Private Listing Networks: Don’t Be Fooled by the Gimmick

By Bess Freedman

I recently penned an article for Inman titled “Private Listing Networks Are the Newest Pet Rock,” where I draw a clear parallel between the fad of the silly pet rock from the 1970s and today’s push for exclusive, brokerage-only listing networks.

Here’s the heart of my argument:

• Private Listing Networks are a fad. Just as the pet rock was a novelty marketed as something revolutionary (even though it was just a rock), private networks are being positioned as a “new choice” for sellers. But in truth, they offer something many brokerages have already been offering for years: selective exposure.
• Maximum exposure matters. The only way to get the best price for a home is to expose it broadly to all qualified buyers. Restricting access to one brokerage’s network stifles demand and that invariably hurts the seller’s bottom line.
• Fiduciary duty vs. gimmicks. Agents’ obligation is to their clients, not to corporate growth strategies or profit models. Promoting something that artificially limits competition is a disservice to sellers.
• Privacy has its place but it can’t be the default. I acknowledge there are situations where a seller wants discretion. In those cases, we absolutely accommodate that. But privacy should be an exception, not the standard cloaked in spin.

In short: private listing networks are the pet rock of real estate hype. They look novel, but they risk undermining what truly benefits sellers: open access, robust competition, and transparent markets.

 If you’d like to read my full thought piece, you can read it on Inman here: Private Listing Networks Are the Newest Pet Rock