WAV Group 2004 MLS Tech Survey Report

2004 MLS Technology Survey
Summary Report
WAV Group
September 21, 2004
Contact Information:
Mike Audet
Office: 716-839-4628
Cell: 716-984-9009
mike@wavgroup.com
www.wavgroup.com
WAV Group 2004 MLS Technology Survey 9/22/2004
On behalf of WAV Group I want to thank you for participating in our first annual MLS Technology
Survey. We had a total of 208 respondents representing 164 different MLSs from around the
country.Asy ou’llse
eint heresults, we also had a great distribution of respondents from the
smallest to largest MLSs. Thank you again for taking the time to give us your feedback.
We are pleased to provide you with this summary report of the results that you are free to use within
your MLS. We encourage you to share this information with your leadership. Unauthorized
distribution for any other purpose is prohibited.
 The ratings summarized in this report are the opinions of the individual respondents to our
survey.
 The summary contained in this report is based on information provided by each individual
respondent. No mention or information on these pages should be interpreted as
endorsement of any MLS vendor or software by WAV Group.
 MLS technology is constantly changing. While we have tried to make the information
presented in this summary accurate, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or
currency of this information. We assume no responsibility for any direct or indirect
consequences of using the information or opinions provided here. Users are urged to verify
all information directly with the MLS vendors or developers before committing themselves
to license or purchase any MLS software.
When you are ready to evaluate and decide on new technology for your MLS please contact us at
WAV Group. We will be pleased to provide you with a full list of our services and pricing based
on your unique MLS needs.
Thank you again, we hope you enjoy the report.
Warm regards,
Michael Audet
Partner
This document contains confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient and the internal use of the
r
eci
pient’sMLSleader ship.Anyr evi
ew ordi st
ribut
ionbyot her sisstrictlypr ohibit
ed.I f you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies.
WAV Group 2004 MLS Technology Survey

Overview
WAV Group has just completed our 2004 MLS Technology survey and the response has been outstanding.
We want to thank each of you that took the time to respond and it is our pleasure to provide this summary
report for your review. Our technology survey will be repeated each year and we are very excited to have
such a significant response to benchmark the beginning of this annual event.
Who participated?
208 leaders responded from 164 separate MLSs. As you can see from the graphs below we had excellent
representation from all market segments and all of the major MLS vendors.
Respondents by MLS Size
>500
500-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10,000
>10,000
Total responses for each vendor

Other
In-house Sy stem
None
Stratus
Solid Earth
SEI
Realgo
Rapattoni
Quest
ProMatch
Offutt
Marketlinx
Interealty
FNIS
FBS
ARIS
AMS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
Some Highlights! What did we learn?

There was a wealth of great information in the survey results. We have included many of the results from the
specific questions in the details that follow but here are some of the highlights!
Most respondents were happy with their MLS technology overall!

Overall, most of respondents appear reasonably happy with their vendors with about 60% indicating they will
likely renew with their current vendor.
How the MLS vendors ranked!

Boutique vendors Realgo and Stratus received the highest ratings from their customers though we need to
note their limited number of accounts. Rapattoni led the pack in the overall vendor rating for the large MLS
vendors. Of the large MLS vendors, Rapattoni, Solid Earth, and Interealty received the highest customer
ratings. Of the vendors serving small to medium sized MLSs, FBS and Offutt received the highest ratings.
One of the more interesting things we observed from the survey was the fact that In-house systems scored
basically in the middle of the pack in terms of their overall rating.
What MLS features are weakest across the board?

The MLS features that were rated the weakest overall across all MLS systems were:
 CMA
 Statistical reporting
 Contact Management
 Tax functions
 Report writers
Are many MLSs ready to switch vendors?

Probably not! About 60% of the MLSs indicate they will likely stay with their current vendor.
What about in-house development? Do more MLSs really want to build their own system?
A number of interesting points can be drawn from the survey regarding In-house systems. Based on the
rating of their own systems they don’ t rate them as highly as users rate the “off-the-shel
f”sy st
ems.One
possible conclusion is that they are willing to forgo some of the bells and whistles available on ready made
systems for the other benefits they believe they realize by doing things in-house.I tisn’
tcostandi tisn’
t
functionality, in our opinion. It appears to be primarily an issue of control. In the survey, 10 MLSs, who
cur rentl
yuse“ of ft
heshel f
”sy stems,indi catedthey are seriously considering building their own MLS system
nextt imear ound.Thi sdoesn’ tbodewel lforourMLS vendors who have been facing a shrinking technology
market for a number of years.
Is Transaction Management really going to happen someday?

