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 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 8 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 8 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 7 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 10 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 7 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses – 13 |
86.67% |
|
Excellent – 6 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 3 |
|
|
Good – 9 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 4 |
|
|
Good – 8 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 6 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 2 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 4 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 9 |
|
|
Good - 6 |
|
|
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 - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 11 |
|
|
Likely - 4 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 11 |
|
|
Likely - 4 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 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 - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 2 |
|
|
3-4 years - 7 |
|
|
5 years or more - 6 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Reports would be more customizable.
- More statistics and reports at the staff level - more than what the normal MLS exec cares about.
- Polygon Map Search
- The user interface
- The way that statistical reports are generated
- We would like the ability to customize the public viewable IDX links for specific specialty fields (i.e. Commercial, Land, etc.) Currently the frameable hyperlinks provided must include every property type and the member of the public must choose the property type they want. Some of our Commercial firms don’t want the public to have the ability to search for a Residential property from their website via IDX.
- Ability to have the Internet Explorer toolbars at the top.
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- We merged another neighboring MLS into our database so members of both could share data. Vendors’ big upgrade is coming next month allowing customizing of reports and the home screen.
- System performance … for those few people still stuck on dial-up the performance is now tolerable.
- Report printing
- They rolled out Version 10. It has been a bit rough, but we are supportive of the reasons they made these changes/enhancements. Many new features that will be well worth it.
- Upgrade to v 10 and all of its wonderful features
- RETS 1.5 Manager - offering the ability to customize on a per-vendor basis which tables, data fields within tables, and even search criteria filters the vendor is subject to. This allows for great flexibility and control over the MLS data provided to third party vendors - something which it seems lots of other MLSs have to contract out to third party RETS/data security vendors in order to have.
Interealty (First American MLS Solutions)
Winner of 2005 Most Improved Vendor Award
Interealty has 58 customers, servicing over 185,000 users. 15 of the 31 respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and 40% said satisfaction greatly improved, 53% said satisfaction somewhat improved, and only one respondent said satisfaction remained the same. Interealty deserves strong praise for its efforts over the past year, showing the greatest overall satisfaction improvement of any MLS vendor in 2005, with an “Excellent” rating jumping 30 points from 50% to 81%, with the remainder rating it “Good”. Customers that had upgraded to the latest MLXchange applauded the improvements to the CMA, which had been one of the weaker areas of the previous version. Further improvements to mapping were requested. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Interealty:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 25 |
|
|
Good - 6 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 18 |
|
|
Good - 13 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 22 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 26 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 28 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 19 |
|
|
Good - 12 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 23 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 23 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
90.32% |
|
Excellent - 19 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 28 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses - 24 |
77.42% |
|
Excellent - 10 |
|
|
Good - 11 |
|
|
Fair - 3 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 30 |
96.77% |
|
Excellent - 9 |
|
|
Good - 18 |
|
|
Fair - 3 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 11 |
|
|
Good - 18 |
|
|
Fair - 2 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
90.32% |
|
Excellent - 15 |
|
|
Good - 13 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
87.10% |
|
Excellent - 14 |
|
|
Good - 13 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
87.10% |
|
Excellent - 12 |
|
|
Good - 11 |
|
|
Fair - 4 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 26 |
|
|
Good - 4 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 22 |
|
|
Good - 8 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 24 |
|
|
Good - 6 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 19 |
|
|
Good - 10 |
|
|
Fair - 2 |
|
|
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 - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 25 |
|
|
Good - 5 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 28 |
|
|
Likely - 3 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 29 |
|
|
Likely - 2 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses - 31 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 4 |
|
|
3-4 years - 11 |
|
|
5 years or more - 16 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
Note: the biggest improvement request – CMA – was already improved for those moving the MLXchange 2.0, and is reflected in the following section.
- Record system for in house data for use by MLS OFFICE not Board of REALTOR - We are a private MLS
- More mapping capability
- Third party public data integration with CMA module
- CMA Design tool needs to be more user friendly.
- More password integration/authentication with 3rd party vendors
- Authentication hand offs to and from the system 2. Handling aliases for assistants
- Continue to work on the report editor features.
- I would add Spell checker to any area or field that will accept Type words
- Give staff the ability to create and modify reports for association use.
