TRANSCRIPT OF CMLS 2025 SESSION

DENEE EVANS: When people list watershed moments in the real estate industry, such as Bill Chee's "Lion Coming Over the Hill" speech, they usually also mention your comments from the stage at CMLS 2013 in Boise. Can you share with us the broker view of where we were back then, what progress might have been made since then, and whether there are any parallels between 2013 and today and what factors might be different today?

CRAIG CHEATHAM: First, thank you to everyone in this room. We need an openness to taking our MLSs from where they are to where they have the potential to go. We need creative thinking. Thank you for being here this week to accelerate that progress. I know you took a long, arduous journey to get here. Of course, I just talking about the ride on the hotel elevator.

Second, just for fun I brought this QR code. If you haven't seen "the list" then a lot of this session isn't going to make sense.Maybe Sunny can put this at the registration desk? web.archive.org

When I talk with MLS leaders I like to remind all of us that, in the grand scheme of things, we all are pulling together on the same end of the rope. However, even championship tug-of-war teams have to have meetings every now and then to talk about times they step on each other's toes.

The broker-MLS relationship, if it was on Facebook, probably would fall in the category of "It's complicated." MLS are at once the broker's most important tool, and the thing about which they express the most frustration. The bright side is there is engagement there, not the worst-case scenario, which would be apathy or resignation.

MLSs should work to rescue their "resigned" brokers. The list is important, but the back story is important, too. The mood back in 2012 and 2013 among brokers about many of their MLSs was rage and resignation. MLSs (often urged on by consultants and certainly vendors) were moving in directions that at least pulled them away from their brokers and at worst put them in competition with many of their brokers. And the actions were enough to have created some serious tension, but on top of these moves by MLSs, brokers were sensing an "attitude." This will sound familiar to anyone in this room who ever has been part of trying to rear a young adult - often it isn't what they actually do or do that sets you off, but the "attitude" you sometimes get from them.

Someone on the CMLS program planning team had sensed this and we were invited to come share specific things that were likely to cause friction between MLSs and their participating brokers. I politely declined.

We had been sharing these things over the years, yet things continued to get worse. We were just a few days out from our big meeting (I will let the audience guess exactly how many days), where an item on the brokers' agenda was contemplating creating an alternative to MLSs. Brokers were just about "done" and I was skeptical that showing up to Boise was going to change the trajectory this late in the game.

But CMLS was persistent, so I called our volunteer leader at the time, whose company have a five-figure agent count and was in more than 100 MLSs - so he had lots of skin in the game and lots of experience dealing with MLSs. I told him CMLS was not taking "no" for an answer, and he said, "Okay, let's agree to this session," - and I'm cleaning up this last part to make it Rated G - "but let's make it very clear how we feel."

I then offered to help him make his travel plans, and he said, "I'm not going. YOU are going." As usual, they send ME out to deliver the tough messages. Just once I'd like to be sent out on a charm offensive. It probably was better for all involved that I was sent, as I was calm and kind - firm, but restrained. At that point, I don't think this group would have wanted an actual broker up on stage.

To be constructive, we provided a very specific list for MLSs to use in reviewing their approach and their offerings and to reference when doing strategic planning or considering new programs or services.

The real call to action was for MLS leaders to meet with their largest brokerage stakeholders, and soon. And you know what, MLS leaders did exactly that. Candid, specific conversations were had. MLS leaders and brokerage leaders actually got to know each other and reach better understandings about each other's missions and priorities. Agreements were reached about MLSs competing with brokers and together they talked about future plans for MLSs. Those brokers who had those conversations felt that "attitude" was gone.

Ten days later, when the largest brokers met in person in Boston, the group decided not to pursue the MLS alternative and instead focus on their two other initiatives.

The prescription for the problem then isn't so different from what I would recommend today. Don't just reach out to your largest stakeholders but build an ongoing partnership relationship with them. Don't think of them as an obligation or nuisance but leverage them in a positive way and they can be your best resource and maybe even your biggest supporter and champion.

You asked about progress. In some MLSs, brokers have seen real progress on the relationship and on the list. In other MLSs, brokers continue to have real frustrations.

You asked about how things are different today. Before this last Monday's big announcement, I was going to say the challenges and threats to MLSs aren't primarily from disgruntled customers as much as from new sources - like 1) the loss of the compensation component because of the lawsuit settlement, 2) from alternative MLSs (tech companies, etc.) which currently are aggressively being pitched to brokers right now, 3) from data becoming more available from non-MLS sources (to agents and consumers), 4) from the re-evaluation of all industry institutions and the whole framework of how our industry develops and enforces policy and practice, 5) from the movement to end the tying of MLS access to Realtor membership and 6) from how the courts and federal regulators have come to feel empowered to intervene in significant ways in our industry. We can't help but think they would love to dictate what MLS looks like going forward, probably just opening it up to the public as a utility.

