Seller choice should be paramount in real estate. But if a listing is private, it needs to stay private. If it’s public, the entire market deserves access.

There’s a growing debate in the real estate industry about private listings, office exclusives, Coming Soon listings, and whether brokerages should be allowed to market properties outside the traditional MLS system.

Much of this conversation has centered around Compass, Zillow, and the broader battle over who controls real estate listings and how properties are marketed.

My position is pretty straightforward: I support private listings. I support Coming Soon listings. And above all, I support seller choice.

But there need to be guardrails.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Seller Choice Should Come First

At the end of the day, the property belongs to the seller, not the brokerage, the MLS, Zillow, or the National Association of Realtors.

If a seller wants to market their property privately, they should absolutely have that option.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons someone might want to keep a property off the public market.

Maybe they’re selling a multimillion-dollar estate and don’t want hundreds of people walking through their home. Maybe they’re relocating for business reasons and don’t want their employees or neighbors knowing they’re moving. Maybe they’re testing the market discreetly before making a public announcement.

Whatever the reason, that should be the seller’s decision.

I don’t believe the industry should dictate that every property must immediately be marketed publicly.

We need to be careful about taking away consumer choice. The real estate industry has already faced significant litigation over rules that limit competition and consumer options. Creating more rigid requirements without considering sellers’ preferences could invite further legal challenges.

Seller choice matters, and it should be protected.

If a Listing Is Private, It Needs to Stay Private

Here’s where I think the conversation starts to get distorted.

If a seller chooses an office exclusive listing, that property should genuinely remain private.

It shouldn’t be publicly advertised on Zillow, Realtor.com, and every other major real estate website while one brokerage maintains exclusive control over buyer access.

That defeats the entire purpose of calling it “private”.

Think about it.

If a property is being advertised to millions of consumers across the internet, how is that an exclusive listing?

It’s not.

It’s a publicly marketed property with restricted access.

And I believe that’s a very different thing.

If a brokerage wants to advertise a property to the general public, then buyer agents from other brokerages should have a fair opportunity to schedule showings and represent interested buyers, subject to reasonable seller-approved access requirements.

You shouldn’t be able to publicly market a home while using an office exclusive designation to steer all buyer inquiries back through your own brokerage.

To me, that creates an unfair competitive advantage and raises legitimate concerns about market access.

My proposed rule is simple:

If it’s private, keep it private.

If it’s public, make it accessible to the broader market.

You have to choose one.

Coming Soon Listings Are Fine, but They Need a Time Limit

I also support Coming Soon listings.

They serve a legitimate purpose.

A seller may need a few days to finish painting, complete landscaping, move furniture, or schedule professional photography. During that period, Coming Soon can help generate awareness before the property becomes available for showings.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

But how long should a property be allowed to remain in Coming Soon?

Seven days? Thirty days? Sixty days?

At some point, Coming Soon stops meaning Coming Soon.

If a property has been advertised as Coming Soon for two months, that’s not really a Coming Soon listing anymore. It’s a marketing strategy designed to control access and potentially build an exclusive pipeline of buyers.

I believe we need a clear, standardized time limit.

My recommendation would be a maximum of seven days for Coming Soon listings nationwide.

After seven days, the property should either become active and available for showings or be withdrawn from public Coming Soon marketing.

That creates a reasonable preparation window without allowing brokerages to hold properties in a perpetual premarket status.

We Need Consistency Across MLS Systems

One of the biggest frustrations I have operating in multiple real estate markets is the lack of consistency between MLS systems.

Coming Soon rules can vary dramatically depending on the market.

Some MLS organizations have relatively short time limits. Others allow significantly longer periods. Showing restrictions, marketing rules, and status requirements can also differ.

That creates unnecessary confusion for sellers, buyers, and real estate professionals.

Real estate is increasingly a national business. Consumers search on national websites, brokerages operate across state lines, and technology platforms serve multiple markets.

Yet we still have a patchwork of rules governing how properties can be marketed.

I believe the industry would benefit from a national standard for Coming Soon listings, ideally adopted consistently by all MLS organizations.

Seven days would be my preference.

The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate Coming Soon. It should be to make the rules predictable, transparent, and fair to all. 

Are Private Listings Really About Innovation, or Is It About Recruiting Agents?

Now let’s talk about Compass.

Compass has positioned private listings and its broader marketing strategy as an innovative approach that challenges the traditional real estate system.

And I understand why that message resonates with agents.

Many agents are frustrated with Zillow. They feel the major portals have gained too much influence over the industry, and they want their brokerages to offer something different.

Compass has built a compelling narrative around that frustration.