- Better statistics that are not an additional charge. The print out for the REALTORS has special instructions for the members that are in some cases sensitive and can be emailed to the public. The MLS wants this to be made only available between members only.
- Email statistical reports from MLXchange
- The ability to send "instant messages" to all active public IDs off hours and over weekends and holidays to alert the subscribers to any changes in a listing. It used to be known as "mail" in the old Stellar system. That function is greatly missed.
- Any changes we want, Interealty is willing to listen. We have no complaints, our members don’t complain. This is a smooth running system and much bang for the buck! We want to be sure to note that we are one of five Boards all separate, but share Interealty and our data. We have been together for many years and Interealty has been our vendor with one product or another. They have incredible skill, knowledge and expertise.
- Addition of boolean search. Better user classification structure that incorporates ability to add/delete services to each classification instead of an entire classification all having the same services.
- Easier report for staff for billing for IDX/web solutions.
- Enable an office website that would work like the agent’s websites in professional that allows all of the office listings to show up under My Listings.
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Upgrade
- There were too many to single one out.
- Retooling of CMA module
- CMA Module
- Regularly scheduled system upgrade
- Custom Branding 2. CMA improvements 3. Reliability
- CMA upgrade.
- CMA, It was greatly improved, both in functionality and user friendliness
- MLX 2.0 improvements and enhancements.
- Enhanced their core platform of services by making MLXchange Profession financially available.
- Improvements to the CMA. Improvements to the Flash Functionality. We can now do radius searching on the map function in addition to rubberband searchs. Our Pro users saw an increase in the number of default web site templates and they now have the ability to put attachments on listings.
- Customization of Reports (improved)
- We just recently upgraded to the 2.0 version of MLXchange which has tremendous improved functionality.
- CMA Application
- It is difficult to say one, they continue to update regularly from input they receive from users. I cannot say enough great things about Interealty.
- Better CMA
- "Quick-link" to reports and listing modify directly from a one-line search result page
- The upgrades to Professional.
- All of the functions in the bubble, especially the attachment capabilities.
- Upgraded to version 2.0
- User Interface & Overall enhancements for new features
Solid Earth
Solid Earth has 18 customers, servicing over 49,000 users. All of the 15 respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and 62% said satisfaction greatly improved, 13% said satisfaction somewhat improved, and 25% said satisfaction remained the same. Solid Earth had the second greatest improved ratings from last year’s Clareity survey – moving an additional 27% from “Good” to “Excellent”, and customers especially appreciated the new data quality and compliance functionality named Citation Manager. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Solid Earth:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 0 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 0 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 0 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 10 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses – 10 |
66.67% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 0 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses – 12 |
80.00% |
|
Excellent – 4 |
|
|
Good – 8 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses – 7 |
46.67% |
|
Excellent – 3 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses – 14 |
93.33% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
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 – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 15 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 15 |
|
|
Likely - 0 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 14 |
93.33% |
|
Definitely - 14 |
|
|
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 – 15 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 1 |
|
|
3-4 years - 4 |
|
|
5 years or more - 10 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Make the Members section for staff able to be customized for the staff to utilize.
- Increase security with token code based access.
- Add Association Membership modules to help eliminate having to enter data in more than one place. i.e. MLS database, NRDS, and billing program.
- Having the Tax Roll information from our local Tax Assessor’s office.
- Consolidated view/maintenance for all IDX data feeds.
- Remove 1.5MB photo size restriction in photo submission module
- Better integration with Tax Data
- Better aerial maps
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- The look of the site was updated to be more user friendly and up to date.
- Aerial maps Google search on customer full report There are other improvements but too numerous to mention.
- Complete consumer portal re-released in dot.net.
- Citation Manager, a system solution for error checking and rule violation tracking.
- About to release to my MLS a module for Quality Control & Compliance. I set up the search criteria but the system automatically watches for violations, issues warnings, review the same listing 7 days later and issues a fine if needed.
- Adding Sold Listing feature Adding Provision Listing feature
- Citation Manager
- Updated the UI on the home page to be more user friendly.
- Redesigned our public MLS site www.pensacolamls.com. It is a tremendous improvement! Much more user friendly for public use.
