2005 MLS Technology Survey

Summary Report

WAV Group
December 1, 2005

Contact Information:
Mike Audet
Office: 716-839-4628
Cell: 716-984-9009
mike@wavgroup.com
www.wavgroup.com
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

On behalf of WAV Group I want to thank everyone that participated in our second annual
MLS Technology Survey. We had a total of 1248 respondents, including MLS
Executives, MLS staff, Brokers, Agents, Agent Assistants and real estate office staff. The
respondents represent MLSs from across the United States and provide an excellent cross
section of technology users. Thank you again for taking the time to give us your feedback.

We are pleased to provide you with this summary report of the results that you are free to
use within your MLS. We encourage you to share this information with your leadership
and members.

 The ratings summarized in this report are the opinions of the individual respondents
to our survey.
 The summary contained in this report is based on information provided by each
individual respondent. No mention or information on these pages should be
interpreted as an endorsement of any MLS vendor or software by WAV Group.
 MLS technology is constantly changing. We cannot guarantee the accuracy,
completeness, or currency of this information. We assume no responsibility for any
direct or indirect consequences of using the information or opinions provided here.
Users are urged to verify all information directly with the MLS vendors or
developers before committing themselves to license or purchase any MLS software.

WAV Group provides complete technology evaluation services. When you are ready to
evaluate and decide on new technology for your MLS please contact us at WAV Group.
We will be pleased to provide you with a full list of our services and pricing based on your
unique MLS needs.

Thank you again; we hope you enjoy the report.

Warm regards,

Michael Audet
Partner

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

2
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey

OVERVIEW
Who participated?
1248 real estate professionals took part in our survey, from MLSs across the country. As
shown in the graphs below we had representation from all market segments and all of the
major MLS vendors were well represented.

Number of Members in Respondent MLS

9%
9%

27%
27% 10%
10%

<500
<500
500-1000
500-1000
1001-2000
1001-2000
13%
13% 2001-5000
2001-5000
5001-10
5001-10
>10,000
>10,000

23%
23%
18%
18%

MLSs of all sizes were represented in the survey.

Who were the respondents?

2%
2% 9%
9%
4%
4% MLS/Association
MLS/Association
Executive
Executive
MLS/Association
MLS/Association Staff
Staff

Broker
Broker
27%
27%
Agent/Agent
Agent/Agent assistant
assistant
58%
58%
Real
Real Estate
Estate Office
Office Staff
Staff

Respondents in our study included everyone touched by MLS technology including MLS
executives (109), MLS staff (46), Brokers (335), Agents (727) and real estate office staff
(31).

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

3
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Respondents by Vendor
Valet
Valet MLS MLS
Technology
Technology Concepts
Concepts -- UltraWeb
UltraWeb
Tarasoft
Tarasoft Matrix
Matrix
Systems
Systems Engineering
Engineering
Stratus
Stratus Data
Data Systems
Systems
Solid
Solid Earth
Earth -- List-It
List-It MLS
MLS System
System
RealGo
RealGo MLS MLS
Real
Real Estate
Estate Technologies
Technologies Inc. Inc. --
Rapattoni
Rapattoni MLS MLS
Quest
Quest -- Ambiance
Ambiance
ProMatch
ProMatch MLS MLS
Other
Other (please
(please specify)
specify)
Offutt
Offutt -- Innovia
Innovia
Marketlinx
Marketlinx -- Tempo
Tempo
Interealty
Interealty -- MLXchange
MLXchange
In-house
In-house System
System
FNIS
FNIS -- Paragon
Paragon
Filogix
Filogix
FBS
FBS -- FlexMLS
FlexMLS
dynaConnections-connectMLS
dynaConnections-connectMLS
Don't
Don't know
know
ARIS
ARIS MLS MLS
Advanced
Advanced Marketing
Marketing -- Internet
Internet MLS MLS
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
100

Some Highlights! What did we learn?