But I question whether private listings and Coming Soon marketing are really the revolutionary innovations they’re being portrayed as.

My view is that much of this strategy is about recruiting and retaining agents, strengthening the Compass brand, and creating a story of differentiation for investors.

That’s a perfectly understandable business strategy.

But let’s not confuse a successful recruiting narrative with a fundamental transformation of how real estate is bought and sold.

If Compass can convince agents that its platform provides a unique competitive advantage, that helps attract more agents. More agents can mean more listings, more transactions, and potentially stronger financial performance.

The narrative also supports the idea that Compass is a technology forward company challenging the established industry.

But does that necessarily translate into better outcomes for sellers?

That’s the question we should be asking.

What Works in Manhattan Doesn’t Necessarily Work in Mississippi

One of my biggest issues with the national conversation is that it often treats every real estate market as if it operates like Manhattan, Los Angeles, or another luxury driven market.

It doesn’t.

An office exclusive strategy might make perfect sense for a $15 million property on the Upper East Side.

The buyer pool is relatively small. Privacy matters. Discretion can be valuable. A brokerage may already have relationships with a meaningful percentage of qualified buyers.

But what about a $275,000 home in Jackson, Mississippi?

Or a $325,000 home in Tulsa, Oklahoma?

Or an ordinary residential listing in countless smaller American markets?

In those situations, the seller typically benefits from reaching as many qualified buyers as possible.

They want exposure.

They want showings.

They want competition among buyers.

And they want the property sold.

In my experience, most sellers in these markets aren’t asking for exclusive marketing networks or complicated premarket strategies.

They’re asking a much simpler question:

How do I get my house sold for the best possible price?

That’s where the industry’s focus should remain.

There are markets and property types where private marketing makes sense. But presenting it as a revolutionary strategy for the entire American housing market is a stretch.

Public Marketing Should Mean Fair Market Access

This is the distinction I think the industry needs to get right.

I support a seller’s right to choose privacy.

But I don’t support using the label of privacy to restrict competition while simultaneously advertising a property to the general public.

Those are two very different things.

If a seller genuinely wants an office exclusive listing, let them have one. Keep it within the brokerage’s private network and follow the seller’s instructions.

But once a brokerage decides to advertise that property publicly, it should operate under rules that provide fair access to buyers and their representatives.

Otherwise, we’re creating a system where certain brokerages can benefit from broad public exposure while limiting other brokerages’ ability to compete for the transaction.

I don’t believe that’s healthy for consumers or the industry.

And I don’t think we should dress it up as innovation.

The Real Innovation in Real Estate Is Happening Somewhere Else

I think the industry is spending far too much time arguing about who gets to control listings and not nearly enough time figuring out how to make buying and selling real estate more efficient.

The real opportunity is in technology that reduces friction, lowers transaction costs, improves communication, and gives consumers better information.

Artificial intelligence, automation, digital transaction management, and more efficient brokerage models have the potential to fundamentally change how real estate transactions work.

Those innovations can benefit sellers across virtually every price point and every market in America.

That’s a much bigger opportunity than deciding whether a listing should sit behind a brokerage’s private network for a few extra weeks.

The future of real estate shouldn’t be about creating more barriers around information.

It should be about giving consumers more control, more transparency, and better service at a lower cost. That’s what we are working on at Falaya Real Estate. 

My Final Take: Protect Seller Choice, but Establish Guardrails

I believe the industry can reach a reasonable middle ground without eliminating private listings or allowing brokerages to manipulate access to publicly marketed properties.

Here are the principles I would support:

1. Protect seller choice. Sellers should have the right to choose public marketing, private marketing, or a short Coming Soon period after understanding the trade offs.
2. Keep office exclusives genuinely private. A property shouldn’t be publicly advertised across major consumer portals while maintaining exclusive brokerage control over buyer access.
3. Standardize Coming Soon periods. Establish a consistent maximum of seven days across MLS systems.
4. Require fair access for publicly marketed properties. Once a property is publicly advertised, qualified buyers and their agents should have a reasonable opportunity to pursue it, consistent with the seller’s instructions.
5. Put consumer outcomes ahead of brokerage recruiting strategies. Rules should be designed around what benefits sellers and buyers, not what helps a brokerage build its agent count or market valuation.

Ultimately, I agree with Compass on one important point: seller choice is paramount.

But choice comes with trade offs.

If you want privacy, you sacrifice some public exposure.

If you want maximum public exposure, you shouldn’t be able to selectively restrict market access simply to benefit one brokerage.

You don’t get your cake and eat it too.

Let’s protect consumer choice, create fair and consistent rules, and focus on the innovations that actually make real estate better for the people buying and selling homes.