“. . . ultimately the consumer that suffers . . .”

Mar 10, 2008  |  Michael Wurzer

Joel Burslem over at FoREM comments today on the news that Prudential is partnering with Trulia by saying:

It seems ironic though, with all these brokers now lining up in different camps to feed their listings to the big consumer search destinations on the Internet, that it’s ultimately the consumer that suffers from these alliances being formed.

If I’m trying to search for a house in Portland, I still have to have to go to multiple destinations (Frontdoor has X, Zillow has Y, Trulia has X & Y but no Z) just to get an accurate picture of the complete inventory available on the market.

I’m starting to think the broker feed model espoused by many RE2.0 search sites (despite their early technological lead on the search experience), may ultimately be a losing proposition . . .

Yeah, I agree and have said so several times over the last year.

2 Responses to ““. . . ultimately the consumer that suffers . . .””

  1. “. . . ultimately the consumer that suffers . . .”

    That’s absolutely right! It IS ultimately a seller that suffers when a buyer visits a RE site that doesn’t feature their home.

    This problem is easy to solve. It’s great to see that the large franchises get it.

  2. Ed Kohler says:

    I’d much rather see sites compete over who can create the best search experience and consumer value rather than over inventory. I hope we’ll get past that soon.