1000watt Blog

Writings about real estate, branding, marketing, media and technology from the principals of 1000watt.

Friday Flash: Thoughts on the CAR forms issue

The California Association of Realtors is in a public fight over the transaction forms it produces – or, more pointedly, the forms software it produces.

Inman has covered this well. So read those stories if you haven’t done so. They quoted me in their first piece, but I’d like to share how I see this more broadly here. Because while it seems like a small thing, how it shakes out is really important for brokers, agents, software innovators and ultimately consumers.

The issue in a nutshell:

CAR creates and updates transaction forms. This is immensely valuable. A standard set of forms used by the vast majority of practitioners produces efficiencies and confidence that would otherwise not exist. Members get a license to these forms when they pay their dues.

The sticky part is that CAR brings those forms to market wrapped in a software product, ZipForm, that it produces through REBS, its for-profit subsidiary. Some CAR members like ZipForm. Some don’t. But CAR mandates its forms may only be used within its software.

Herein lies the dispute.

dotloop, a real estate software player with lots of users in California, is challenging this. CAR is countering with arguments about security, privacy and indemnity – important things, of course.

But the CAR argument falls apart logically in a lot of ways.

Take one really obvious example: there is a “Print” button in the ZipForm software. Any Realtor can transform bytes into paper at any time. And a lot of them do. They put these printed forms on desks, in the back seats of cars, in the mail, through fax machines and into office recycling bins.

And in some cases, Realtors write on them, amend them and initial them with pens.

Ghastly, yes. But I don’t think CAR is going to ban paper. So why effectively ban other – and, indeed, much more secure – ways of working with the forms?

What I’d like to see is a way to let the forms and legal people (CAR) do what they do best and let the software people (in this case, dotloop) do what they do best. That means working together to integrate and update forms within software platforms that meet stringent legal, security and privacy requirements.

CAR, through REBS, could continue to make money. Just differently. And I guess part of what I’m saying here is that the REBS business model is perhaps outdated.

It’s 2013, not 2002. Software is eating the world. And the options available to Realtors have never been better. They should be free to choose what works best for their business, not their association’s business.

I spoke with a California broker today, and asked him about this issue. His blunt take crystallized things in my mind:

ZipForm sucks, and it costs me money to deal with it. But it’s my job to keep the DRE off our ass and not get sued. I have to have secure, updated forms.  

Security and choice are not mutually exclusive. Both are important. Both can and should be delivered to brokers.

Larger implications

If you’ve read what we write here for any length of time, you’ve probably gathered that we think Realtor associations getting into the software business is a bad thing.

It’s a fundamentally misaligned arrangement, even through a for-profit subsidiary. The ingredients necessary for a software company – agility, a capacity for recruiting top talent, acute sensitivity to market and competitive pressures – are just not in the association pantry.

So, yes, we think NAR starting a national online property database (RPR) was a bad move. And we think CAR bringing its forms to market exclusively through its own software is too.

And of course, MLSs getting into technology is its own can of worms.

To keep this business moving forward, everyone needs to be doing what they do best.

Get our posts - plus Spotlight
our weekly email exclusive - via email

No spam. For real.

6 Responses to “Friday Flash: Thoughts on the CAR forms issue”

  1. ryan says:

    Great stuff as always. I too have been following along with the dispute.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. MLS should focus on the MLS, boards focus on boards, etc.. Quit trying to be everything for your members.

    Boards claim they are trying to “protect” themselves and their members. In reality, they are doing just to opposite. They are doing nothing but pushing people away.

    The majority of agents and brokers I speak with are members of baords and MLS’s because the have to, not because they want to.

    Here is a novel idea….. Boards and MLS’s focus on making me want to be a member.

  2. Terkel Sorensen says:

    If the association’s focused on making us want to be members, this would be s greater place.

    From an IP point of view, dotloop can’t just use CAR forms.
    That said, Zipforms are so bad that they have integrated docusign for signatures.
    The apparently common issue of missing signatures, it’s it’s own can of worms and make the software useless.

    If dotloop has a better solution, it would make sense to have them provide a service to the membership…

    But we’re stuck in a bureaucracy that is working for it’s own good, not necessarily those footing the bill.

  3. Mark Thomas says:

    Spot on post Brian. We’re going to eventually allow for agents to create/fill out forms directly within Reesio as well, and it’s ridiculous the stance that CAR has taken on this issue.

    The conflict of interest is clearly egregious. And as you mentioned, CAR/Ziplogix doesn’t understand the first thing about creating beautiful, functional software. Excited for the day when this finally changes (which it will).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>