In a recent opinion piece I penned for Inman News, I took on one of the most frequently repeated arguments in the debate over private listing networks: “seller choice.”
Of course sellers have choices. They always have. The real question is whether a choice that limits exposure, reduces competition and potentially compromises price is actually in the seller’s best interest—or whether “seller choice” has simply become a convenient justification for a business strategy that benefits brokerages more than consumers.
The “Seller Choice” Argument Is Tired
The industry does not need to pretend that sellers lack options. They have always been able to make decisions about how and when their homes are marketed. The issue is what agents and brokerages recommend in fulfillment of their responsibility to sellers.
If the argument for private listings is that sellers should voluntarily accept fewer potential buyers, less competition and less visibility, we should ask a very basic question: Why would maximizing exposure not be the default recommendation when the goal is to achieve the best possible outcome for the seller?
There is an important distinction between giving consumers a choice and advocating for a strategy that may work against their interests.
The rapid expansion of private listing networks raises an even bigger question: Are sellers genuinely demanding less exposure, or are they increasingly being encouraged to choose it?
Private Listings Are Not the Same as New Development
Another argument I frequently hear is that developers have long marketed new construction in phases, sometimes before inventory is broadly exposed through the MLS. So, the argument goes, why shouldn’t resale sellers have the same opportunity?
Because new development and resale are fundamentally different products with fundamentally different marketing strategies.
A developer may be bringing dozens or even hundreds of similar units to market as part of a single project. Phased marketing can be a deliberate strategy designed to build momentum, meet pre-sale requirements, manage inventory and coordinate a comprehensive launch.
And importantly, even when a new development is not yet broadly listed, the project itself typically has a substantial public footprint. There may be an offering plan, Department of Buildings records, architectural information, advertising, public relations, a sales gallery, a project website and other ways for consumers and the market to know that the product exists.
A private listing network is something else entirely.
When an existing resale property is placed into a private network, the home can be invisible to buyers—and to agents outside that network. There may be no public indication that the property is available, no broad marketing campaign and no opportunity for the full market to compete for it.
“Phased marketing” of a new development is not a legitimate apples-to-apples comparison to systematically keeping existing homes out of the open marketplace.
Why Erasing Days on Market Matters
The conversation around private listings has also been accompanied by an effort to diminish the importance of Days on Market, with the argument that the metric somehow “kills value.”
But Days on Market is not the problem. A home that sits on the market because it was overpriced or poorly positioned is the problem.
Days on Market is information. Buyers use it. Sellers use it. Agents use it. It provides context about how a property has performed in the marketplace and can help consumers evaluate pricing, demand and negotiating leverage.
A seller who becomes a buyer deserves the same transparency they expect when purchasing a home. Consumers should be able to see the price, compare properties and understand how long homes have been available. Removing those signals does not make the market more efficient. It makes the market less informed.
Competition Is the Point
I have seen firsthand what happens when a property is exposed to the full market.
I once represented a woman selling her mother’s classic seven-room apartment off Madison Avenue. When I announced the property at our sales meeting, agents immediately told me they had buyers who wanted to see it.
My client understood something fundamental: If there was that much interest from agents at one brokerage, there was likely even more interest across the entire market.
We put the property on the market without prior showings. The result was six or seven full-price offers, followed by a highest-and-best process—and ultimately a sale well above asking.
That is what competition looks like.
The broadest possible exposure creates the opportunity for the greatest number of qualified buyers to compete. That competition is what allows the market—not a brokerage’s private network—to determine value.
Read the full article in Inman.
Leave a Reply