Most respondents were happy with their MLS technology overall!
Overall, most of respondents appear reasonably happy with their vendors with about 67%
indicating they will likely renew with their current vendor. This is up from about 60% last
year. 8% report they will definitely not renew with their current vendor.

How the MLS vendors ranked!

As we did last year, we ranked all of the vendors based on a blended average of multiple
responses including ratings on:
 Questions on overall satisfaction
 Upgrading the system on a regular basis
 Sy stem Rel iabi
lity,servi
ceandv endorr esponsiveness’
 Features and functionality rating
 System ease of use

How the Vendors Ranked by Category?

Due to the differences in size of markets served, number of accounts and so on, we added
some new categories this year to compare vendors more fairly. Our first category looks at
vendors serving a minimum of 5 MLSs.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

4
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Category 1 - Vendors with 5+ Systems

The top three in this category were:
1. FBS
2. Interealty
3. Rapattoni

FBS took first place in Category 1 this year. Interealty and Rapattoni came in 2nd and 3rd.
All three vendors had excellent scores from their clients!

Category 2 - Large MLS Vendor Category

Vendors that have proven they can serve large MLSs have unique capabilities. We felt it
was appropriate to create a category to rate these vendors and systems by themselves.
The top three in this category were:
1. Interealty
2. Rapattoni
3. Fidelity

Large MLS vendor”category. Rapattoni came in 2nd.

Interealty took first place in the “
While Interealty nudged them for the number 1 spot this year Rapattoni remained very
close in the number 2 spot. Special mention also goes to Fidelity who made a nice jump
up the rating charts from 2004.

Category 3 –All Vendors Combined Category

This category looks at all vendors together regardless of size, or number of MLS
customers served. Realgo took first place in this category. FBS and Interealty came in 2nd
and 3rd respectively.
1. Realgo
2. FBS
3. Interealty

Do MLS Executives, Brokers and Agents Rate Vendors the Same?

Not really! Due to the high number of respondents from both MLS executives and
REALTORS® we were able to compare vendor rankings by type of respondent. Note the
following differences in the top 3 ratings for MLS executives compared to brokers and
agents.

Top 3 Vendor Rating by MLS Execs (all vendors combined)

1. Realgo
2. Rapattoni
3. Interealty

Top 3 Vendor Rating by Brokers and Agents (all vendors combined)

1. FBS
2. Realgo
3. Interealty

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

5
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

What MLS features are weakest across the board?

The MLS features that were rated the weakest overall across all MLS systems in 2005
were almost identical to those noted in our 2004 report:
 CMA
 Statistical reporting
 Contact Management
 Tax functions
 Report writers

What about in-house development? Do more MLSs really want to build their
own system?
Seven MLS say they are considering building their next MLS system in-house while one
said they were definitely going to do it! It is interesting to note, that satisfaction of the
users of in-house systems was not as hi ghas“ off
-the-shel f
”sy st ems overall. This is
apparently offset by their being able to control their technology themselves.

Should Transaction Management be Provided Through the MLS?

Theansweri s…it depends on whom you ask! 55% of the MLS executives who responded
feel the MLS should be expanded to include transaction management services. Brokers
andagent s,howev er ,ar en’tassur ewi
thonl
y40% s
ay ingyes.34% ofbot hgr oupsar e
unsure if this is the right thing to do.

Crystal Ball Time? What are the big changes you all see coming to our
industry in the future?
The answers to this question were, as you can imagine, all over the map! There were
some recurring answers though and others worth mentioning. Here are a few of the
notables!

 Integrating transaction management and enabling easy e-mailing of docs to clients.

 Integrated, statewide access. total paperless world
 Integration of multiple MLS systems into one system that will be used by all agents
throughout the state and, eventually throughout the nation. Wireless technology.
 One big MLS nationwide incorporating all listings. Discount brokers will be identified in
a separate classification of offering on the MLS. Listings offering less than a certain
percentage of median offering rate (say 50%) will not be included in the MLS.
 Transaction management if someone can come up with a compelling argument why
the MLS should be the host.
 Wireless improvements related to MLS.
 Wireless access to the mls anytime, any place....quickly!
 Wide spread mobile access
 Voice control of all features integrated into MLS
 Crystal ball out for servicing. Don't know.
 Find me customers! Send money!
 Good question, I can hardly wait to find out!

