Infonestira

A lot of people treat IDX reform like it is an agent compensation issue, Josh Ries writes, but it’s a consumer clarity issue that turns into an agent compensation issue.

Inman Connect

Invest in yourself, grow your business—real estate’s biggest moment is in San Diego!

When I wrote my recent article featuring James Rowlett, “IDX reform is the real fight no one wants to have,” I could feel the passion from the industry on this topic. The comments were loud, and they were emotional, which is usually a sign that we’ve hit a nerve. I even had one comment that said, “James Rowlett for President.”

That is not because Rowlett is trying to be controversial. It’s because he is saying the quiet part out loud. IDX was built as a reciprocal system for real estate professionals to share inventory and help consumers search. What we have now is a system that can be used to redirect traffic, hide who actually represents the listing and monetize consumer confusion.

Part 1 was about how we got here. This one is about what we can actually do about it.

Rowlett’s point was simple. The solutions are not magic. They are basic. They just require the industry to stop protecting the wrong incentives.

1. Stop treating agent visibility like a privacy issue

One of the fastest fixes is also the easiest to explain. Let listing agents identify themselves clearly on their own listings, in the remarks, in the photo set and anywhere a consumer is making decisions.

There are rules that restrict things like placing contact information in public remarks, watermarking photos, or including a sign in the photo set. Those rules have been justified as privacy protections, but as Rowlett put it, “No agent that’s doing business is concerned about privacy.”

If the consumer is looking at a home, the consumer should not have to hunt for who represents it. The listing agent information should be obvious and easy to find, because that is what creates clarity, and clarity is what prevents deceptive rerouting.

2. Make listing agent attribution obvious, not technically compliant

Even when listing information is displayed, it is often displayed in a way that is technically compliant and practically invisible.

Rowlett explained how display rules get manipulated through page design, font stacking and disclaimers, where a platform can claim it is “showing” the listing information while still burying it. In his words, “It’s almost like they wanted to abuse this.”

The fix is not complicated. Attribution has to be readable, prominent and near the primary call to action. If the consumer has to scroll, squint or click through multiple layers to find the listing agent, the system is not serving the consumer.

3. Make the buttons match what they claim to do

This is where the consumer experience crosses the line from confusing to deceptive.

If a button says “contact agent” or “schedule a tour,” it should contact the listing agent. Full stop. Rowlett said it directly, “If it says contact agent, it contacts the listing agent.”

If the industry wants to preserve buyer representation options, there is an easy solution. Give the consumer two clear choices: one to contact the listing agent and one to contact a buyer’s agent. The key is that the consumer understands what is happening before they click, not after their phone starts blowing up.

Rowlett also pointed out how these buttons create false expectations. Consumers think they are booking a legitimate showing, when in reality, they may be triggering a lead handoff that turns the seller’s home into a buyer consultation. In his view, that is backward, because the person who knows the most about the home, the listing agent, is the person the consumer is least likely to reach.

4. Require transparency on incentives and referral economics

This is the part nobody likes discussing, because it exposes the real model.

Consumers think they are the customer because they are buying or selling a home, but the advertising marketplace is funded by agents. Rowlett summed it up bluntly, “They think they’re the consumer, and they don’t get that they’re the product.”

If a consumer is being routed based on who paid, that should be disclosed clearly. If referral percentages are being skimmed off the top, that should not be hidden behind vague language and tiny disclaimers. The industry already understands disclosure in other areas, like affiliated business relationships. The same concept should apply here.

Transparency creates accountability, and accountability changes behavior. It also protects consumers from being guided by incentives they cannot see.

5. Build consumer-facing MLS search that can compete

Policy fixes matter, but long-term, competition matters more.

Rowlett gave an example of what a modern consumer-facing MLS experience can look like, a search platform that functions like a portal from a usability standpoint, but makes representation clear and lets consumers contact the right person without a maze of rerouting.

He used a line that stuck with me because it captures the gap perfectly: “We’re sitting here with a Zippo, and you’re rubbing sticks.”

The bigger idea is scalable. MLSs can collaborate at the state level or through a national framework to create a consumer-facing search experience that is modern, clean and transparent. The technology exists. The friction is not technical. It is political and usually financial.

The actual goal is fairness and clarity, not a takedown

A lot of people treat IDX reform like it is an agent compensation issue. It is not. It is a consumer clarity issue that turns into an agent compensation issue.

When consumers are confused about who they are contacting, they get a worse experience.

When listing agents cannot convert demand created by their own listings, they lose leverage and profitability. When large referral percentages get skimmed off the top, negotiations get tighter, and consumers lose flexibility.

The fixes are straightforward. Make listing representation visible. Make attribution obvious. Make buttons honest. Make incentives transparent. Build an MLS experience that can compete.

That is not anti-third-party portal. That is pro-consumer choice and pro-agent fairness, which is what IDX was supposed to protect in the first place.

Josh Ries is a real estate broker and a lead generation consultant. You can connect with him on TikTok and Instagram.

Topics: listing agent | MLS Show Comments Hide Comments Sign up for Inman’s Morning Headlines What you need to know to start your day with all the latest industry developments Sign me up By submitting your email address, you agree to receive marketing emails from Inman. Success! Thank you for subscribing to Morning Headlines. Read Next