The Listing Syndication Debate is not new (01/26/2012, 01/31/2012, 01/31/2012 and many more). Okay, I am kind of late to the table on this, but the listing syndication topic has picked up steam in the area where I live along Florida's Emerald Coast. Because of the local discussion, I have started thinking about how the syndication process works and the current or perceived issues. I am not going to go into all of the arguments against syndication but want to comment on one notable argument--that syndication sites have "valuable" listing data (copy, photos, virtual tours, etc.), which the real estate listing agent and broker spent their time and money creating. Everyone with me so far?

What's Valuable?

Value: the amount of money that something is worth; the price or cost of something.

My issue with this argument is how the data made its way to the syndication sites in the first place. For most of the cases, real estate agents and brokers chose to post their "valuable" listing data to these syndication sites with little or no rules to protect the integrity of the data and most of the time did it for free. The notion that there is value in listing data is akin to the diamond-water paradox. If you are not familiar with the paradox: water is more useful, yet diamonds command a higher price in the market. I put "valuable" in quotes not because I think it does not have value, but because the moment a decision was made to syndicate the listing data without compensation and adequate rules in place, they decided it had little or no value to them. You can not give something away and then claim its value is like that of a diamond. It's sounding like a bit of buyer's remorse, don't you think?