Theansweri s…may be!12MLSsi ndicat edtheyplant oi mpl ement a Transaction Management solution over
the next 24 months. 19 said they plan to do something in the next 12 months. 34MLSssayt heywon’ t
implement Transaction Management while another 132 respondents said they are undecided.
Data licensing for non-traditional products

This still remains a very controversial issue in our industry. While not every respondent chose to answer
this question 172 that did were either against data licensing or undecided while only 15 indicated they plan to
license data for non-traditional uses.
Crystal Ball Time? What are the big changes you all see coming to our industry in the future?
The answers to this question were, as you can imagine, all over the map! There were some recurring
answers though and others worth mentioning. Here are a few of the notables!
 More consumer focused systems/more public inclusiveness

 Transaction Management (quite a few listed this one)
 Changes to the authorized use of MLS data
 Large broker impact on MLSs
 Increased focus on data security and data monitoring
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
 Continued growth of FSBO/discount MLS sites

 Mega stores like Wal-Mart enter the MLS world
 Wireless goes mainstream like the fax machine
 Expanded integration with GIS capabilities in all products and devices
 More in-house development at DB level with integration to multiple products
 Expansion of regional MLSs to super regional MLSs
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
Survey Details
In our survey we asked respondents to rate their vendors in several different areas including general
satisfaction, ease of use, responsiveness and system features. One reason to do this is, of course, to get
specific likes and dislikes. Using several responses from both broad“ usersat i
sfaction”tomor especi f
ic
sy st
em andv endorquest ionsalsopr ovidesamor er eliabl
e“over all
rat ing”. Our“ ov erallrati
ng”isa
combination of direct questions on vendor and system satisfaction combined with specific feature and
service questions. Here are the results!
Overall Vendor Rating
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
m
x
ty
th
ni
S
o
IS
IS
se fut t
s
er
S
EI
st
tlin
te
lg
al
tu
to
M
ar
FB
ue
FN
AR
th
S
re
ys
ea
ra
at
A
ke
E
Q
te
ap
St
S
R
id
ar
In
ol
R
M
S
ou
-h
In
* Low number of responses
Some important notes:

The two top rated vendors in our survey, Realgo and Stratus, ar ewhatweconsi der“ boutique”v endor s.
Boutique vendors serve a small client base and in many ways provide the type of service and systems that
you might equate to an in-house system. Due to their limited accounts they can provide services and
customization not typically available with the vendor serving many MLSs. Realgo currently has one
customer, IRES, a Colorado regional system with about 5,000 users and Stratus has 2 customers, Toronto
and Long Island with 22,000 and 19,000 users respectively. Congratulations to Realgo and Stratus for the
outstanding ratings given to them by their customers!
While the results are valid for these boutique vendors, since all of their MLS customers responded, they
should not be compared on an“ applestoappl es”basiswi ththeot hermaj orvendors serving many MLS
customers. These vendors are not edbel owinor deroft heir“Over allVendorRat i
ng”.
Advanced Marketing Services (AMS), ARIS, Quest and ProMatch had less than 3 responses in the survey.
We have included all but ProMatch who had 0 responses but the low number of respondents needs to be
considered when looking at the results.
Major MLS Vendor Ratings