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

6
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Survey Details
MLS Vendor Ratings
It is important to note when looking at these ratings that vendors differ according to their
size, the number of customers they serve and the size of MLS they are capable of serving.
As a result, looking at vendors in one list may not tell the whole story. To make our
rankings more meaningful, and fair, we have broken the results into three different
categories for your review.

Note: The following vendors were not included in the ranking due to a low number of
survey responses. (DynaConnections, Filogix, ProMatch, Real Estate Technologies Inc.,
Stratus, Valet MLS). Quest was not included in the ratings due to having no ratings by
MLS executives or staff.

Category 1 - Vendors with 5+ Systems

Our first category compares any vendor serving at least 5 MLS customers. FBS had the
highest overall rating in this group. Congratulations to FBS! Interealty moved up from
number 4 in 2004, to the number 2 position in 2005. Rapattoni and Solid Earth maintained
solid positions at 3 and 4 respectively and Offutt stayed in the number 5 position. Systems
Engineering showed significant improvement in terms of customer ratings as did Fi delit
y’
s
Paragon and Advanced Marketing. ARIS, Marketlinx and In-house Systems moved down
the chart in 2005. Tarasoft was a new addition to the ranking in 2005.
Rank 2004 2005
1 Rapattoni MLS FBS-FlexMLS
2 Solid Earth –List-It MLS Interealty-MLXchange
3 FBS - FlexMLS Rapattoni
4 Interealty - MLXchange Solid Earth-List-It MLS
5 Offutt - Innovia Offutt-Innovia
6 In-house Systems Engineering
7 ARIS Fidelity Paragon
8 Marketlinx - Tempo In-house Systems
9 Fidelity - Paragon Advanced Marketing
10 Systems Engineering Tarasoft (added in 2005)
11 Quest-Ambiance ARIS
12 Advanced Marketing –Internet MLS Marketlinx

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

7
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Category 2 - Large MLS Vendor Category

The second category is for large vendors serving at least one MLS with over 10,000
agents. Vendors that have proven they can serve large MLSs have unique capabilities.
We felt it was appropriate to create a category to rate these vendors and systems by
themselves. Stratus also serves two large MLSs well over 10,000 members, however,
they did not have enough respondents to be included in the ranking in 2005.

Rank 2005
In the large vendor category Interealty took over
1 Interealty-MLXchange
the number 1 position in the overall rating.
2 Rapattoni
Congratulations to the Interealty team. Rapattoni
3 Fidelity - Paragon came in number 2 with Fidelity at number 3.
4 Tarasoft-Matrix
5 Marketlinx

Category 3 –All Vendors Combined Category

The third category rates all vendors included on the survey that received a minimum of 5
reviews regardless of number of accounts or size of market served.
Rank 2005
1 Realgo In the all vendor combined category, Realgo
2 FBS came in number 1. Realgo currently serves a
3 Interealty single regional MLS customer in Colorado with
4 Rapattoni 5000+ members. Congratulations Realgo! FBS,
5 Solid Earth serving primarily small to mid sized MLSs, placed
6 Offutt number 2 in this category. Interealty, serving
7 Systems Engineering MLSs of all sizes took the number 3 position.
8 Fidelity
9 In-house System
10 Advanced Marketing
11 Tarasoft
12 ARIS
13 Marketlinx

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

8
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Vendors ranked by MLS executives and MLS staff –all vendors

