The Foundation and Future of MLS

When the MLS System was first introduced in Toronto over 50 years ago it was called the Photo Co-op system. When it started there were many board members who scoffed at the idea of sharing information with fellow Realtors in the city. Some brokers felt it was unfair to provide valuable listing information to other offices because they were the ones who had gone out, knocked on doors and worked hard to solicit the business in the first place. The idea of co-operating listings wouldn’t go away and eventually it became established. It grew to become the largest MLS in the country.




The foundation of sharing listing information was based on what was best for the customer. Making all brokers across the city aware of a listing and actively participate in its marketing was good for the customer because it created an army of men and women who worked collectively to market and sell the listing.



While the brokers involved in the listing and selling of a property would have to share the commission, the big winner would always be the customer. That was why the idea did not go away and was eventually accepted by all board members. It was irrefutable that the customer would win and that was what the MLS System was all about right from the start.



The customer benefitted not only because TREB members were able to market the property all across the city but also because the brokers who belonged to the board operated under a strict code of ethics ensuring the same honourable conduct of the person representing their property all across the city.



These two principals were the pillars of reason on which the foundation of MLS was built.



Other licensed Realtors who did not belong to TREB were envious of the huge base of listings that TREB’s “club” of brokers was able to provide to members. They did not have access to those listings and the valued information they formed collectively. If they wanted that, they had to apply to join TREB. If they were accepted, agreed to pay the fees promptly and pledged to conduct their business under the code of ethics and strict guidelines of business conduct then, too could participate in MLS and gain access to all those listings.



Many of them joined. But others did not. Some complained bitterly to government officials and the press that TREB members had formed a monopoly and controlled all the real estate listings in the city. They angrily pointed out that real estate brokers were being pressured into paying member fees in order to make a living because they had to join TREB if they wanted to be in business and they had to conduct themselves the way TREB dictated, in particular the way the MLS rules dictated. If any member declined to conduct their business in a manner outside of those rules, their membership was terminated and their access to MLS was cut off.



TREB prevailed because it was always able to show that its system ensured that the customers of its members received the best service possible, delivered with exemplary business ethics. No one was being forced to join the board.



From its development as a simple process of picture sharing through all technological changes over decades, the foundation of MLS has never changed. However the charges of exclusion from those who want information provided in a manner different than the way TREB makes it available have never ceased throughout the years.



Today the Competition Bureau is acting for complainants in a dispute with TREB over this issue. My fear is that they may lose sight of the fact that the winner of this dispute should always be the customer.



If that fact is lost, then so is MLS.



Heino Molls is publisher of REM. Email heino@remonline.com