All that remains true, but after this week's big announcement, I would say disgruntled customers again are an issue for MLS - it's just a different customer now in the mix MLSs should be monitoring and meeting with.

Compass is not part of our group because of their centralized decision making, but Robert Reffkin and I do talk so I might be able to give for him his speech on all his frustrations, but I won't try to do that.

Nothing will change overnight, but I do expect with two major players coming together, and the one with the agenda most threatening to the status quo doing the acquiring, in the next few years much more pressure for change will be applied - to MLSs, to portals and to NAR, as Compass clearly already has "had it" with all three.

So, things are different in many ways today, a dozen years later, yet what remains the same is that MLSs will need to continue to educate the world on what they are and educate the industry on their value and MLSs will need to build and maintain strong relationships with their brokers.

D.E.: The takeaway was more than just go talk to your brokers right away. You provided a long and specific list of things that could cause friction between brokers and their MLSs. If brokers were building such a list today, how similar might it be to the 2013 list?

C.C.: A week or two ago, as I was thinking about this very conversation, I pulled up Gregg Larson's blog post where the list officially was shared. I had to use the "Internet Wayback Machine" to find it. I was surprised at how many of the items still apply today. I think there would be some small additions and deletions, but it's more about how some on the list would have felt more important and urgent for brokers back then and how others feel more important and urgent today. I would love to say we could take several things off that list because those friction points have been removed in all MLSs ... but I can't.

I asked a several people in the industry in the past several days to look at that list from 2013 and tell me their thoughts. All of them thought it still is a very good list. I do believe that brokers would tell you that as important, if not more so, than anything on that list, is reaching out to your brokers and building authentic, partnership, relationships of trust.

But please also address all the issues on the list.

We're working on an updated list but I expect it will be mostly the same content, just more condensed. I would guess that will come out within six months or so. Right now brokers outside The Realty Alliance are contributing to the list, and The Realty Alliance will wrap up the work on the list and then release it.

D.E.: That list (from 2013) had 40 items, plus several more considerations. You say they all remain valid guides for MLSs even a dozen years later. Are there a few categories you could talk about that might be more important in today's world that would be helpful for this audience for you to highlight?

Long answer alert - this is a big question and requires a very long answer, so make yourself comfortable. First, let me say the best answer to this is local, if not hyper local. The challenge in settings like this is that I'm asked to give the equivalent of a national weather forecast. For instance, the weather forecast for all of North America on Sunday was "summer." But the national forecast on Monday was "fall." That's only marginally helpful if you're trying to choose what to wear if you head outside. I'm going to try to be more helpful than that but know that painting with such a broad brush has its limitations.

Ultimately, get with your local brokers and whatever they say trumps anything I say that might be different. Denee, your session promised a candid look -- it's about to get candid -- but we only can be constructive if we get candid ... so don't tune me out if any of this gets a little uncomfortable.

First, one of the more actionable ones that also is one of the most urgent: One of the frustrations back in 2013 that had brokers white hot was when they would ask their MLS for data to which they were entitled, but would encounter all kinds of red tape and extra fees and often would end up being told "no" at the end of the process.

Then these brokers would watch outsiders, non-participant tech companies, seemingly ask for the same thing and, from the broker perspective, the outsiders would sail through the process.

Broker participants should not be at a disadvantage to outsiders when it comes to getting MLS data for legitimate purposes -- and it's still going on -- sometimes because some MLSs just refuse to go to the trouble of supporting their brokers in new ways but perhaps more often it is because the feeds and licenses for data are out of date and incompatible with current use cases that are different than MLSs anticipated decades ago.

Many MLSs still restrict brokers by offering data licenses tied to narrow, outdated use cases. As a result, broker technology teams are forced to stitch together a patchwork of IDX, VOW, and BBO feeds-constantly balancing compliance against long-standing rules that don't reflect today's needs.

What happens? Innovative broker tools built to give agents cutting-edge capabilities never make it to market because they can't be squared with current licensing terms. Instead of being empowered, broker tech ends up hamstrung by the very system that was intended to support them.

Our MLSs need a new tier of licensing-a true set of enterprise options-that both accommodates modern use cases and safeguards the cooperative model. And MLSs need to act right away to figure out ways to say "yes" to broker requests for data that don't fit the old mold. Right now too many essentially are saying "no."