Ranked
Ranked by
byMLS
MLSExec
Execa&
a&MLS
MLSStaff
Staff Scores
Scores

RealGo
RealGoMLS
MLS
Rapattoni
RapattoniMLS
MLS
Interealty
Interealty -- MLXchange
MLXchange
FBS
FBS-- FlexMLS
FlexMLS
Systems
Systems Engineering
Engineering
Solid
SolidEarth
Earth--List-It
List-ItMLS
MLSSystem
System
Brokers,
Brokers,Agents
Agents &&Assts
Assts
In-house
In-houseSystem
System
MLS
MLS Execs &&Staff
Execs Staff
FNIS
FNIS-- Paragon
Paragon
Marketlinx
Marketlinx --Tempo
Tempo
Offutt
Offutt--Innovia
Innovia
Tarasoft
TarasoftMatrix
Matrix
Advanced
AdvancedMarketing-Internet
Marketing-InternetMLS
MLS
ARIS
ARISMLS
MLS

0.00
0.00 0.50
0.50 1.00
1.00 1.50
1.50 2.00
2.00 2.50
2.50 3.00
3.00 3.50
3.50 4.00
4.00

MLS executives and MLS rated Realgo, Rapattoni and Interealty as the top three vendors.

Vendors ranked by brokers, agents and real estate office staff –all vendors
Ranked
Rankedby
byBroker/Agent
Broker/AgentScores
Scores

FBS
FBS-- FlexMLS
FlexMLS

RealGo
RealGoMLS
MLS

Interealty
Interealty --MLXchange
MLXchange

Offutt
Offutt--Innovia
Innovia

Solid
SolidEarth
Earth-- List-It
List-ItMLS
MLSSystem
System
Brokers,
Brokers,Agents
Agents &&Assts
Assts
Rapattoni
RapattoniMLS
MLS
MLS
MLSExecs
Execs &&Staff
Staff
FNIS
FNIS--Paragon
Paragon

ARIS
ARISMLS
MLS

Advanced
AdvancedMarketing-Internet
Marketing-InternetMLS
MLS

In-house
In-houseSystem
System

Marketlinx
Marketlinx -- Tempo
Tempo

0.00
0.00 0.50
0.50 1.00
1.00 1.50
1.50 2.00
2.00 2.50
2.50 3.00
3.00 3.50
3.50 4.00
4.00

Brokers, agents and real estate office staff rated FBS, Realgo and Interealty as the top
three vendors. Note: Systems Engineering and Tarasoft survey ratings were only from
MLS executives and staff and so were not included in the Broker ranking chart.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

9
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

The chart below shows how each vendor ranked in several questions from
general happiness with the MLS system to service and responsiveness.

Suggestions
Do you for MLS
believe When system
the We rarely problems improvements
members Our MLS experience are found are acted
are system is technical and upon quickly
happy Our MLS upgraded problems reported by our vendor
with the system is on a with our they are or MLS, if an
MLS Feature easy to regular MLS resolved in-house
system? Average learn. basis. system. quickly. system.
Advanced
Marketing 10 9 9 7 10 6 8
ARIS MLS 9 10 12 10 11 12 7
FBS 3 1 2 1 1 2 3
FNIS - Paragon 8 8 11 8 8 10 9
Interealty 2 2 3 3 2 1 2
Marketlinx 12 12 13 12 13 13 12
Offutt 7 7 7 11 9 11 6
Rapattoni MLS 4 4 4 4 4 4 5
RealGo MLS 1 3 1 2 3 3 1
Solid Earth 6 6 6 9 7 5 4
Systems
Engineering 5 5 8 13 5 9 13
Tarasoft 11 11 10 5 12 8 11
In-house System 9 13 5 6 6 7 10

Number 1 Rating
Number 2 Rating
Number 3 Rating

What vendor had the best overall service rating?