If we take away Realgo and Stratus and look at the rest of the field here is how the vendors stacked up in the
“Ov erallRating”
. Congratulations to Rapattoni for having the highest overall rating in this group.
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
1. Rapattoni
2. Solid Earth
3. FBS
4. Interealty
5. Offutt
6. In-house
7. Other
8. ARIS
9. Marketlinx
10. FNIS
11. SEI
12. Quest
13. AMS
Important Note
Because this is a blended rating, combining multiple questions that included both a 7 point and 5 point rating,
this is a relative ranking only.
Vendor Satisfaction Questions
The following charts show the results of two specific questions where the respondent was asked directly to
rate their vendor. The first question had 7 possible choices as follows
Strongly Agree 7
Agree 6
Somewhat Agree 5
Neutral 4
Somewhat Disagree 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
Overall, our members are happy with our MLS system and vendor
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
ty
x
ni
em
S
IS
rth
IS
o
tt
I
er
s
st
SE
tlin
lg
al
tu
ffu
AM
to
FB
ue
FN
AR
th
Ea
st
ea
ho tere
ra
at
ke
O
Q
Sy
St
ap
R
l id
ar
In
R
M
So
us
-
In
Note: As you can see in the chart, only one vendor had a below neutral rating and their results are not
statistically valid due to a low number of responses. Overall, when answering this question most customers
seemed relatively happy with their MLS system and vendor.
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
The following question rating overall satisfaction with a vendor and their system used a 5 point rating as
follows:
Excellent 5
Good 4
OK 3
Poor 2
Very Poor 1
The actual statement in the survey was:
We would rate our overall satisfaction with our vendor and MLS system as
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
m
x
ty
ni
rth
*
IS
S *
o
tt
s
er
*
I
lid S
tlin
SE
te
al
lg
tu
S
se IS
ffu
to
st
FB
FN
th
Ea
AM
re
ea
ys
tra
at
ue
ke
AR
O
O
te
ap
R
ar
Q
In
R
M
So
ou
-h
In
 Low number of responses
Upgrades/Service/Responsiveness
The next chart is a blended result combining the ratings from the following 3 questions.
Our MLS vendor provides regular upgrades to the MLS system that keep it current.
Our vendor is responsive to our service needs. When there is a problem they respond quickly to
solve the problem.
Our MLS vendor is responsive to our suggestions for system improvements.
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
Upgrades/Support/Responsiveness
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
em
x
se alty
ni
rth
S
IS
o
IS
tt
s
er
I
S
st
tlin
SE
lg
tu
ffu
to
AM
FB
ue
FN
AR
th
Ea
st
re
ea
ra
at
ke
O
O
Sy
Q
te
St
ap
R
id
ar
In
ol
R
M
S
ou
-h
In
MLS System Features
The next chart shows the results from the ratings for each MLS system feature. In the first chart the results
have been totaled and averaged for each vendor. This question had a 7 point scale as follows:
Excellent 7
Very Good 6
Good 5
OK 4
Poor 3
Very Poor 2
Terrible 1
The actual survey statement was:
Please review the list below and select your rating for each particular MLS system feature or function
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
m
nx
ty
th
ni
S
IS
o
IS
tt
s
er
st
S
SE
te
al
lg
tu
to
ffu
AM
ar
FB
tli
ue
FN
R
ou Oth
re
ys
ea
tra
at
ke
E
A
O
Q
te
ap
S
R
id
S
ar
In
se
ol
R
M
S
-h
In
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
The following chart takes a different look at the data we obtained in the features section. In this chart we
have shown the overall ratings from respondents for each system feature. This is a blend of all respondents
and all vendors.
System Feature Rating
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
er
n
gt
ng
e.
ng
t
gt
ts
y
l
x
A
ee
I
ar
ai
U
M
ilit
rit
Ta
tic
us
M
ec
M
hi
pi
Le
sh
tW
ib
tis
rc
sp
ap
ct
g
E
of
ex
ot
in
ta
ea
to
ta
M
ro
or
e
st
Fl
on
S
S
as
y
ep
P
Li
as
C
E
R
E
What this is showing us is that, in general, the functions from the middle of the graph to the left have been
rated as “
Good”to “ Very Good” , while those to the right of middle ar
einthe“ OK”t o“Good”r ange.Sowhat
do our vendors need to do better on a general basis?
 CMA
 Statistics
 Contact Management
 Tax
 Report Writers
MLS Feature Rating by Vendor
The chart on the next page, shows the results of the the same statement:
Please review the list below and select your rating for each particular MLS system feature or function
In this chart, though, the results are shown vendor by vendor for each feature rated using the following scale:
Excellent 7
Very Good 6
Good 5
OK 4
Poor 3
Very Poor 2
Terrible 1
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
MLS Vendor Feature Rating
8.00
AMS
7.00
ARIS
6.00 FBS
FNIS
5.00
Interealty
4.00 Marketlinx
Offutt
3.00
Quest
2.00 Rapattoni
1.00 Realgo
SEI
0.00
Solid Earth
ce
ng
er
gt
y
e.
gt
t
ng
ts
ng
x
l
ee
A
ai
Stratus
ilit
tic
Ta
M
us
fa
rit
ec
M
ni
hi
pi
sh
ib
tis
tW
er
ar
C
rc
ct
sp
g
ap
E
of
ex
nt
In-house System
ot
Le
in
ta
ta
ea
ro
M
or
e
Fl
H
st
rI
S
on
as
P
of
ep
Li
se
Other
C
E
e
R
U
as
E
Other Survey Questions:
rd
Does your system integrate with a 3 party Internet Tax product?
Yes 24%
No 46.6%
Not sure 29.3%
Wehaveconf
idencei
nourMLSvendor
’smanagementt
eam.
Strongly Disagree 2.4%