Along those lines, but a bit broader view, several items on the list could be summarized by "prioritize supporting broker success" ... again "prioritize supporting broker success," and some would add through data ... through data ONLY. Expedite feeds, keep the process and cost to a minimum. Work with brokers on learning the formats and use cases that address what brokers need now to keep up with consumer expectations.

Another thing: More and more of my brokers are talking about how, in the future, they would like to see MLSs getting out of the business of setting rules that regulate business practices, and instead the only rules the MLS has are around the utility of data -- getting it into the system correctly (via more than one option), ensuring data accuracy, maintaining compatible data formats, protecting data integrity and ensuring distribution methodology meets current needs.

Yes, brokers are moving away from wanting their MLSs to set rules around how properties are marketed and what kinds of business models and business practices brokerages employ. They want the marketplace and various market cycles and consumer preferences to have more leeway and don't want their MLS deciding everything about how business gets done.

Next, in a tough market like this, you can imagine brokers are more focused on MLS balance sheets and financial models. Whatever your level of reserves is, expect your brokers believe they should be lower - perhaps significantly lower. Brokers have a bad experience with significant MLS and association reserves - too often that money starts to burn a whole in the pocket and the funds get deployed to buy products for their competitors - and right now the brokers need that money for their own cash flow, not sitting in the MLS account.

The same thing with extra capacity with tech staff at MLSs -- eventually they get put to use creating products and services that are not part of the core MLS mission. And, different now than in 2013, with the excesses brokers learned about in headlines about NAR, it's probably time for MLSs to rachet back travel, fancy dinners, retreats and galas or anything that might seem to resemble what earned NAR such negative press.

I'm just sharing what brokers are thinking, don't shoot the messenger! It strikes me how the same words in this audience might garner silence of even groans, but in a broker crowd would be interrupted by cheers and applause. It's just the nature of this kind of task.

Brokers would like their MLSs to move toward revenue share programs, as agents are pressing for 100% "splits" (which technically are not splits if you think about it) while still demanding robust support services (that are not free) from their brokers. Brokers would like MLSs to revisit their fee structures and perhaps adapt to current market practices - what about providing financial incentives for those brokers who contribute more data to the system, which makes the whole MLS more valuable for all participants? There are other creative ways to charge that brokers want their MLSs to consider.

And what about those who don't contribute listings? Should they be handled differently for fairness' sake?

Portals get a lot of headlines but serve as the source of a whole lot less business than they would have you believe. And with the significant growth in their market power since 2013, we all are seeing what we might even call abuses on their part. First, if your MLS is contemplating working some kind of deal with one of these outside portals, please pause and consider how your brokers would feel about that.

We've already skewed and harmed our industry with how some of these portals work. Think long term about the good of the industry, the good of brokers, the good of agents and ultimately the good of consumers.

Along those lines, think about if MLSs and brokers came together to build an additional option in the marketplace -- for the good of consumers and brokers and agents. Let's call it the Broker Public Portal - or even cribio. Do you think your brokers would want you to support that project? Do you think your brokers invested time and money to build it, only for your MLS to find an excuse not to participate?

Remember, brokers did not support public-facing websites being authorized as a "core" MLS service, but since that accidentally slipped through into NAR MLS policy, if the MLS hosts a public-facing listing advertising site, brokers expect that the BPP will power it.

Follow the trajectory of our industry if this alternative is not introduced as an additional option -- brokers do not like where that leads. You as MLS leaders have the opportunity to bring more competition to the portal space that only will improve the choices for consumers and agents and brokers.

Please let us as an industry once again shoot ourselves in the foot by not seizing this opportunity. It is likely your participants before long would tell you the monthly cost is some of the best money they spend.

Governance is the category on the list that is most important and can bring about the most positive progress in your relationships with your brokers - and yet it is the most difficult to change. But all the factors at play in our industry right now compel all of us to make significant progress.

Recurring themes include working to fill your boards primarily, not exclusively, with brokerage leaders, not agents. Craft board representation to match market participation - those firms who consistently supply the most listings should get proportional voting power. MLS leaders, now more than ever, should be exercising "informal governance" to supplement their official channels - I've suggested that CMLS develop a training module on ways to do that.

Brokers support consolidation in many instances, but if they feel powerless already in your MLS, forgive them for not being enthusiastic about mergers that further dilute their voice. Most of all, brokers are increasingly hungry for equity - an ownership stake - which MLS alternatives out there are offering them.

Most difficult of all ... just a reminder that brokers are more passionate today than they were a dozen years ago about separating MLS ownership and governance from boards and associations.

With broker budgets so tight these days, they probably are even more vigorous in their belief that MLSs should not be bundling products in their fees that brokers buy themselves. Showing services and a short list of other things that only work if most of the market utilizes them are the exception.