Overall
Overall Service
Service Rating
Rating

FBS
FBS -- FlexMLS
FlexMLS
RealGo
RealGo MLS
MLS
Interealty
Interealty -- MLXchange
MLXchange
Rapattoni
Rapattoni MLS
MLS
Solid
Solid Earth
Earth -- List-It
List-It MLS
MLS System
System
In-house
In-house System
System
Advanced
Advanced Marketing
Marketing -- Internet
Internet MLS
MLS
FNIS
FNIS -- Paragon
Paragon
Offutt
Offutt -- Innovia
Innovia
Tarasoft
Tarasoft Matrix
Matrix
ARIS
ARIS MLS MLS
Systems
Systems Engineering
Engineering
Marketlinx
Marketlinx -- Tempo
Tempo
00 0.5
0.5 11 1.5
1.5 22 2.5
2.5 33 3.5
3.5 44

FBS, Realgo and Interealty were the top 3 in overall service ratings.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

10
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Approximately how many years have you been with your current vendor or
in-house system?

Don
Don 't't know
know 14%
14%

>4
>4 36%
36%

3-4
3-4 9%
9%

2-3
2-3 14%
14%

1-2
1-2 20%
20%

<1
<1 7%
7%

0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
40% 50%
50% 60%
60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%

The largest group of respondents has been with their vendors for over 4 years.

Do you believe the members are happy with the MLS system?
70%
70%
61%
61%
60%
60%
54%
54%

50%
50%

40%
40% 36%
36% MLS
MLS Execs/Staff
Execs/Staff
Brokers/Agens
Brokers/Agens
30%
30%
22%
22%
20%
20%
11%
11%
8%
8%
10%
10% 6%
6%
2%
2%
0%
0%
Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Somewhat Agree
Agree Strongly
Strongly Agree
Agree

Overall it would appear most are happy with their MLS systems though there is a
difference between MLS executives and staff and actual system users. 54% of MLS
Ex ecutivesandMLSst aff“
St r
ongl yAgreed”t heirmember sar
ehappywi ththeMLS
system while only 22% of the brokers and agents felt the same.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

11
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Our MLS system is easy to learn.

Disagree
Disagree
3%
3% Somewhat
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree
12%
12%
Strongly
Strongly Agree
Agree
29%
29%

Somewhat
Somewhat Agree
Agree
56%
56%

85% of the respondents eit

her“
Str
ongl
yAgr
eed”or“
SomewhatAgr
eed”t
hatt
hei
rMLS
system is easy to learn.

Our system is upgraded on a regular basis. (All systems vs. in-house

systems)
60%
60%

54%
54% 53%
53%

50%
50%

40%
40%

32%
32% 32%
32%
All
AllSystems
Systems
30%
30%
In-house
In-houseSystems
Systems

20%
20%

12%
12% 12%
12%
10%
10%

3%
3% 3%
3%

0%
0%
Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
SomewhatDisagree
Disagree Somewhat
SomewhatAgree
Agree Strongly
Strongly Agree
Agree

Most agree that their vendors are providing them with regular upgrades to their MLS
system. 53% of the MLSs with In-housesy st emssayt hey“St rongl
yAgr ee”thei rMLS
system is upgraded on a regular basis versus 32% of the MLSs using traditional vendors.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

12
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

We rarely experience technical problems with our MLS system.

Disagree,
Disagree, 7%
7%
Somewhat
Somewhat disagree,
disagree,
Strongly
Strongly agree,
agree, 27%
27% 16%
16%

Somewhat
Somewhat agree,
agree,
50%
50%

While most report they rarely experience technical problems with their MLS system 23%
r
epor tt
heyei t
her“ Disagr ee”or“ SomewhatDi sagr ee”wi tht
hisst atement .

When problems are found and reported they are resolved quickly.

