H5game8

Maybe the MLS isn’t perfect, broker Dennis Norman writes, but it’s still the only tool we have that puts listings in front of everyone, not just the ones invited behind the curtain.

Inman Connect

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

It’s hard not to find Dezireh Eyn’s recent Inman piece about private listings and the Compass-Anywhere merger both timely and thought-provoking. She makes solid points about transparency, the illusion of choice, and what happens when “private” stops being a niche option and starts becoming the default.

Her take that “freedom is the ability to decide whether to list publicly or privately” but that true “choice is informed” hits especially well in today’s environment.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY

But as I was reading, it got me thinking. The MLS versus private network debate tends to center around the idea that the goal is always maximum exposure for maximum price. And for the average home in the average market, that probably still holds up. More eyeballs generally lead to more offers, and that usually translates into more money.

Still, I’m not sure that equation applies as cleanly across the board as we like to think.

There are plenty of high-value assets that sell for top dollar precisely because they don’t get mass exposure. Rare Ferraris, vintage wine collections, fine art, championship horses, luxury watches: Those deals often happen behind the scenes.

Quiet conversations, introductions through trusted channels, vetted buyers only. Not because the seller doesn’t care about price, but because in certain circles, scarcity and privacy aren’t just features, they’re part of the value.

Now, I’m not saying your average three-bed, two-bath Colonial in the suburbs needs to be marketed like a rare Ferrari. That would be ridiculous. But the idea that only public exposure brings top dollar … maybe it’s not as universally true as we’ve always assumed. Maybe the seller’s definition of a successful outcome is more complex than “I want the most people to see it.”

Luxury’s ‘off-market, relationship-driven model’

Some private real estate firms have tried to mirror that off-market, relationship-driven model. They’ve built platforms where listings are shared within curated agent networks, allowing for quiet marketing and selective exposure. The pitch is simple: If you control who sees the property, maybe you control the narrative … and potentially the outcome.

And to be fair, there are cases where this does work. Certain buyers value being first in line or getting access to homes no one else knows about. It creates urgency. Sometimes, exclusivity does drive demand. That’s true in other markets, and we shouldn’t assume real estate is immune to it.

But here’s the rub: That only works if the network stays truly private. Once it grows too large or becomes the default setting inside a massive brokerage, the whole idea starts to break down. When a private network has so many agents, offices, and listings that it starts to operate like a parallel MLS … is it still private? Or has it just created a different kind of gatekeeping?

This is where Eyn’s point about defaults really resonates. When a seller is presented with the “option” to go off-market, but the agent, brokerage, and entire system around them gently nudges that direction, is that truly a free choice? Or is it just the path of least resistance in a system designed to capture both sides of the deal?

We’ve seen this kind of thing play out before in other areas of the industry. Dual agency, for example, often sounds harmless to consumers until something goes sideways. Then they start asking who really represented them. Private networks could fall into a similar pattern. Everything seems fine … until a seller realizes their property never really got exposed to the full market. At that point, it’s too late.

That brings me to another important point: certainty. As Eyn wrote, “For the vast majority of sellers, the goal is not secrecy. It is certainty.” They want to know that the market, not a curated slice of it, determined the value. They want to trust that if a better buyer existed, they would have seen the property. That’s hard to offer when access is limited, even unintentionally.

And I’ll be honest, this topic raises more questions than answers. I’m not anti-private networks. I’m not even sure I’m anti-consolidation. But I do think we have to be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs and stop assuming every seller fits the same mold.

It’s also worth asking who benefits most when listings are kept inside a private system. Is it the seller? Is it the agent? Or is it the company that can now capture both sides of the transaction while avoiding competition?

In a world where commissions are under more scrutiny than ever, and the DOJ is already pushing hard on transparency and compensation structures, this feels like a conversation worth having sooner rather than later.

One of the biggest risks is that we don’t even realize the shift is happening. When private listings are rare and selective, they feel intentional. But if more and more listings end up funneled into internal networks as a matter of policy, habit, or incentive, well, then we’ve got a structural shift disguised as strategy. And those are a lot harder to unwind.

So, where do we go from here?

For me, it comes back to the idea of true informed consent. Sellers can absolutely choose privacy, but they should understand what they might be giving up in exchange. Agents can offer exclusivity, but they need to be transparent about what that means for exposure.

Brokerages can build internal networks, but they need to be ready to answer hard questions about who really has access and whether sellers are being served or just steered.

At the end of the day, maybe the MLS isn’t perfect. Maybe it’s clunky, and maybe it’s overdue for innovation. But it’s still the only tool we have that puts listings in front of everyone, not just the ones invited behind the curtain.

That alone makes it worth defending, or at least seriously rethinking what we’re replacing it with.

I’ll leave you with this: If every high-end car dealer in the country stopped listing their inventory online and only offered it to their own VIP customers, would you still believe you were seeing all the best deals? Or would you start to wonder what you’re missing?

That’s the question I think sellers will eventually start asking. And when they do, I hope we’ve got good answers.

Dennis Norman is the broker-owner of MORE, REALTORS and the chairman of the board for MARIS in St. Louis, Missouri. Connect with him on Facebook or Twitter.

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