- Addition of MLS Rules checking
- Implementing .NET technology
- Data Verification System
- Enhancements to prospecting, new user interface, seed cop, better FTP security
- Additional search fields
Fidelity MLS Systems and Solutions
Currently serving the most individual accounts of any vendor, Fidelity has 344 MLS customers, servicing over 310,000 users. 20 of the 54 respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, with results as follows:
|
If you measured subscriber satisfaction with a survey for the past few years, did satisfaction in 2005: |
|
|
Total Responses – 20 |
37.04% |
|
Greatly improve - 4 |
|
|
Somewhat improve - 5 |
|
|
Remain the same - 6 |
|
|
Somewhat decrease - 3 |
|
|
Greatly decrease - 2 |
|
It should be noted that Fidelity MLS fields a number of different MLS platforms, and their results reflect some platforms developed by others and acquired by Fidelity MLS. To try to provide context for those considering Fidelity MLS’ flagship product, Paragon 3, Clareity performed a supplemental survey of Paragon 3 customers in October 2005, and the overall results were as follows:
|
Overall end-user satisfaction: |
|
|
Excellent |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Acceptable |
|
|
Poor |
|
One will see that overall, Paragon 3 customer are more satisfied than those on other Fidelity MLS platforms, and Clareity found similar higher levels of satisfaction for Paragon 3 when asking more detailed questions. Those customers on older platforms primarily wish for their development to continue, rather than have resources put into the flagship product.
The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Fidelity MLS generally, inclusive of all platforms, including the older ‘legacy’ platforms that are no longer being sold.
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 25 |
|
|
Fair – 12 |
|
|
Poor – 5 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 22 |
|
|
Fair – 15 |
|
|
Poor – 5 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 29 |
|
|
Fair – 7 |
|
|
Poor – 7 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 32 |
|
|
Good – 19 |
|
|
Fair – 3 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 28 |
|
|
Fair – 10 |
|
|
Poor – 2 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 10 |
|
|
Good – 21 |
|
|
Fair – 8 |
|
|
Poor – 15 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 16 |
|
|
Fair – 11 |
|
|
Poor – 13 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 19 |
|
|
Fair – 8 |
|
|
Poor – 15 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses – 50 |
92.59% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 19 |
|
|
Fair – 13 |
|
|
Poor – 5 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 25 |
|
|
Good – 17 |
|
|
Fair – 8 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses – 39 |
72.22% |
|
Excellent – 4 |
|
|
Good – 20 |
|
|
Fair – 11 |
|
|
Poor – 4 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses – 48 |
88.89% |
|
Excellent – 5 |
|
|
Good – 17 |
|
|
Fair – 23 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 10 |
|
|
Good – 23 |
|
|
Fair – 17 |
|
|
Poor – 4 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses – 49 |
90.74% |
|
Excellent – 10 |
|
|
Good – 24 |
|
|
Fair – 11 |
|
|
Poor – 4 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses – 47 |
87.04% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 20 |
|
|
Fair – 12 |
|
|
Poor – 4 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses – 32 |
59.26% |
|
Excellent – 4 |
|
|
Good – 12 |
|
|
Fair – 9 |
|
|
Poor – 7 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses – 54 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 17 |
|
|
Good – 22 |
|
|
Fair – 10 |
|
|
Poor – 5 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses – 53 |
98.15% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 24 |
|
|
Fair – 7 |
|
|
Poor – 7 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses – 52 |
96.30% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 25 |
|
|
Fair – 9 |
|
|
Poor – 4 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses – 48 |
88.89% |
|
Excellent – 17 |
|
|
Good – 20 |
|
|
Fair – 8 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
How do you rate the value of your MLS system based on what the vendor provides for the price you are paying? |
|
|
Total Responses – 51 |
94.44% |
|
Excellent – 17 |
|
|
Good – 22 |
|
|
Fair – 9 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 53 |
98.15% |
|
Definitely - 17 |
|
|
Likely - 25 |
|
|
Not likely - 10 |
|
|
Definitely not - 1 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 53 |
98.15% |
|
Definitely - 19 |
|
|
Likely - 24 |
|
|
Not likely - 10 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses – 52 |
96.30% |
|
Less than one year - 5 |
|
|
1-2 years - 17 |
|
|
3-4 years - 18 |
|
|
5 years or more - 12 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Wireless access
- Enhance mapping
- Desktop version (distributed) and online version exactly the same
- Better admin tools for staff use in tracking logins, setting up user security levels.