Disagree,
Disagree, 3%Somewhat
3%Somewhat Disagree,
Disagree,
11%
11%

Strongly
Strongly Agree,
Agree, 34%
34%

Somewhat
Somewhat Agree,
Agree,
51%
51%

Vendor service and responsiveness have improved over the years. 85% report problems
are resolved quickly when they are reported.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

13
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Suggestions for MLS system improvements are acted upon quickly by our
vendor or MLS if an in-house system.
60%
60%
53%
53%

50%
50%

40% 38%
38%
40%

29%
29% All
AllSystems
Systems
30%
30%
In-house
In-houseSystems
Systems

20%
20%
20% 18%
18% 18%
18%
20%
15%
15%

9%
9%
10%
10%

0%
0%
Disagree
Disagree Somew
Somewhat
hatDisagree
Disagree Somew
Somewhat
hatAgree
Agree Strongly
Strongly Agree
Agree

i
It is interestngt
onot
ethatahi gherper cent
ageof“ of
f-the-shel f
”MLSsy stem us ersrepor
t
theyei ther“
SomewhatAgree”or“ St ronglyAgree”t hattheir suggestions for system
improvements are acted upon quickly compared to users of In-house systems.

Please review the list below and select your rating for each particular MLS
system feature or function.
Excellent = 4
Good = 3
Fair = 2
Poor = 1
Feature
Feature Rating
Rating All
AllVendors
Vendors

User
Userinterface.
interface. Look
Look and
andfeel
feelof
ofthe
thesystem.
system. 2.92
2.92
Search
Searchlisting
listingcapabilities
capabilities 2.92
2.92
Listing
Listingmanagement.
management. Adding
Addingand
andmodifying
modifyinglistings
listings 2.91
2.91
Ease
Easeof
ofuse.
use. 2.91
2.91
Email
Email 2.89
2.89
Auto
Autoemail
emailfunctionality
functionality 2.83
2.83
Hotsheet functionality
Hotsheet functionality 2.73
2.73
Tax
Tax functionality
functionality 2.70
2.70
Prospect
Prospect functions
functions 2.69
2.69
Mapping
Mappingfeatures
features 2.63
2.63
Flexibility.
Flexibility. Ability to customize at the
Ability to customize at theagent
agent level.
level. 2.58
2.58
Statistical
Statisticalreport
report functions
functions 2.52
2.52
Contact
Contact management
management 2.52
2.52
CMA
CMA (Comparative
(ComparativeMarket
Market Analysis)
Analysis) 2.48
2.48
Report
Report Writer
Writer 2.33
2.33

0.00
0.00 0.50
0.50 1.00
1.00 1.50
1.50 2.00
2.00 2.50
2.50 3.00
3.00 3.50
3.50 4.00
4.00

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

14
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

The chart on the previous page shows the combined rating of all vendors by feature
indicating the strongest system areas are the Interface, Search Listing, Listing
Management, Ease of Use and Email while the weakest are Flexibility, Statistics, Contact
Management, CMA and Report Writer.

Does your MLS system allow you to attach documents such as disclosure
forms to a listing?

Yes
Yes
40%
40%
Yes
Yes
No
No

No
No
60%
60%

Less than half of the respondents indicate that documents can be attached to a listing on
the MLS system.

Does your MLS offer a desktop (distributed MLS database) product?

Yes
Yes
17%
17%

Yes
Yes
No
No No
No
15%
15%
Don't
Don't know
know

Don't
Don'tknow
know
68%
68%

Only 17% report their vendor offers a distributed database product. The large majority
don’tevenknowif their vendor offers such a product.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

15
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Overall I would rate our MLS system as:

Excellent = 4
Good = 3
Fair = 2
Poor = 1
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
LSS LLSS ggee LSS m vviaia gg oonn emm
.
n ... rixix LSS poo
MML M aann MML tete m nnoo e rrinin aagg sstt e t eerrn aatt r MML emmp
o x M cchh i
nni ss n e e r r y t M e
Go lelex
LLXX tttoto S yy - II n inine
--PP
aa SS y n
- IIn ftft M IISS - TT
e aal lG --FF a SS S u tttt - nngg ssee gg - ssoo AARR nxx -
e SS M
-- M p pa LL f
ff u E S
II S uu n
in rraa i
li n
RR
RRaa
MM OOf s E FFNN hoo e tti TTaa ett l
FFBB a ltltyy t --ItIt e mms I nIn--h rkrke arkrk e
a s t t e a a
ree i is ss t MMa MM
teer --LL SSyy eedd
IInnt trrhth c
nnc
EEaa d vvaa
il ldid AA d
SSoo

As indicated by this general satisfaction question, the majority of vendors today received a
Good (3) or better rating, on average.