Brokers don't like paying for a product or service themselves, only to have the MLS buy a competing product for them and their competitors with their fees. And sometimes the horse the MLS bets on ends up coming up lame and the market is stuck paying for an inferior product for the life of the contract with the MLS.

MLS-purchased products and services for everyone also kill all brokers' ability to differentiate themselves from their competition. And we all know utilization rates on MLS-wide purchases of products and services is very low, anyway.

Brokers really want the MLS to "just" be an MLS. As we were reminded about with Cracker Barrel, often your customers don't want you to branch out from the original purpose, they don't want new products and services, they don't want you to be "more than an MLS." In most cases brokers want you to deliver your core mission, and nothing more, behind the scenes.

Brokers are wondering aloud about participation in ways they wouldn't have 12 years ago. First, the requirement for Realtor membership might not have been on the 2013 list, but I expect it will be on the new one - and by that I mean brokers will say MLS participation should not be contingent upon Realtor membership - and I expect brokers will reiterate that they believe MLSs should not be subsidizing local boards.

Another new thought recently is that MLSs should review whether referral-only brokerages should have different rights and privileges within the MLS B2B network.

So, the biggest friction points from 2013 are still here in 2025: 1) the need for MLSs to get data to brokers in the format they need and without red tape, 2) the need for MLSs to reexamine their reserves and their funding models, and 3) the need for MLSs to revise governance to better serve brokers (and ownership, too, if they can).

D.E.: Aside from the specific items on that list, and perhaps the updated list brokers are working on, is there a general approach or posture you would advise MLSs to take in the coming months in terms of their relationships with their brokers?

C.C.: The original list is an excellent guide for MLSs that are doing self-evaluations, doing strategic planning, or considering new products. But since it's so detailed, it's also useful to step back and look at the MLS's overall approach.

Our members use tough markets to refine their business, often by asking, "How easy is it to do business with me?" Re-evaluating all their systems, communications and interactions from the consumer's perspective helps them identify ways to improve the entire client experience.

MLSs can take the same approach and get a clear benchmark by asking participants: "Does it feel like the MLS works for you-or does your MLS make you feel like you work for them?" The answer reveals how your MLS is viewed by brokers and gives you a clearer sense of what needs to be done with your stakeholders.

I will say that my brokers who are happiest with their MLSs report that they feel like the MLS works every day to support their success. My brokers who are the most frustrated with their MLSs say their MLSs treats them like the participants work for the MLS.

Do brokers have an opinion on how MLS policy should be shaped in the future? We have been watching what looks like NAR handing off more and more of policy decision making and policy enforcement to the local MLS.

We wonder if NAR is starting down a path to getting out of policy development altogether, not just interpretation, decision-making and enforcement. We've actually given NAR permission to get out of the MLS policy business. Think about it, they basically haven't received a penny of dues from any MLS in more than 100 years, yet they'll pay something approaching a billion dollars in settlements and legal fees because of MLS policy by the time this is over.

And let's not imagine that we've actually had national MLS policy in place ever. The trick is, the more local MLS policy setting gets, the more inconsistent it gets. Several of our brokers had real issues with significantly different settlement compliance policies in adjacent MLSs when the deadline arrived, which caused those brokers significant problems.

Brokers are open to moving some aspects of MLS-related practice to state regulators. As scary as that might sound, it certainly is preferred over our industry being relegated by lawsuit settlement agreement and a random judge in Missouri, but we know the key components need to be managed at the MLS level.

It isn't going to be easy, but we're probably going to need to think in terms of regional markets that make sense - natural service areas - and develop frameworks to coordinate policy on that level. We do believe there should be an active conversation going on at the national level, and the coordination of best practices at a national level. We're hopeful the MLS community will facilitate that but ensuring that the brokerage perspective is a vital part of that work.

Bottom line, we are open to a new venue for the development of MLS policies and best practices - for some existing organization to be designated or a new one to be created to facilitate that in the future. And we don't want it to be a "black box," as it too often seems these days, but something transparent and inclusive.

Anything else you'd like to share while you're here on stage?

Before you go -- it was great from 2006 to 2013 to work with Ann Bailey but I want to say in front of this group Denee that I truly have enjoyed working with you since 2014. I've lost track of how many phone calls we've had and face-to-face meetings we've had and how many e-mails we've sent -- all of them "conspiring" together for the good of the MLS concept in its support of brokers. Thank you.

And to everyone here, thank you for the work you do. Know that we may have to do some things in the next few months and years that are unlike what we've ever done in the past. But if you align your success with the success of your brokerages, you will lead your MLS to a better place. The future of MLS is largely on your shoulders. Look at that as a fantastic opportunity, but also a huge call to bold action.