Before reading my thoughts, I encourage you to watch the video response from Denise Lones, and her Business Development Director, Laura Brodniak about their take on the situation. Watch that video here
I've been thinking a lot about the fall out of the Zebragate issue between The Lones Group and Daniel Rothamel. It's got me questioning numerous items with reagrd to ethics etc. So here are my thoughts in no order.
I did some digging and found this statement from the Code they were referencing:
Attornies, catch me if I'm wrong, But I believe this nullifies that argument, no? The way I read 1-2, it says to me the Code only applies with regards to real estate activities. Therefore, a Realtor saying negative comments about another Realtor's non real estate transaction related business can't fall under the code of Ethics.
Although I'd love to seem some discssion from folks below to see if you agree with my assessment.
2) As
Rob Hahn mentioned previously,
in numerous posts, Cyber Bullying (or I think flame wars is a better term) are a part of the Internet. Isn't it Jay Thompson's right to put on his blog whatever he wants to, isn't it Drew Meyers / Jim Marks perogative to put on their blog whatever they want to as long as it's true? Sure some of the things that were said people may regret (although light there was some name calling, but in general the arguments laid out in blogs, in my opinion were very cogent.) Denise but out a press release on her site stating her opinion, just as all the bloggers put out a piece about the Lones Group making an argument for what they believed in.... But the beauty of the Internet is that it allows discourse. It allows two parties to hash out their differences, and sometimes for all to see. I know that Denise wanted to settle this all privately, why wouldn't she? She's taking legal action, which is of course also her right, but she wouldn't want the backlash that came from suing Daniel. But then it's Daniel's right, and all of his friend's rights to use the powers that are in their arsenal to fight back if there is no gag order on the case. It's no different than a small business taking to a grassroots campaign to try to keep customers while a big box retail store opens up next to them. It's their right to try to create that campaign, and although I know from parties familiar with the situation, that Daniel never asked for any kind of support that was given. It was then the right of his supports to lodge that campaign on his behalf (again as long as it was true).
Furthermore, I got to thinking about how if it was so bad that people had negative comments about The Lones Group, then wouldn't there be a corollary to people writing bad reviews on Yelp. If it was somehow against the law or immoral to write a negative review about a company, then business like Yelp, Merchant Circle, or Google's Places system wouldn't have any value.
3) SEO wars . This is what I was most interested in.... Is there anything inherrently wrong with trying to get your post to rank higher than someone else's for a given search term. Again, althogugh the intentions are negative, and there was more than likely a mean spirit in the hearts of those attacking the Lones Group. I can't see any possible argument that can be made for an SEO war. Again, if someone is writing non-false material about a company and they want that to rank for a search term, isn't that their perogative? It reminds me of a case in St Louis. For years, a man would park his car everyday outside of a car dealership that sold him a lemon. Everyday the car would say don't buy from this dealership, they sold me a lemon. Isn't that his right, if he's on a public street? How is this different from a union standing in front a building saying you shouldn't use the company becuase they didn't use union labor? How is this any different?
4) Did Inman show any favoritism to someone that's done work for them in the past?
Inman is a news gathering organization with the same rights and protections as any journalism firm. I think it's silly to think there might have been a conspiracy here. This story was one of the biggest stories in the real estate world that week. This is MAJOR news. Consider how big of a case this is...
A company sued a Realtor and his broker over the use of an animal in their marketing.
If the case isn't resolved out of court, this could have HUGE impact in the legal realm for all Realtors. To say that an agent can't use a Zebra, or any other very broad branding (something like a dog for example!) is a potential legal nightmare. Imagine all of the companies that could sue each over over the use of a dog in their branding! How long has Coldwell Banker used the dog in it's branding? This is potentially a massive case.
So I don't fault Inman at all here for keeping stories about the case on the site. It was interesting, it surely got many more views than their average post probably got... Could there have been some favoritism there? Sure. But, the smell test isn't dirty in my opinion. It's not like the story was at all one sided. I think
Matt Carter did a pretty good job in his stories covering each side equally. I'm sure they were especially concerned by the matter since Inman used the Zebra branding in some of their materials promoting the Agent Reboot event that ocurred today in The Lones Group's backyard of Seattle, WA.
5) Can Social Media be a big pockets equalizer?
In the video, Denise makes a statement that says something along the lines of, what would this world come to if everyone filing a law suit was threatened like she had been. That got me to thinking.... can social media, and the court of public opinion play a much larger role than it used to due to social media. I think the unequivocal answer is yes. We have yet to see if Denise and Daniel finalize a settlement on this case, but I think it would have been interesting to see if Denise would have continued on with the case if she had to continue to deal with the firestorm that ocurred in a drawn out court case.
Denise also claims in the video that she tried to reach out to Daniel? It was my understanding from
Daniel's offer of settlement that she never attempted to contact him? Only that she had her attorney sent a letter? Denise also claims that she wants to talk to Daniel now. Did she receive a letter from him, what's her plans for acting on that letter?
But at the core of this Denise is looking for changes at NAR. She believes that all the Realtors that wrote negative commentary about her are in violation of the Code of Ethics. Do you believe this to be the case? Will NAR rule on this key issue or is it already there in stone like I surmized above?
I'd love to know EVERYONE's thoughts on all of this, and would love to see commentary from Denise herself on this matter.
Also if anyone from NAR is reading this, or if there are any association staff members that have sat on professional standards committees I'd LOVE to get your opinions...
UPDATE: Jeff Bernheisel just pointed out that by law, any licensed agent in the State of Washington must disclose to the public in dealings related to real estate matters that they are licensed in the state. A brief review of agent websites in the state indicates that they all have an item at the bottom of their site "Licensed in Washington." A quick review (again not an Attorney) of Washington License Law (
18.85.361) would indicate this is correct.
the director may take disciplinary action against any person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a real estate broker, managing broker, designated broker, or realReal Estate Brokers and Salespersons 18.85.361 2010 [Ch. 18.85—page 11] estate firm, regardless of whether the transaction was for the person’s own account or in a capacity as broker, managing broke r , de si gna t ed broke r , or r e a l e s ta te f i rm, and may impose any of the sanctions and fines specified in RCW 18.235.110 for any holder or applicant who is guilty of:
(8) Advertising in any manner without including the real estate firm’s name or assumed name as licensed in a clear and conspicuous manner in the advertisement; except, that real estate brokers, managing brokers, or firms advertising their personally owned real property must only disclose that they hold a real estate license;
Does that imply that because she didn't indicate she was licensed, that she wasn't actively engaged in the real estate business acting "in the capacity of a real estate broker, managing broker, designated broker, or real estate brokers and salespersons" that the above statements I concluded that the Code of Ethics doesn't apply? I believe so but what does everyone else think?
By the way, I know this is a touchy subject. But I wanted to make sure we stay as cerebral as possible here. My goal is to keep passion and emotion to a minimum, instead to try and vett out the statements made by the parties to the suit and those outside of it, specifically with referring to the Code of Ethics statement and Denise's desire to seek some sort of change at NAR.
Passionate about all details of real estate.