MLS executives & staff satisfactions versus brokers, agents and real
estate office staff
Overall I would rate our MLS system as:
70%
70%

59%
59%
60%
60%

50%
50% 46% 47%
47%
46%

40%
40%
MLS
MLS Executives
Executives && Staff
Staff
Brokers,
Brokers, Agents,
Agents, RE
RE Office
OfficeStaff
Staff
30%
30%
23%
23%
20%
20%
14%
14%

10%
10% 7%
7%
5%
5%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Poor
Poor Fair
Fair Good
Good Excellent
Excellent

While vendors received good grades overall more MLS staff rated them as excellent than
did brokers, agents or real estate office staff.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

16
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

We will build our next MLS system in-house.

9% 1%
1%
9%

Yes
Yes
No
No
Under
Under consideration
consideration

90%
90%

For the question above, only MLS executives were included. 9% percent of those
responding indicated they would consider building their own MLS system, while 1% said
they are planning to.

What do you see as the primary benefit of building your own system?
The overwhelming answer to this question was “
cont
rol
”andt
heabi
l
it
ytoaddnewsy
stem
features when they want.

We will renew with our MLS vendor at the end of our current contact.

8%
8%
18%
18%

25%
25%
Definitely
Definitely not
not
Not
Not sure
sure
Probably
Probably
Definitely
Definitely yes
yes

49%
49%

18% say they will definitely renew with their current vendor while 49% say it is likely. 8%
will not and 25% are undecided.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

17
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Does your MLS system integrate with a 3rd party Internet tax product?

Yes
Yes
41%
41% Yes
Yes
Not
Not Sure
Sure
49% No
No
49%
Not
Not Sure
Sure

No
No
10%
10%
41% of the respondents indicate their MLS system does integrate with a 3rd party tax
product.

What Internet tax system do you use?

Many respondents did not know what tax system they used. Realist was the most
common Tax product mentioned followed by local MLS tax solutions, Landata, Fidelity,
DataQuick and IMAP.

How would you rate the tax system?

Excellent Poor
Poor
Excellent
11% 6%
6%
11%

Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair Fair
Fair
34%
34%
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent

Good
Good
49%
49%

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

18
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

11% rated their tax system as excellent while 49% rated it as good. 34% reported their tax
system was fair with only 6% saying it was poor.

Does your MLS provide wireless access to MLS data via handheld devices
such as TREO Blackberry or Smartphones?
Installing
Installing in
in
next
next 1212
months
months
4%
4%

Yes
Yes
Don't
Don't know
know 46%
46%
42%
42%

No
No
8%
8%

Wireless access to MLS data is on the rise. 46% report they have access to MLS data via
wireless while 4% more indicate they are installing this service in the next 12 months.
50% ei t
herdon’ tk
now,ordon’ tof ferthisser vice.

Do you use the wireless service?

25%
25%

Yes
Yes
No
No

75%
75%

Of those indicating they have wireless service available on their MLS system only 25%
currently use it.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

19
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

How satisfied are you with the wireless service?

100%
100%

90%
90%

80%
80%

70%
70%
59%
59%
60%
60%

50%
50%

40%
40%
30%
30%
30%
30%

20%
20%
9%
9%
10%
10% 2%
2%
0%
0%
Very
Verydissatisfied
dissatisfied Somewhat
Somewhatdissatified
dissatified Somewhat
Somewhatsatisfied
satisfied Very
Verysatisfied
satisfied

Of those reporting they actually use the wireless service there appears to be a high level
ofsat i
sf
act i
on,wi th30% “ VerySat i
sf i
ed”and59% “ SomewhatSat i
sfi
ed”wi t
ht heser vi
ce.

What is the main problem with the wireless service/product?

