5th Annual Internet MLS Customer Satisfaction Survey
By Clareity Consultingwww.callclareity.com
The report is also available for download in Adobe Acrobat format (PDF).
You must have Adobe's Free Acrobat Reader software to view the document.
Introduction
In January and February of 2006, Clareity Consulting conducted its fifth annual survey of America’s leading Multiple Listing Services. The purpose of the study was to learn more about MLS customer satisfaction, system performance, and vendor responsiveness. This survey was designed as a follow up to Clareity’s previous Internet MLS Customer Satisfaction surveys and summarizes how well MLS Executives rated their vendor’s performance during 2005. This year, a record 197 MLSs completed the survey, representing 726,988 subscribers. Several MLS vendors encouraged their customers to respond to this year’s survey and we thank those vendors for their cooperation. Clareity also thanks each of the MLSs that participated.
Executive Summary
The following MLS software vendors had enough responses where they are the primary MLS vendor to be included in the primary vendor survey results.
|
Primary MLS Vendor |
Responses Per Vendor |
Smallest Respondent Size (Subscribers) |
Largest Respondent Size (Subscribers) |
Average Respondent Size (Subscribers) |
|
Tarasoft |
4 |
5,800 |
58,000 |
27,950 |
|
Stratus |
2* |
24,500 |
25,000 |
24,750 |
|
Marketlinx (First American) |
15 |
450 |
35,000 |
12,327 |
|
Rapattoni |
15 |
485 |
24,897 |
4,300 |
|
Interealty (First American) |
31 |
150 |
28,000 |
4,173 |
|
Solid Earth |
16 |
809 |
11,000 |
2,829 |
|
Fidelity MLS |
54 |
63 |
11,500 |
1,361 |
|
Offutt Systems |
28 |
110 |
4,000 |
1,359 |
|
Technology Concepts |
4 |
263 |
1,250 |
545 |
|
FBS |
22 |
130 |
7,900 |
539 |
* Stratus has two large MLS customers where it is the primary vendor and both responded.
The following MLS vendors received only one response as the primary MLS vendor, so they are not included in the sections pertaining to primary MLS vendors: ARIS, Coherent, dynaConnections, EZList, and ProMatch. A few other known vendors received no responses.
As one can see in the chart above, some vendors serve primarily large markets, others only serve small and medium markets, and a few service a wide variety of market sizes. But there are other differentiators as well - for example, some vendors will make reasonable system changes quickly on request, while others make their customers wait weeks or months for changes, and some vendors allow the MLS staff themselves to make certain changes to the MLS system. Another differentiator is that some vendors provide end-user customer support, and others do not.
The point is that there are many factors to consider in evaluating and selecting a MLS vendor that is best for your organization. Every year Clareity leads a number of MLSs though a structured vendor and software selection process. We typically determine and prioritize member needs via online surveys (and sometimes add focus groups). This provides information that helps the selection task force better evaluate which vendors might best meet those needs. The information garnered from surveys and/or focus groups also provides feature and function priorities and a better, more localized foundation for a request for proposal (RFP) and competitive bid. Clareity then provides an ‘apple-to-apples’ analysis of the RFPs where vendor capabilities are measured against member needs, system demonstrations, hands-on testing, and other processes designed to ensure the best system and vendor selection is made by each MLS. Clareity’s Annual MLS Satisfaction Survey is one valuable source of input when evaluating a vendor’s service and system capabilities, but we encourage all groups to do their due diligence, whether they choose to use a consultant or not.
Because of the complexity of MLS vendor ranking due to the many attributes we measure in this annual survey, Clareity is taking a different approach to reporting the survey results this year. In the past, Clareity had ranked the vendors in a list, ranging from highest satisfaction to lowest satisfaction for each question. Unfortunately, Clareity learned that our readers, including vendors, were taking the ratings out of context when presented in that format. For example, one must recognize that it is easier for a vendor serving only a few customers to focus on them and please them. Also, larger MLS markets demand more from their vendor and have historically been more difficult to satisfy than smaller MLSs. We had heard that a few MLSs that were seeking a new system only invited Clareity’s ‘top 4 or 5 ranked vendors’ to participate in their selection process – regardless of whether those vendors had the capability to serve their specific needs. Recognizing this issue, and that another MLS consultant began imitating the Clareity survey and exacerbating the issue, this year Clareity is doing away with the top to bottom ranking lists and presenting each vendor and their ratings separately, with more context. We believe this new format will provide the reader more detailed and accurate information to help them evaluate the vendors.
Before moving on to the individual ratings, here are a few interesting statistics from this year’s respondents:
- 89% of MLS respondents have the MLS vendor host the system
- 92% of respondent MLS systems are association owned, 6% broker / privately owned, and the remainder a combination of the two.
- 42% measure subscriber satisfaction with their own surveys
The following table illustrates the results of those subscriber surveys in 2005, and shows an increase in end-user satisfaction:
|
Total Responses - 82 |
41.84% |
|
Greatly improve - 29 |
|
|
Somewhat improve - 28 |
|
|
Remain the same - 19 |
|
|
Somewhat decrease - 3 |
|
|
Greatly decrease - 3 |
|
35.37%
Overall, the industry is satisfied with their MLS vendors:
|
Total Responses - 193 |
98.47% |
|
Excellent – 108 |
|
|
Good - 60 |
|
|
Acceptable - 19 |
|
|
Poor - 6 |
|
As in the past, Clareity hopes that MLS executives, selection committee members, and MLS vendors alike find this report valuable.
