Real Estate Data Experts in The Media. Who Should Be? And Who Is?

Written By: Drew Meyers

Drew Meyers

Drew Meyers

Who is getting quoted by the local media regarding real estate market trends in your area?

I had a discussion about this topic with an John Payson at #REBCSEA last week and saw this tweet from Kristal Kraft — and I decided it’s worth a blog post to explain my thoughts on this subject.

Let’s first answer the question of who is the real estate expert when it comes to the local media.

More often than not, the answer is Zillow.

Who should be?

I know, from a real estate agent/broker perspective, the answer of who should be quoted is a real estate professional with in depth knowledge of the local area. You are in the trenches, Zillow is not.

Behind every question, it’s crucial to understand the why. So why is Zillow being referenced and not you? Two reasons.

1. They show up. To succeed in life and business (& blogging), YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP. Zillow has a team of people building relationships with local media all across the county. They send them valuable market reports on a regular basis, and help reporters get whatever questions they have answered. In many cases, it’s Zillow that is connecting reporters with local agents when asked.

2. They are unbiased. If the market sucks and is trending downward, they are just as willing to help a reporter and be quoted as if the market is on the upswing.

There’s nothing stopping you from being that local real estate source — except your time, effort & the fact that you have to battle the inherent bias you have since you make money when buyers buy and sellers sell.

Find the reporters covering your area and start building relationships — send them story tips, follow them on twitter, send them a monthly market snapshot, be there for them when they are in a bind and need a story. But tell it like it is; don’t champion “now’s a great time to buy” if your local market sucks.

Sure, some agents have more than they can handle as is right now and don’t have the resources to spend ample time on this. But there is no reason a large regional brokerage like Coldwell Banker Bain in Seattle or Baird & Warner in Chicago couldn’t have a dedicated broker to building relationships with the local media (and I’m not singling those brokerages out, just using as examples of the type/size of brokerage I’m referring to).

What’s stopping you from being the expert?

YOU ARE. Now, get busy.

Disclosure: I think most people reading this know I worked for Zillow for a long time and am a shareholder in the company. So while I actually would like to see Zillow remain the local data expert, I still want to provide agents and brokers good strategic advice to better their business. The fact of the matter is that many agents will read this and say “I can do this” but won’t actually follow through and do it. Be a do-er and prove me wrong.

There is No Housing Market

Written By: Matthew Ferrara

Matthew Ferrara

Matthew Ferrara

In the movie the Matrix, Keano Reeves’ character is seeking the truth. When he encounters a prodigy apparently bending a spoon with his mind, he is told, “Don’t try to bend the spoon: That’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: There is no spoon.” Could this be the advice real estate agents need to explain to their customers?

If there is no spoon, then there is no housing market. At least, not in the way we talk about it in popular media and conversation. We hear people ask, “How’s the market?” and the only rational answer is, “Which market?” Yet this simple necessity has been consistently overlooked by too many people with too much access to a worried public. In a classic mistake of media-meets-mania, we’ve packed a complex economic analysis into soundbite-sized charts and indices.

All of which are wrong.

Most REALTORS are trained in the following truism: “All real estate is local.” Either that’s a trite cliche, or it’s a useful shorthand for the proper way to measure the fragmented, loose patchwork of local housing markets that matter to individual consumers. Assuming the REALTORS are right, then the media, and its popular eggheads, are wrong.

If the real estate industry is right, then “nothing” dropped 27% in July.

Like the spoon, there is no national housing market. Not, economically speaking. Not in the same measurable sense that we think of other sectors of the economy. Simply adding up different local market trends doesn’t create a homogenous sector on a national level. Yet that’s what most of the measurements we use to report market movements actually do.

But it doesn’t work because the products (houses) are infinitely variable in shape, size, location, feature and price. The production methods (pricing, marketing, selling) used by different companies in different states varies as much. There’s no “McDonalds School” of real estate anything – building, pricing, selling, servicing or profiting. Every local real estate market combines a a motley crew of consistency, accuracy and efficiency in buyers, sellers and REALTORS. It’s like trying to aggregate the the performance of local “yard sales” into a “national” industry.

Impossible.

And meaningless. Even consistently measurable factors such as unit availability, consumer demographics, income levels, taxation zones, school performance and unemployment rates are so different every ten miles or so that discussing it on a national scale is senseless. (In fact, the process of selling property varies so significantly by agent within the same company, it could be argued that housing markets are so small, they should be measured on a per-agent basis. For our purposes here, we need not go that far.)

We can say that any national claims that the “housing market” is rising or falling or anything is intellectually impossible.

What, then, do all those charts and graphs we see in the media measure? Analytically speaking: nothing. The adding-up of local sales units or prices, then comparing it to the month or quarter before, doesn’t constitute a national trend. That’s why the same media outlets report housing falling somewhere at the top of their page, while noting prices soaring elsewhere at the bottom of the page.

The simple fact is that unlike other product or service markets, housing isn’t produced or traded nationally. Most buyers move about 12 miles from their previous home. A tiny fraction relocates nationally. Competition isn’t national either. Boston sellers do not compete with Miami sellers when setting the price or terms of their home. Nor do Charlotte buyers consider what Los Angeles buyers are offering today.

Worse, the use of housing as an economic “indicator” is tenous, at best. Try to find an economics textbook that includes housing as a measurement tool. Money supply, inflation rates, unemployment levels, taxation rates, even “price indices” of homogenous commodities are useful. Gasoline, milk, the Big Mac index.

But a “housing index” is as absurd as a “wristwatch index.”

This analytical mistake also leads to economic policy mistakes. It’s chicken-and-egg thinking to claim that the mathematical aggregate (increasing or decreasing) of local housing consumption drives the national economy in the same direction. Housing doesn’t drive economic activity; economic activity drives housing purchases. A recovery won’t happen if people stary buying more homes; the economy needs to recover before people can start buying more homes.

Talking about the housing market as if it were a single, homogenous industrial sector – and reporting its aggregate increases and decreases – is not only inaccurate. It’s dangerous, especially in a recession of today’s duration and depth. Misapplying aggregate market performance as an guide to local behavior can cause an already worried consumer to lose confidence, question spending and delay consumption – in otherwise healthy local markets. REALTORS need to take their own advice, and help consumers find the truth: There is no spoon.