Streeteasy charging for rental listings

As someone not in real estate professionally, I think that's a mistake by SE.
I come to SE for two reasons - to get the advice of this forum and as a search engine to search listings (which I would hope would comprehensively show me everything on the market). If it doesn't work as a proper search engine because brokers need to pay for their listings to appear then it diminishes the quality of the product from my standpoint.

TeamM, What if Streeteasy thinks that brokers have no other choice but to pay as every one goes to Streeteasy?

300 - that's a great question, and I assume that's part of their reasoning. If that assumption is correct then so long as the cost isn't passed-through to the consumer then I don't really care. My concern is that it won't actually work that way, that there will be administrative hiccups, etc., and ultimately the quality of the search engine will suffer because it will have fewer listings.

I've never paid a nickel to SE, so it's their choice to do whatever they think is appropriate for their business, but that's my concern.

I think part of the issue is the reason StreetEasy became the "go to" platform is that all listings were on it since brokers didn't have to pay. This may very well open the door for another platform, especially if brokers opt to not have all their listings here any more.

There is no alternative in NYC. Consumers and even brokers go to Streeteasy as their primary search tool.

there are alternatives to Streeteasy. Lots of them. Brokers will simply go back and use mostly the CLOSED system of RLS, MANAR, OLR, etc. Some of the larger firms, draw enough traffic and have a reputation, that this will actually HELP brokers. As the information will not be published, as it was in years past, and renters had to actually go to a Broker. The fee WILL be passed down to the consumer. It will be a surcharge, like an application fee or added to a rental. The number of NO fee apartments will dwindle...

These options have existed but there is no consolidated option for consumers. Consumers do not care who is listing it. They just want all listings in one place with some additional information such as past sales etc.

My crystal ball shows that this isn't the last move by any of the chess players. Should be interesting.

I think it's time for REBNY to step up to the plate and create a consumer friendly site. Agents pay huge fees to them and we're getting nothing for it. When Streeteasy started Premier that should have been their wake-up call to get their tech designers on it.

https://therealdeal.com/2017/06/29/the-rebel-alliance-attacks-top-brokerages-team-up-with-rebny-in-deal-that-could-cut-streeteasy-out/

@300_Mercer This is for Rentals for now. That is a different ball game. Many renters still use brokerage houses or Property Managers directly. they know that off line or even Craigslist is a better option... And Corporate clients use firms as well..

The Rebel Alliance attacks: Top brokerages team up with REBNY in deal that could cut StreetEasy out

“They’re much better than our industry,” Compass CEO Robert Reffkin said in March, referring to StreetEasy. “We’re a collection of brokerage firms who aren’t able, because of lack of trust…… to move quickly. What takes us four months takes them a day.”

Agree with Compass. Look how they were able to deal with the matter in Columbia County.

This will really hit the pocket books of companies like Citi-Habitats and Bond where the company uploads thousands of listings to Streeteasy. I bet Citi has over 10,000 rental listings on the site! Perhaps they will offer a bulk rate to these firms. Agents don't upload their own listings to SE, they are inputted into the firms proprietary listing system (or 3rd party system, real plus, OLR) and then uploaded en-mass to streeteasy .

I think Streeteasy will negotiate a flat fee of say $25 per listing and slowly increase over time to reduce outrage from the brokers. Also, the brokers are used for paying for advertising as in NYT etc from the old days.

I hear Streeteasy is still sticking to its guns of $3 per day per listing and not negotiating bulk discount with Citi Habitat. I guess there will be a period when the bulk of rental listing will disappear from Streeteasy temporarily unless they blink.

This is truly a fascinating storyline going on right now between StreetEasy and the vested brokerage industry. It's unclear who is in the right here and who will ultimately win, but I definitely have no mercy for the brokerage industry in allowing a 3rd party they don't control to gain nearly 100% market share with buyers and renters in NYC.

well, lemayday, the problem with containing "a 3rd party" that the "vested brokerage industry" doesn't "control" is that there's a fine line between co-operation and collusion. I think that maybe earlier development of a public-facing MLS would have prevented this situation from developing, but the big firms were too focused on their own websites and their own new development businesses to really think about that, and now the game is different.