Only a couple of users reported problems. The primary problem noted was“
toosl
ow”
.

Do you think MLS systems should be expanded to include transaction

management?
60%
60%
55%
55%

50%
50%

40%
40%
40%
40%
34%
34% 34%
34%
MLS
MLS Executives
Executives
30%
30% 26%
26% Brokers/Agents
Brokers/Agents

20%
20%

11%
11%
10%
10%

0%
0%
Not
Not sure
sure No
No Yes
Yes

MLS executives were more in favor of offering transaction management through the MLS
than brokers and agents were.

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

20
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

For a more in depth review of Transaction Management issues and adoption request a
free download of the WAV Group 2005 Transaction Management Adoption Study at:
http://www.avgroup.com/Home/news/Reports/TMAdoption

Do you currently use auto forms/contract software?

No
No
38%
38%

Yes
Yes
62%
62%

62% of the respondents currently use automated forms/contract software.

Crystal Ball Time

We asked respondents to tell us what they believe are the big changes we will see coming
to our industry in the future? Here are some of the different responses we received. We
have divided the responses into six major categories.

Category 1 - Yout
ellus,you’
ret
heconsul
tant
s!
 I am not going to do your thinking for you.
 If I had a crystal ball I think I would use it for other things than MLS technology :)
 It better not be soon, agents are just getting up to speed with email. Not sure
 You tell me, not my field!
 Crystal ball out for servicing. Don't know.
 Find me customers! Send money!
 Good question, I can hardly wait to find out!

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

21
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

Category 2 –Wireless
 Wireless to the laptop from the entire service are of the MLS.
 Wireless improvements related to MLS.
 Wireless access to the mls anytime, any place....quickly!
 Wide spread mobile access

Category 3 –Voice
 Voice recognition integrated into MLS applications so that members can use MLS
systems 'hands free.'
 Voice control of all features integrated into MLS
 Voice activated service.

Category 4 - Statewide/national Systems

 Unification of many local region MLSes into one big database of networked
information, as MLS Alliance is doing.
 ONE NATIONAL MLS I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE
 One central statewide or national MLS system
 One big MLS nationwide incorporating all listings. Discount brokers will be identified in
a separate classification of offering on the MLS. Listings offering less than a certain
percentage of median offering rate (say 50%) will not be included in the MLS.
 One uniform system for the nation - world! Where in the world do you want to live???
Find it all in one easy system!
 One MLS for the state

Category 5 –Transaction Management

 Transaction software
 Transaction platform will improve
 Transaction Management software
 Transaction Management platform
 Transaction management incorporated into MLS offerings.
 Transaction management if someone can come up with a compelling argument why
the MLS should be the host.
 Transaction management and website auditing.

Category6 –Integration Please!

 Integrating transaction management (Winforms) and enabling easy e-mailing of docs to
clients.
 Integrated, statewide access. total paperless world
 Interface contract software with tax and listing information
 Integration with transaction software. Larger area will be covered. Accuracy will
improve.
 Integration with contract mgmt system
 Integration of multiple MLS systems into one system that will be used by all agents
throughout the state and, eventually throughout the nation. Wireless technology.
 Integration of contract forms and MLS

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

22
 WAV Group 2005 MLS Technology Survey 12/6/2005

 Integration of all counties MLS with one password or security device!

 Integrating the various systems into one.
 Integrating range marketing pricing into CMAs so that the average price for active and
backup status isn't skewed. That would help me out. I know that isn't a big change but
it's one I would like to see. How about a better security system that can trace illegal
users?
 Integrating all forms and MLS needs together.
 Integrated transaction management.
 Integrate one MLS statewide systems
 Integrate new software programs and add a security feature for passwords.

WAV Group provides complete RFP and technology evaluation services for MLSs
and real estate companies. For more information contact:

Mike Audet
Office: 716-839-4628
Mobile: 716-984-9009
mike@wavgroup.com
www.wavgroup.com

Copyright –WAV Group 2005

23