| |
5th Annual Internet MLS Customer Satisfaction Survey
By Clareity Consulting www.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
|
35.37%
|
|
Somewhat
improve - 28
|
34.15%
|
|
Remain the
same - 19
|
23.17%
|
|
Somewhat
decrease - 3
|
3.66%
|
|
Greatly
decrease - 3
|
3.66%
|
Overall, the industry is
satisfied with their MLS vendors:
|
Total
Responses - 193
|
98.47%
|
|
Excellent – 108
|
55.96%
|
|
Good - 60
|
31.09%
|
|
Acceptable - 19
|
9.84%
|
|
Poor - 6
|
3.11%
|
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
|
25.00%
|
|
Good - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Quality of User
Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.):
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System response
time during peak periods:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System uptime and
availability:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Overall depth of
features and functionality:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Good - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Pace of software
development and enhancements:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's
willingness to customize the system to your local needs:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's
responsiveness to system change requests:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to end users (if applicable):
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to MLS staff:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Public records
usability and integration:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Mapping
capabilities:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Good - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Fair - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Reports (CMAs,
Statistics, and other print reports):
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Good - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Implementation and Data Conversion
|
|
Total Responses - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
66.67%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 1
|
33.33%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Overall Satisfaction
|
|
Total Responses - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
33.33%
|
|
Good - 2
|
66.67%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
RETS
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 3
|
75.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
25.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Overall
MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 2
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Timely and
comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Good - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Keeps pace with
evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices)
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Cooperates with
other information and technology vendors:
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
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
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this MLS product again?
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Not likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Definitely not - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this vendor again?
|
|
Total Responses - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
Likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Not likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Definitely not - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
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
|
0.00%
|
|
1-2 years - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
3-4 years - 4
|
100.00%
|
|
5 years or more - 0
|
0.00%
|
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
|
100.00%
|
|
Good – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Quality of User
Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.):
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System response
time during peak periods:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System uptime and
availability:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Overall depth of
features and functionality:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Pace of software
development and enhancements:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's
willingness to customize the system to your local needs:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's
responsiveness to system change requests:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to end users (if applicable):
|
|
Total Responses - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to MLS staff:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Public records
usability and integration:
|
|
Total Responses - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Mapping
capabilities:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Good - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Reports (CMAs,
Statistics, and other print reports):
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Good - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Implementation and Data Conversion
|
|
Total Responses - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Overall Satisfaction
|
|
Total Responses - 1
|
50.00%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
Unrated
|
Overall
MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Timely and
comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Keeps pace with
evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices)
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Cooperates with
other information and technology vendors:
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
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
|
100.00%
|
|
Good - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Fair - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this MLS product again?
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Not likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Definitely not - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this vendor again?
|
|
Total Responses - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 2
|
100.00%
|
|
Likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Not likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Definitely not - 0
|
0.00%
|
If you
could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what
would it be?
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
|
46.67%
|
|
Good – 7
|
46.67%
|
|
Fair – 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Quality of User
Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.):
|
|
Total
Responses – 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 9
|
60.00%
|
|
Good – 3
|
20.00%
|
|
Fair – 3
|
20.00%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System response
time during peak periods:
|
|
Total
Responses – 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 8
|
53.33%
|
|
Good – 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System uptime and
availability:
|
|
Total
Responses – 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 12
|
80.00%
|
|
Good – 3
|
20.00%
|
|
Fair – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Overall depth of
features and functionality:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Good – 11
|
73.33%
|
|
Fair – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Pace of software
development and enhancements:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Good – 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Fair – 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Poor – 3
|
20.00%
|
|
Vendor's
willingness to customize the system to your local needs:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 8
|
53.33%
|
|
Good – 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's
responsiveness to system change requests:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Good – 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to end users (if applicable):
|
|
Total Responses - 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Excellent – 2
|
33.33%
|
|
Good – 2
|
33.33%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
33.33%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Vendor's customer
service and technical support to MLS staff:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 7
|
46.67%
|
|
Good - 7
|
46.67%
|
|
Fair – 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Public records
usability and integration:
|
|
Total
Responses - 14
|
93.33%
|
|
Excellent - 5
|
35.71%
|
|
Good - 8
|
57.14%
|
|
Fair – 1
|
7.14%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Mapping
capabilities:
|
|
Total
Responses - 14
|
93.33%
|
|
Excellent - 3
|
21.43%
|
|
Good - 6
|
42.86%
|
|
Fair – 4
|
28.57%
|
|
Poor – 1
|
7.14%
|
|
Reports (CMAs,
Statistics, and other print reports):
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Good - 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Fair – 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Poor – 3
|
20.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Implementation and Data Conversion
|
|
Total
Responses - 10
|
66.67%
|
|
Excellent - 1
|
10.00%
|
|
Good - 6
|
60.00%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
20.00%
|
|
Poor – 1
|
10.00%
|
|
IDX Solution -
Overall Satisfaction
|
|
Total
Responses - 10
|
66.67%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
20.00%
|
|
Good - 4
|
40.00%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
20.00%
|
|
Poor – 2
|
20.00%
|
|
RETS
|
|
Total
Responses - 14
|
93.33%
|
|
Excellent - 5
|
35.71%
|
|
Good - 5
|
35.71%
|
|
Fair – 4
|
28.57%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Overall
MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Good - 8
|
53.33%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Timely and
comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues:
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Good - 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Fair – 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Keeps pace with
evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices)
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent - 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Good - 9
|
60.00%
|
|
Fair – 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Cooperates with
other information and technology vendors:
|
|
Total
Responses – 14
|
93.33%
|
|
Excellent – 6
|
42.86%
|
|
Good – 6
|
42.86%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
14.29%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this MLS product again?
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Likely - 8
|
53.33%
|
|
Not likely - 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Definitely not - 1
|
6.67%
|
|
If you could do it
over again, would you select this vendor again?
|
|
Total
Responses - 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Definitely - 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Likely - 9
|
60.00%
|
|
Not likely - 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Definitely not - 1
|
6.67%
|
|
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
|
53.33%
|
|
Good – 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Fair – 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
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
|
6.67%
|
|
1-2 years - 5
|
33.33%
|
|
3-4 years - 8
|
53.33%
|
|
5 years or more - 1
|
6.67%
|
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
|
60.00%
|
|
Good – 5
|
33.33%
|
|
Fair – 1
|
6.67%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
Quality of User
Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.):
|
|
Total
Responses – 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 9
|
60.00%
|
|
Good – 4
|
26.67%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 0
|
0.00%
|
|
System response
time during peak periods:
|
|
Total
Responses – 15
|
100.00%
|
|
Excellent – 7
|
46.67%
|
|
Good – 6
|
40.00%
|
|
Fair – 2
|
13.33%
|
|
Poor – 0
|

| |