Ideally what's good for the consumer is access to listings, data, and expertise, but if an information provider wants to monetize its information, it might end up pushing one of those at the expense of the others. The question is, will that make the end-user's experience better or worse?

To complicate things, who's the end-user? I believe it's been mentioned above that StreetEasy has generally been a boon to buyers, but there have certainly been problems for sellers in trying to get data corrected. (As a broker, I work with clients on both sides.) It's pretty complex to figure out who's "winning."

ali r.
{downtown broker}

http://rew-online.com/2017/07/03/new-york-brokerage-bigs-band-together-in-mls-fight/

It's rough. Being that I do this full time, and rentals are a big part of my business, I certainly cut down from posting all 18 units I have, to just 4, trying to hit each neighborhood.

I just did the math.... Based on the current listing volume... Streeteasy is making $51,000 per day... $1.5m per month... $18m per year, by simply charging US brokers a fee, for providing THEM content....

I am surprised it took Streeteasy that long to start charging. Rental brokers still have a role for the landlords as there is significant work involved in showing the apartments. Majority of renters are using Streeteasy anyway.

I do not agree with brokers that this is an unfair price although acknowledge that street easy should have handled it better. Assuming average apt rental 30 days on the market, the ad cost per apartment becomes $90. With $3,330/median rent and 15% of yearly rent fee the commission is $5,940. $90 is 1.52% of that. The question is how it is split between a broker and a brokerage and whether one needs to advertise for 30 days or more, etc. Overall, however, this is not an outrageous number.

Yes, I also agree this is not an unfair practice. I see so many rental listings that brokers leave posted well after the unit was rented. Hopefully this will encourage brokers to maintain their listings better.

What you're not taking into account though are apartments in the lower range that are cobroked. A $1600 apartment for example will net a cobroking agent around $700 before paying Streeteasy. And if it's on the market for 3 months (which is not unheard of in the winter months) then Streeteasy is making close to 40% of the listing agent's commission.

I think this qualifies as "shots fired":
https://ny.curbed.com/2017/9/11/16285226/nyc-real-estate-new-york-times-rebny-partnership

If major brokerage firms decide to continue with not sending any listings (sales or rentals) to SE and do send all their listings to NYT, then The Times may go back to being the "go to" source for buyers/renters to browse listings.

Definitely a "shot fired" but will miss the target in my opinion as NYT will not have the transparency and functionality of Streeteasy. Perhaps, Streeteasy will lower the rental listing fees but start to charge the brokers for sale listings. I do agree that the current fees are a little steep.

Definitely disagree. They won't start charging for sale listings, why would they? They already take 90%+ of the leads away from listing agents via the premier agent re-routing, so listing agents are already paying SE.

Furthermore, doubt SE would do that just as they're fighting REBNY and NYT and Realtor.com are coming in strong into the sales market with free listings and zero lead re-routing.

I’m a small owner and was trying to listing an apartment that’s not very expensive for NYC standard. I was shocked to learn that SE is now charging $125-$200 for only two weeks per listing. That’s nearly $9/ per day, per listing. What a gross rip off. SE used to charge $15/two weeks, and now the price has increased 10x, such agressive price gauging is appalling and 7nethical. We should all boycott, but all consumers should have consensus for it to be effective.

I did find owner listing very expensive. Unfortunately, there is no other choice. Realtor.com and other sites are not very good.

https://therealdeal.com/2018/12/12/theyll-do-it-until-they-cant-streeteasys-rental-hike-squeezes-brokers-amid-tough-market/

I don't do a lot of rentals - but I'm in the middle of a rental search now (representing the tenant) and what I've found is that some agents turn listings "off" when they're not accessible. Makes sense to save a few bucks, right?

But it does mean that if the current tenant has said, "You can't have access for three days," then that listing disappears from SE for three days. I pay for access to the REBNY Listing System, where listings don't quite "flicker" i the same way, and then backfill with SE info, but I imagine it's probably annoying for consumers who are dealing directly with SE info.

ali r..
{upstairs realty}