- We need to be able to accommodate "Teams"
- Enhanced statistical reports
- The ability to calculate days on MLS back over previous listings automatically.
- Make it so a property can have multiple classes but only one MLS number.
- The screen resolution change has affected many other programs
- Don’t make enhancements until the old bugs are ALL fixed. Work out all the bugs before going live with new enhancements.
- Lack of customization. Waiting too long for "enhancements". The ability to pay for customization of our MLS without going through a lengthy process.
- We need more forewarning to let membership know in advance of the actual changes that are being made.
- When entering a listing in the same class but 3 different types (ex: residential homes, small acreage homes, and lake home) it would assign one number and each time you made changes to the listing (ex: sold) it would then change all 3 without making the stats wrong.
- Better customer support. Wait time is upwards of 15-20 minutes sometimes.
- More User Friendly. Reducing the number of clicks to perform key functions. Make CMAs more user friendly for the members
- System would be compatible with Apple computers
- Integration of features available in newer versions of the MLS product into the older versions of the MLS product.
- Better MLS Staff reports (that we had with the REX systems)
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Speed and functionality
- Simplified administration of required password changes
- Lots of improvements this year, but one that I liked was an automatic high, low, average and median price for each search result in the spreadsheet view.
- Mapping and Wi-Fi access from a PDA
- We like the mapping and Get Media features.
- The CMA and Auto-notification streamlining of modules - much simpler to teach as well as to use.
- Audit reports definitely!
- Upgrade of the CMA reports for the MLS members, handheld equipment integration
- Upgrade to more customizable system, mapping and wireless.
- Can-SPAM compliance features
- The upgrade to 3.6 and the following service releases made some positive changes that were a long time in coming.
- FOR OUR BOARD IS THE CHANGE TO P3 COMING UP AND LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
- Enhanced CMA program
- Made e-mail handier
- much improved tech support
- Being able to print messages and home page.
- Statistical programs that work.
- Integration with ShowingAssist
- Photo management tool
- Multiple enhancements to existing modules; CAN SPAM compliance
Offutt Systems
Offutt Systems has 60 customers, servicing over 70,000 users. Half of the 18 respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and 57% said satisfaction greatly improved in 2005, 29% said satisfaction somewhat improved, and the remaining 14% said satisfaction remained the same. In 2005, Offutt customers appreciated the company’s willingness to redesign the system and reports for their evolving needs, and the Innovia system continues to earn praise for its ease-of-use. The area most often requested for improvement was mapping. For the first time ever, Clareity cut one survey response that came from an Offutt customer seeking to break their contract. Although this customer sought to hire Clareity to intercede and mediate a resolution, in our opinion they were not able to substantiate issues to merit their actions. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Offutt:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 3 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 18 |
|
|
Good – 8 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 23 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 24 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 22 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 16 |
|
|
Good – 9 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
96.43% |
|
Excellent – 24 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 3 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 26 |
92.86% |
|
Excellent – 18 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses - 24 |
85.71% |
|
Excellent – 13 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 5 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
96.43% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 10 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 2 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 11 |
|
|
Good – 14 |
|
|
Fair – 3 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
96.43% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 27 |
96.43% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 21 |
75.00% |
|
Excellent – 12 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 3 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 18 |
|
|
Good – 9 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 8 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 25 |
89.29% |
|
Excellent – 16 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 2 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 6 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
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 - 27 |
96.43% |
|
Excellent – 22 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 22 |
|
|
Likely - 5 |
|
|
Not likely - 1 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 22 |
|
|
Likely - 5 |
|
|
Not likely - 1 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses - 28 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 5 |
|
|
3-4 years - 9 |
|
|
5 years or more - 14 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Sold reports
- The comprehensive CMA module demands a level of expertise in real estate appraisal not applicable to licensees in [our market area].
- Better Prospecting module
- Tax Data Integration; problem on tax assessors side.
- Make it easier for staff to do our billing
- At this time I do not feel that there should be any changes, of course, when you have a MLS Committee Meeting that is subject to change.