Disagree 2.9%
Somewhat Disagree` 9.6%
Neutral 5.3%
Somewhat Agree 8.2%
Agree 34.6%
Strongly Agree 33.7%
N/A In-house System 3.4%
We are comfortable that the owner of our MLS vendor is committed to the MLS industry for the long
term.
The great majority of respondents felt their vendors were committed to the industry.

Disagree 2.4%
Somewhat Disagree` 2.4%
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
Neutral 9.6%
Somewhat Agree 7.2%
Agree 32.2%
N/A In-house System 4.3%
We will likely renew with our MLS vendor at the end of our current contract?
About 35% of the respondents were either negative or neutral to renewing with their current vendor. Almost
60% said they will likely renew with their current vendor.

Disagree 2.9%
Somewhat Agree 4.3%
Neutral 17.8%
Somewhat Agree 6.2%
Agree 26%
N/A –in-house system 4.8%
If you currently have an in-house system would you ever consider using a traditional MLS vendor
system?
Yes 21.3%
No 24.6%
Not Sure 54.1%
We are seriously considering building our next MLS system in-house.
Yes 14
No 159
N/A 11
The yes counts actually represent 10 individual MLSs.
We currently provide wireless access to our MLS data, via Palm, Pocket PC or Blackberry devices.
Yes 57.2%
No 42.8%
Our MLS plans to implement a Transaction Management solution for our members in the future.
Yes –in the next 12 months 19

Yes –in the next 24 months 12
No 34
Undecided 132
Already have it 11
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut
We plan to license MLS data for non-traditional products in the near future.
Yes 15
No 85
Undecided 87
r
eci
ew ordi st
ribut

WAV Group 2004 MLS Tech Survey Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WAV Group 2004 MLS Tech Survey Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2004 MLS Technology Survey

Thank you again, we hope you enjoy the report.

WAV Group 2004 MLS Technology Survey

Respondents by MLS Size

Total responses for each vendor

Some Highlights! What did we learn?

Most respondents were happy with their MLS technology overall!

How the MLS vendors ranked!

What MLS features are weakest across the board?

Are many MLSs ready to switch vendors?

Is Transaction Management really going to happen someday?

Data licensing for non-traditional products

 More consumer focused systems/more public inclusiveness

 Continued growth of FSBO/discount MLS sites

Overall Vendor Rating

* Low number of responses

Some important notes:

Major MLS Vendor Ratings

Vendor Satisfaction Questions

* Low number of responses

The actual statement in the survey was:

 Low number of responses

Our MLS vendor is responsive to our suggestions for system improvements.

MLS System Features

The actual survey statement was:

* Low number of responses

System Feature Rating

MLS Feature Rating by Vendor

MLS Vendor Feature Rating

Other Survey Questions:

Strongly Disagree 2.4%

Strongly Disagree 1.4%

Strongly Disagree 4.8%

We are seriously considering building our next MLS system in-house.

The yes counts actually represent 10 individual MLSs.

Yes –in the next 12 months 19

You might also like