Survey Results
Tarasoft
Tarasoft serves several large regional MLS customers as a web-based front end system and has recently become the primary system vendor for several more MLS organizations. Tarasoft is one the fastest growing MLS software companies and now serves over 100,000 subscribers. Of the four respondents, three of the customers have Tarasoft host the system, while one hosts it themselves. All Tarasoft customers indicated that satisfaction has "somewhat improved" over the past year, and that the biggest noted improvement this year has been free mobile device support. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Tarasoft:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
50.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 0 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses - 3 |
75.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 3 |
75.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 0 |
|
|
Good - 4 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
How do you rate the value of your MLS system based on what the vendor provides for the price you are paying? |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 4 |
|
|
Likely - 0 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 4 |
|
|
Likely - 0 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 0 |
|
|
3-4 years - 4 |
|
|
5 years or more - 0 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Buyer / Seller Net Sheets Some Financials
- The system overall is very user friendly but there are areas that need some significant UI tweaks.
- Mapping
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Wireless
- Addition of free mobile device technology
- Introduction of wireless MLS access, Google maps, and revised Input programs.
Stratus Data Systems
Stratus Data Systems has two large customers, the Toronto Real Estate Board and the Multiple Listing Service of Long Island. Each MLS is association owned and has more than 24,000 members. Both of these customers have been with Stratus for more than one term, and both expect that Stratus will meet their needs for more than the next five years. The two customers also indicated that they would select Stratus ‘If they could do it over again’. Stratus seeks medium and large size MLSs to become its customers, and it is not focused on fast growth, instead preferring to provide fewer customers with a higher level of service. In the five years Clareity has done this survey, Stratus has never been rated overall less than ‘Excellent’ by a customer. In recent news, the Stratus software was installed in 2005 as the listing maintenance and database components of a large regional MLS. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Stratus:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 2 |
|
|
Good – 0 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses - 1 |
50.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses - 1 |
50.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 0 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses - 1 |
50.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 1 |
50.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
RETS |
Unrated
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
How do you rate the value of your MLS system based on what the vendor provides for the price you are paying? |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 2 |
|
|
Likely - 0 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 2 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 2 |
|
|
Likely - 0 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Custom reports
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Wireless MLS
- The ability to search sales in Public Records to include in a CMA.
Marketlinx Solutions (now part of First American MLS Solutions)
Currently serving the largest number of users, MarketLinx Solutions has 28 customers, servicing over 320,000 users. MarketLinx has shown itself to be adept at serving MLSs of various sizes. Their customers range in size from 450 up to 35,000 subscribers, although the majority of the company’s customers are large MLSs. The Tempo system currently serves many of the country’s ‘NFL’ size markets and is one of the few large-scale systems that provides custom programming for its customers at no additional charge. The customers told us they very pleased with the release of the “Client Gateway” functionality and support improvements, but indicated they would like to see CMA and other reporting improvements. Perhaps most importantly, 2005 was a year of significant customer satisfaction improvement for MarketLinx, which indicates that First American’s post acquisition influence has been positive for the company and good for Tempo customers. One noteworthy sign of market success is that 14 of the 15 respondents said they would select this company again. Bryan Foreman, the president of Interealty, has been promoted to president of First American MLS Solutions and is now in charge of both former companies. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with MarketLinx:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 7 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 3 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 8 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 4 |
|
|
Good – 11 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 2 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 4 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 8 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 5 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 2 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses - 6 |
40.00% |
|
Excellent – 2 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 7 |
|
|
Good - 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses - 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent - 5 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 6 |
|
|
Fair – 4 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 4 |
|
|
Fair – 6 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses - 10 |
66.67% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 10 |
66.67% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 4 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 2 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent - 5 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair – 4 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 6 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair – 4 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 9 |
|
|
Fair – 4 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 6 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 5 |
|
|
Likely - 8 |
|
|
Not likely - 1 |
|
|
Definitely not - 1 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 5 |
|
|
Likely - 9 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 1 |
|
|
How do you rate the value of your MLS system based on what the vendor provides for the price you are paying? |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 8 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 1 |
|
|
1-2 years - 5 |
|
|
3-4 years - 8 |
|
|
5 years or more - 1 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Search results flexibility including column sorting, adding/removing fields from a 1 liner search result and custom search results settings defined by user.
- Better CMA reports
- More in depth statistical reports. Wish that the Vendor would be more pro active when it comes to mobile devices. Would love to have dual authentication.
- Mapping & IDX Broker Reports & Stats.
- We would like to see the new desktop interface that has been slow in coming.
- Integrated transaction management in a light version.
- Improve the photo upload process.
- Access to usage statistics
- Increase report display options
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- System - Enhanced prospecting, listing email and auto-notification features.
- Service - more focused, account oriented development teams implemented
- Added Client Gateway. Very popular with members
- Customer Service and Technical Team concept within Marketlinx.
- Prospect Gateway e-mail forum
- Client Listing Site - Individual web areas that prospects/clients can access.
- Switching support to the Team Concept.
- Client gateway for prospecting.
- Moving to a .net platform with the introduction of 4.0 version
- Gee-there were so many...but we were happy to get our Statistics package.
- Wireless Search
- Client Gateway
- Prospecting/Client Webs
Rapattoni Corporation
Rapattoni has 85 customers, servicing over 200,000 users. Six of the fifteen Rapattoni MLS respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and three customers said satisfaction remained the same in 2005, two said satisfaction somewhat improved, and one respondent said satisfaction greatly improved. Rapattoni’s overall satisfaction is very good, improving slightly from the previous year. Customers reported they are very happy with the RETS Manager and other system features, but there were a few requests for improvements to reports and statistics. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Rapattoni:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 7 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|