5 minute read
I’ve been in the real estate business since 1979. Was a broker at 21, started my firm at 26. Today, one in every seven residential real estate contracts in America has our name on it. I’ve never held another profession, nor will I. I will go to my grave a real estate agent. I love this industry and the people in it. Even more, I love what we do for a living. We help people buy and sell homes. From their first to their last, it’s an honor to help individuals and families with one of the most important financial and lifestyle decisions in their lives.
Always has been and always will be.
In my nearly five decades in the industry, I’ve seen just about everything. From really up markets to really down ones. From interest rates as high as 18% to as low as 2.7%. I’ve seen a steady parade of new ideas and models promising to “reinvent” the industry. I’ve even authored my fair share. Most come and go. A few stick. But one debate I never expected to see is the question of whether it’s better for a home seller to market their property privately or publicly.
To understand why this matters, it helps to explain how residential real estate traditionally works in the United States.
The MLS creates maximum exposure
For decades, the backbone of the housing market has been the Multiple Listing Service, or MLS. The MLS is not a company. It’s a shared marketplace created by the real estate agents in that market. When a home is listed on the MLS, that property information is immediately available to virtually every real estate agent in the market who is an MLS member, and by extension, to every serious buyer working with an agent who has access to the MLS. By extension, literally all online real estate portals‘ buyers and sellers have come to enjoy pulling their data from it.
In simple terms, the MLS creates maximum exposure, maximum competition and the highest likelihood that a seller will discover what the market is truly willing to pay.
A private listing, often called an “off-market” or “coming soon” listing, works very differently. Instead of being placed into the open marketplace, the home is marketed to a limited audience. This is often within a single brokerage, a private network or a curated group of buyers. By design, fewer people ever know about the home. It’s been argued that even though it’s not on the open market, the “right” agents and all “potential” buyers are aware of this.
Factually, there is no way to know this or prove it.
Let me be clear. Sellers should have the right to choose how their home is marketed.
It’s their property, their information, their equity and their financial future. After all, there are some reasons a seller may choose to use a private listing for a time. Increased privacy, fewer showing requests and more time for pre-market preparations are all possible outcomes. Agents and their companies should honor the seller’s right and support whatever choice their clients make. But rights and informed decisions aren’t the same thing. And what concerns me today isn’t the idea of privately marketing a home, but the potential lack of full, balanced disclosure surrounding it.
Some companies in our industry have begun promoting private listings as a superior path for sellers. They’ve gone so far as to advertise “exclusive access” as a benefit rather than a limitation. And that may well be true. That’s not my issue. My issue is full disclosure. Full disclosure where the seller is fully informed of their options and the potential benefits and pitfalls of each. My concern is when sales pitches masquerade as disclosures. Where potential upsides are trumpeted, and potential downsides are whispered or ignored.
That’s not transparency. That’s marketing dressed up as advice.
Here’s the truth: The MLS remains the most powerful, open marketplace for real estate buyers and sellers ever created. It exposes a seller’s home to every potential buyer, through every member agent, across the entire market. Immediately. Nothing else provides that kind of reach, competition or fairness.
Private listings, by contrast, limit visibility by definition.
They restrict exposure to a small subset of buyers. That may benefit a seller who truly values absolute privacy. But that may also reduce competition, undermine negotiating leverage and ultimately cost the seller money. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
And there’s an irony in all of this.
A seller who chooses privacy today becomes a buyer tomorrow. If they’ve bought into a system that withholds inventory in the name of exclusivity, they will face the same limitations on the other side of the transaction. They won’t see everything available. They’ll only see what someone chooses to show them. No open market. No full picture. No opportunity to be aware of all potential choices. An opaque market works both ways.
It’s time to raise the standard
That’s why I believe it’s time for our industry to raise the standard.
I’m advocating for full disclosure. Real disclosure for sellers and buyers alike. Not a pitch. Not a narrative. A clear presentation of the pros and cons of the ways a property can be marketed and the ways a property can be found. This way, people can decide what is genuinely best for them.
We should respect their rights by equipping them to decide, not engineering their consent.
States are beginning to understand this. In fact, Wisconsin passed a law on public marketing and transparency that will take effect on January 1, 2027.
The future of our industry must be about transparency and disclosure. Strong markets are built on trust, and trust is built on truth. Let’s give consumers the whole truth and let them choose for themselves.
Let’s give homeowners clarity and let them choose with confidence.
Onward…
Gary Keller, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, Keller Williams Realty, LLC
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected]
How do you mandate full disclosure of pros and cons to a client in a private meeting? Where the double side agent/company benefits. you can say they have it on materials given to the client. The spoken word is mightier than the pen. Wishful thinking Gary. And wrong thinking. Not going to happen. One way or the highway. And the highway is littered with corruption.
This is one of the best opinion pieces I’ve read on the subject of CCP. Gary hits the nail on the head of how exclusive listings have been “spun” to seem as if they are in the seller’s best interest when we all know that they are not. And I agree, that I’m not so sure we should dabble in another area where transparency could be questioned yet again. It would not serve our great industry well in the eyes of the consumer population and do we really want to risk dancing with the DOJ again? I choose to be a wallflower. Even with transparency laws, many will still spin their narrative to market what they want and it will eventually prove harmful…most immediately to the unknowing consumer but eventually to our industry. A strategy driven by greed has never ever served humanity well.