- Free IDX links available to all principal brokers. We would like an on-line repository of all documents related to each transaction available to the list agent/sales agent in a password protected area. Currently signed property disclosures and lead paint disclosures are available on-line.
- Mapping
- Changes to make it a little more appraiser friendly...The data should help us also a members of the Assn.
- Better State of the Art Mapping
- Have it made a little easier to transfer agents from one office to the next.
- Because we are still in the process of changing to 911 addresses in our counties, mapping does not work well for our area. This is not the fault of our MLS vendor, but we are looking forward to the day that MapQuest, Google Earth, and others, have accurate information for our area so that the map-based search and other mapping features will work for us.
- Customizing of Agent Home pages.
- Better default programs for non-tech users.
- Our users often say that the system is not logical or easy to navigate and that we change it too much.
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Mapping improvements.
- We are in the process of a complete system redesign which won’t be released until the spring.
- CMA
- IDX was one but it’s hard to answer because this is our first year
- Our vendor added a new tracking system for Customer Service and it has really worked out well. We are in the process of adding a new mapping service and have added a showing service all through our MLS system.
- We had an entire upgrade. Map searches, photo gallery displays and other features were added.
- We are in the middle of a total redesign and are looking forward to the improvements...we don’t have them installed yet. In particular, the members are looking forward to the mapping
- The whole system is in a rewrite stage, covering every screen and report
- We were offered a complete redesign of the InnoVia System - A lot of work on both ends, but members are happy
- Over all a great product. I believe the mapping, the searches and the photo galleries are great for realtors and customers.
- Enhanced an already robust mapping system.
- Offutt continuously works to improve and enhance the system. One of the features that our agents are very pleased with is the ability to edit listings directly from the "My Inventory" list.
- Trakker system for the staff to communicate and track issues and resolutions.
- Gave MLS staff access to vendors problem/upgrade tracker system.
- update of program including commercial
- Adding links to the Title Company Net Out sheets. Geocoding properties through MapQuest.
Technology Concepts
Clareity had only 4 respondents for this vendor, and any interpretation of results should bear that in mind. Two of the respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and both indicated that customer satisfaction had somewhat improved that year. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with Technology Concepts:
|
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 - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 1 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 2 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
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 - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses – 3 |
75.00% |
|
Excellent – 0 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 0 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 2 |
|
|
Poor - 1 |
|
|
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 - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses - 3 |
75.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 2 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 4 |
|
|
Good - 0 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 1 |
|
|
Good - 3 |
|
|
Fair - 0 |
|
|
Poor - 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses - 4 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent - 3 |
|
|
Good - 1 |
|
|
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 - 2 |
|
|
3-4 years - 0 |
|
|
5 years or more - 2 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Better mapping integrated with listing data
- Increased report options and ability to establish "global" settings unique to local preferences.
- Entry process
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- New data entry system
- In process of switching to more Internet-based technology and enhancements to public website with agent/public interface is excellent.
- Customer / Client interface with MYPLACE features using email.
