Reform, Not Repeal: The Wise Path Forward For Clear Cooperation

Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.

Here’s a headline you won’t see in 2024: [Person] takes balanced, nuanced stance on [issue]

That’s not a criticism of the media; it’s an indication of how we consume news today. We seek quick, to-the-point summations of issues as we navigate our busy days and the barrage of content in our feeds. Our collective tendency is to reduce an issue down to a black-or-white, good-or-bad distillation, whether it reflects its actual complexity in the real world. 

Unfortunately, that tendency has driven the industry discourse around the future of the Clear Cooperation Policy — the National Association of Realtors (NAR) rule that requires agents to put their listings on an affiliated multiple listing service (MLS) within 24 hours of marketing the property, with exceptions for office exclusives. As the rule has come into focus for regulators, brokerages and NAR itself, it’s increasingly been viewed as a tug-of-war: Preserve the rule or repeal it — which side are you on?

What’s a far less sensational conversation is: How can the industry consider tweaking the policy for the future, recognizing both its limitations for seller choice and its positive contributions to housing accessibility? How can it grant more freedom for tailored property marketing strategies without potentially undermining buyers? 

These are the conversations that we need to have as an industry to benefit the consumers we all serve. In fact, Anywhere is one of the very few companies in our industry to argue for solutions outside of the binary choices sought by others.

We believe the better approach for Clear Cooperation is thoughtful reform, not wholesale repeal. Our suggestions might make for boring headlines, but as we recently shared with NAR and MLSs, we think they’re designed to chart a reasonable path forward:

Consideration 1: Consumer choice

Different sellers in different markets throughout the country will have different priorities in marketing their property — but Clear Cooperation mandates a one-size-fits-all, national approach to listing a property in the MLS. This ignores that there are plenty of reasons a seller may want to exercise more choice and flexibility in how they showcase their home. 

We’ve articulated a range of examples of sellers who might not want to immediately list on the MLS, from the local football coach who’s moving schools but hasn’t announced it yet to the team or the fans to the highly recognizable, high-net-worth individual who requires privacy for her safety, and multiple nuanced scenarios in-between. 

The bottom line is that not every seller wants the mass distribution that the MLS provides and requires — and mandatory rules should not automatically override the agent’s ability to adjust marketing strategy to the many life circumstances that may define a seller’s priorities.

Consideration 2: Equitable access

While seller flexibility is key, there is a legitimate argument for the benefits that Clear Cooperation provides to buyers — equitable access to available inventory — which is why we do not support rescinding the policy entirely. 

Broad visibility of listings is important not just for fair housing but also for the consumer experience — buyers don’t want to comb through multiple fragmented sources just to understand options for what’s on the market.

Open dialogue on the future of Clear Cooperation 

Anywhere has recommended several alternative approaches to NAR, including frameworks that would extend the 24-hour window, provide exceptions for certain sellers and properties, or provide other ways to preserve seller privacy, like reducing the requirements on the type of data or number of photos that would be included in publication to other MLS participants.

But the best approach probably can’t — and shouldn’t — be summarized in a single headline. It’s going to require thoughtful conversations and healthy debate among leaders throughout NAR and our industry at large, something we’ve asked NAR to facilitate openly and transparently.   

In the meantime, we hope the industry can look beyond the binary choice of upholding or repealing and allow for a spirit of compromise. Often, the right answer lies in the middle, even if it’s a little less exciting that way.