There’s been a lot of discussion lately about Zillow—and it’s an important conversation to have. But I think there’s one perspective that’s being overlooked...
The homeowner.
Homeowners hire an agent, prepare their home for sale, and pay to market it. Then the listing gets uploaded to sites like Zillow.
What happens next?
The listing generates traffic and advertising revenue.
Buyers are often directed to Zillow-connected agents and lenders.
The platform profits from the exposure created by the homeowner and listing agent.
The homeowner doesn’t share in that revenue.
Think about that for a second.
If a platform is making money from a homeowner’s property, shouldn’t the homeowner benefit too?
After all, without the home, there is no listing. Without the listing, there is no traffic. Without the traffic, there is no advertising revenue to sell.
And it doesn’t stop there.
Zillow places Zestimates on homes that aren’t even for sale.
Those estimates can influence buyer perceptions, impact neighboring listings, and affect conversations around value—even though they’re generated by an algorithm that has never walked through the property, seen the upgrades, evaluated the view, or understood the nuances that make a home unique.⠀⠀⠀
Then there are metrics like Days on Market and price history, often presented without the context that actually matters.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
The result?
A platform that profits from housing data while shaping opinions about homes it doesn’t own, hasn’t seen, and wasn’t hired to sell.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
The question isn’t whether these platforms are useful.
The question is whether homeowners should have more control—and perhaps more participation—when someone else is monetizing their property.⠀⠀
Homes aren’t algorithms. #homesbydkcowles