FBS
FBS has 80 customers, servicing over 40,000 users. Four of the 22 respondents measured subscriber satisfaction with their own survey in 2005, and two said satisfaction greatly improved, one said “somewhat improved” and one “stayed the same”. In this year’s Clareity survey, FBS maintained its excellent customer service and overall ratings that it has earned consistently for several years running. FBS customers especially appreciated the enhanced CMA functionality. The following tables illustrate customer satisfaction with FBS:
|
Current overall end-user overall satisfaction: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Quality of User Interface (ease of use, minimal keystrokes, etc.): |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 18 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System response time during peak periods: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
System uptime and availability: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 21 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall depth of features and functionality: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 17 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Pace of software development and enhancements: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 15 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's willingness to customize the system to your local needs: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's responsiveness to system change requests: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 17 |
|
|
Good – 3 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to end users (if applicable): |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 1 |
|
|
Vendor's customer service and technical support to MLS staff: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 21 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Public records usability and integration: |
|
|
Total Responses – 19 |
86.36% |
|
Excellent – 9 |
|
|
Good – 8 |
|
|
Fair – 2 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Mapping capabilities: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 7 |
|
|
Good – 14 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Reports (CMAs, Statistics, and other print reports): |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 7 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Implementation and Data Conversion |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 16 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
IDX Solution - Overall Satisfaction |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 18 |
|
|
Good – 4 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
RETS |
|
|
Total Responses – 20 |
90.91% |
|
Excellent – 14 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 1 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Overall MLS/Association staff satisfaction with system: |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 19 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Timely and comprehensive communications regarding system and support issues: |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 20 |
|
|
Good – 2 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Keeps pace with evolving technology (e.g. RETS, Mobile Devices) |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 16 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
Cooperates with other information and technology vendors: |
|
|
Total Responses – 21 |
95.45% |
|
Excellent – 16 |
|
|
Good – 5 |
|
|
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 – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Excellent – 21 |
|
|
Good – 1 |
|
|
Fair – 0 |
|
|
Poor – 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this MLS product again? |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 20 |
|
|
Likely - 1 |
|
|
Not likely - 1 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
If you could do it over again, would you select this vendor again? |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Definitely - 20 |
|
|
Likely - 2 |
|
|
Not likely - 0 |
|
|
Definitely not - 0 |
|
|
How long do you expect that your current MLS system will serve your subscribers' needs? |
|
|
Total Responses – 22 |
100.00% |
|
Less than one year - 0 |
|
|
1-2 years - 2 |
|
|
3-4 years - 7 |
|
|
5 years or more - 13 |
|
If you could add or change one feature in your current MLS system, what would it be?
- Easier report customization/creation
- To be able to turn off User access by clicking on the "System Access" (Yes/No) area under the "List of Users Under Your Control Filtered" area, instead of having to accessing the Users profile and then clicking the radio button from yes to no.
- Would like the ability to "jump to" searches instead of having to scroll through the list.
- Ability to define reports according to selected criteria.
- More one click options
- Message Board and Links
- Would like to add MLS accounting and billing.
- Add GIS mapping - FBS is ready but our county is dragging its feet
- How auction properties are handled.
What was the biggest system/service improvement your MLS vendor made this past year?
- Upgraded CMA & presentation capabilities
- Better reports, easier CMAs, better calculators.
- Allowing an incomplete listing to be saved, both the agents and admistrative personnel are very pleased with this feature.
- CMA enhancements
- FBS released upgrades to flexmls throughout the year and all were greeted favorably by our MLS members. The Listing Tour program, improved CMA, and a custom tax calculator program were well received.
- Enhanced CMA program, enhanced mapping functions
- Map Search
- CMAs....my agents love it!
- Document management and wireless enhancements
- Mapping
- Added new hardware to minimize response times.
- The ability to save incomplete listings.
Peer Advice
MLS executives were asked to share the top three things they would do differently in the system/vendor selection, contract negotiations, conversion planning, user training, or member communications. The following advice was offered:
Selection
- Have a committee of members test the system before selecting. Attempt to convince membership a different vendor with a whole different system might be better than just accepting a newer version of the old system.
- Seek more member input when making the selection.
- Demand that the vendor demonstrate public records availabilities, including mapping accuracy, and integration of third party tax modules for your locale before entering into contract.
- Require that the vendor is RETS compliant. Require that they are willing to share as more cooperative agreements are set up with neighboring MLSs.
- Ensure that the vendor reports and displays meet common default settings for internet browsers, email and printing.
Contract
- Specify penalties for not meeting conversion deadlines. Penalties for lack of system functionality--specific reports.
- Make sure the vendor specifies target dates and implement stiff monetary penalties for not meeting dates.
- Some of the contract language was not specific enough on our part; we should have clarified to avoid confusion.
Training
- I would have opted for "pseudo" hand-on training rather than lecture style.
- More extensive training for MLS Staff
- Negotiate for follow up training 3-6 months after implementation at no additional charge.
- I would have had more one-on-one training and separated the REALTORS from the staff.
- More training on basic computer skills, more training on the new MLS software, ask for specific customer service people for the conversion process to help my members.
- More training! Our members only had 3 hours with the trainer to learn the system. Too much info in that short amount of time for them to pickup. More admin training - In person-not over the phone.
- Our on-site training didn`t go far enough to prepare our members for the new software. Would have liked more training time and more nuts and bolts "how to use the system" than the overview approach used.
