms that MLS organizations would rather not concede. As the saying goes, ‘When the product is free, you’re the product.’
With Aligned Showings usage-based pricing, MLS organizations can now offer more choice to their agents without surrendering unwanted or aggressive data usage rights.
“For the very few people who need maximum privacy over maximum price, there should be options to have a home privately listed. This practice should be the exception, not the rule, because it doesn’t serve the needs of most sellers. And most MLSs do allow sellers to opt out of having their listing online. But for those who believe they are making the decision to list with a private network for any sort of reduced hassle in the form of avoiding showings or timing delays need to understand the clear tradeoff they’re likely making in price and selling speed. “
Exactly. Many proponents of pocket listings argue that it’s about preserving the seller’s freedom to sell however they want. But that’s just a smokescreen. Sellers and buyers currently benefit from a unified marketplace, and dismantling this system would harm them, driven by the greed of larger industry players.