- Substantially increase user exposure and training prior to the conversion and rollout.
- Training--research the trainer being sent for experience and system knowledge.
- The best thing we did was to rent a facility with 20 computers and conduct a week of hands on training. Everyone loved it.
- One can always use more user training.
- Run parallel no more than a month. Require training before issuing passwords.
- We would have implemented a standard training for everyone as part of orientation. Each office is currently required to provide it to their new members.
- Hands-on training was provided but the course time could have been longer and the trainers could have been in the area for more days.
- More member training earlier.
- Implement greater mandatory training for all new agents in MLS and its use.
- Video training for members to learn the expanded features available.
- More beginner level classes on the new system.
- Get as much training for members as is possible - never let up!
- Trainers are not real estate savvy and they are just programmers & teachers: they need more preparation on real estate practices to better explain the system when teaching.
System Design / Build
- Be very specific by including details of exactly what you want/need when asking questions.
- Implement more restrictive rules for dealing with Entry Only listings.
- Make sure you understand what they Project Manager is doing and stay on top of them to be sure they do what you say, and not what they feel you should have.
- Plan more time for the design process. (6 months was not enough.) We went from purchasing our MLS service from other MLSs that were designed by them to being able to completely customize a system to our needs. Hiccups that we are experiencing now are due to the fact that we were changing things until the last minute and are continuing to refine things now. We were able to solidly design listing input, fields creation, etc., but did not have time to work on reports design.
System Testing
- Allow more time to proof data quality coming from membership system;
- Allow more time for affiliate vendors to test/use new exported data sets before cutover;
- Longer testing prior to conversion
- Insist that the system be available for testing prior to cutover. We never saw screens until the day we were live.
- Insist that the vendor have a team of people on site, in our offices for 2 weeks after cutover to report bugs and errors.
- Have a nationally known consultant involved to express concerns to MLS vendor during installation.
Other
- I would not purchase the distributed software option.
- Moving from years & years of customization capability to the new "cookie cutter" system is very frustrating and I think vendors need to really be sensitive to that type of a conversion and make sure the customer understands the process and limitations of these new systems.
- We finally learned that it takes a real team effort in communication among membership, vendor and MLS. This time we knocked on doors.
- Not use the consultant we used [whew! – this MLS did not use Clareity].
- From the beginning, insist on vendor honoring contractual obligations
- Continuously provide system documentation and manuals as the system evolves
- We probably would have analyzed the inclusion of MLS books differently from the beginning.
- We would have taken our system planning document and added an "as built" for each change to the original plan.
- Select a less busy time of the year for the conversion.
- We are a small MLS with 2.5 staff. I would have also hired temp staff to assist with the overload of work that comes with an MLS conversion (assuming we had funds to do it & the Board approved it, etc.)
- Too many hands in the pot! Members should go through a chain of command to avoid confusion & let the elected MLS people do the job & not go directly with any issues or changes. One person should be appointed at [the vendor] & one at the board to run things thru for changes, corrections, etc. If no results then follow the chain of command. Members going direct creates further confusion.
Thank You!
Thank you for reading our 2006 report! And thanks again to the 194 MLS organizations that participated in this year’s survey.
The Clareity Team
About Clareity
Founded in 1996, Clareity continually strives to provide our clients an independent and unique perspective. Due to our extensive involvement and interaction across the entire Real Estate industry, we have a finger on the pulse of the industry. Clareity has successfully executed a vast array of consulting projects for our clients, related to:
- IT Security Audit and business continuity assessment
- Development and analysis of RFPs for MLS systems, public records, broker systems, transaction management systems and IP telephone systems
- Mergers and acquisitions and strategic alliances
- Strategic planning
- New product marketing and business plans
- Product integration specifications
- Public speaking and presentations
- Conference planning and content development
- Competitive analysis
- Contract negotiation
- Executive recruitment
- Project management and implementation assistance
- Market research including agent, broker, and staff electronic and telephone surveys as well as onsite focus groups
For more information please contact:
Gregg Larson
Clareity Consulting
(480) 368-8100 x201
www.callclareity.com
Home Page | The Company | Services | Clients | Publications | Blog | Events | Contact
  |
Privacy Policy
