Matterport Syndication: a Blessing or Curse?4845
Pages:
1
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
Video: Courtesy of Realtor.com Hi All, As I understand it - and correct me if I am wrong - Matterport presently syndicates "our" Matterport Spaces 3D Tours to: ✓ Realtor.com (see press release 30 March 2017) ✓ The New York Times Real Estate Section (see press release 3 April 2017) [NY area only] And, Matterport has announced that more syndication alliances are in the works. While on the face of it, this seems like a blessing for Matterport Service Providers ... ✓ more views ✓ happier clients (more opportunities to help client success) ... I have the following concerns: ✓ Matterport Service Providers do not share in the revenue stream when "our" Matterport Spaces are licensed to 3rd parties ✓ Matterport has not asked us for our permission to use "our" Matterport Spaces ✓ Not all We Get Around Atlanta residential clients want their Matterport Spaces distributed (e.g. pocket listings) ✓ We would like to up-sell this distribution opportunity While we have stopped including the address in our models within Matterport to help stop this use of our content without our permission, I wonder if the Pro2 GPS is a trojan horse: meaning, even if I do not specify the address, Matterport knows where the property was scanned. I recommend that Matterport take the following steps: 1. Give Pros the option to opt-in to syndication by: 1) All models 2) model-by-model 3) by folder 2. Revenue share with Matterport Service Providers Pro Community One of the reasons that Matterport will explode (in a good way), is syndication. I could imagine that we when scan a restaurant, for example, Matterport will syndicate - license - "our" content to 3rd party platforms that: ✓ book restaurants ✓ book meeting spaces ✓ book event spaces ✓ book film/TV production locations ✓ book group dining locations Add to syndication, derivative works such as: ✓ VR ✓ 2D schematic floor plans ✓ video ✓ GIF ✓ SQ FT And, you get the idea. Plus, there are - and likely will be - 3rd party platforms that we would love to license "our" Matterport Spaces 3D Tours and derivative works. So, we pay Matterport for our Camera and hosting and they make money licensing "our" Matterport Spaces 3D Tours. Fair? I could imagine that the next syndication announcement will be with Google Street View. I  Google Street View. Enabling us to publish to Google Street View is amazing and exciting and increases the value of the Matterport Camera to us 10 fold, BUT I don't want "our" models published to Google Street View unless We Get Around gives permission.I Matterport. Sometimes Matterport makes it hard to ...If Matterport fails to enable Matterport Service Providers to opt-in/opt-out and share in revenue for the use of "our" Matterport Spaces - and derivative works - this will create an opportunity for other Camera/Platform companies in the 3D-VR-360º space to win-over the Pro Community. Their pitch? Revenue Share! What are your thoughts about Matterport syndication? Best, Dan MatterBaby-in-Chief P.S. This topic was inspired by discussions elsewhere in the Forum about Matterport using "your" Matterport Spaces in Realtor.com without their permission. If you wrote on this topic, please PM me the discussions so that I can added "Related Forum Posts" .... Related Discussions in the We Get Around Network Forum ✓ Realtor.com Listings add Matterport Spaces ✓ NYT Real Estate Debuts Virtual Reality Tours ✓ Why I am the MatterBaby-in-Chief |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
 FounderNail Soup Media Sarasota, Florida |
GlennTremain private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Great points Dan. MLS data is syndicated in many ways; public to all real estate agent websites that the agent is a member of, another feed is just for realtor.com and has extra features the feed they send to zillow (if they do) does not have, etc. Also when you put a listing in the MLS you have a choice to allow full syndication or partial or none at all. |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
Viewing private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This is why Matterport added into their ToS that they own the content. We all agreed so no comebacks. I think the majority of us rightly assumed we would own our content so didn't look thru the whole ToS. I have faith that the guys at Matterport are good guys and with the right opportunity might consider some recurring revenue to be shared with us MSPs via licensing. |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Here's a related Forum discussion: Quote: Originally Posted by @VTLV |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
Namecomingsoon private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I don't understand how this is possible. 85% of my hosted models are off market. Barely any info is included in my models; price, requirements, availability, pets etc. Tons of info needs to be presented with the model or the viewers are going to waste a lot of time. | ||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN StandardMember Las Vegas |
VTLV private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Y'all had me worried Realtor.com and their App could pick up just about any tour out there. Last year I shot a home and saved it for my portfolio. It has now been relisted and I freaked out thinking; "is my tour showing on Realtor.com or the app"? Nope! I assume this feature is just a pitch for now vs a creepy trojan searching for more content to place ad's onto. For those you who have had your listing go directly on the site, I have a question. Did you input an MLS Listing Id # that could have been picked up my Matterport and forward to Realtor.com? Does anyone have an example of tours going up on the Realtor.com site without sharing the direct Matterport Link to the agent? One more reason not to share the direct Matterport links with clients, we cannot control what the MLS does with the agent Branded/Unbranded Links going out to feed sites. |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @VTLV All great questions. Yes. It would be very helpful to the Forum Community to understand how Matterport Tours end up on realtor.com and The New York Times Real Estate section. As I mentioned, this topic was inspired by Forum Members that "their" Matterport Spaces showed up on these sites without their explicit permission. Hopefully, those Members read this and post and/or I locate their posts in related We Get Around Network Forum discussion. Dan |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Las Vegas |
VTLV private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DanSmigrod Thank you Dan! This has been a topic I have not followed up on. I've been curious about the workings of Realtor.com since Newscorp Purchased Move Inc and the NAR lost a seat at the table. Most listings I look up in town no longer show Realtor.com listings on page one. I'd like to see some listing syndication options to get our tours online instead of cracking agents to log into places like Realtor.com and update that tour link. I understand Newcorp also owns shares in Matterport and Listhub. Having access to Listhub would be a great offering. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
 PremiumMember North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @vtlv I thought that Realtor.com was subcontracted out to a third party. The word Realtor is a registered trademark, so I think its unlikely that they sold the URL to anyone. With that said, I don't believe that The National Association of Realtors ever had full control of the site. I think that they sold out their own (Realtors) by not maintaining control of the content of the Site. The created a monster with Zillow. Zillow basically sells leads back to the agents to whom the listings really belong. Anyway, thats another story.... I have had two scenarios that have already happened to me. I am going to put a call into my Attorney about this auto syndication to which I have no control over. We should be able to control all aspects as Matterport is preventing me from making money from the client that paid me for the tour. 1st reason for me is that I charge separately for hosting. First 60 Days free, then after that, they pay. I had a client that didn't won't to renew as he said that it was "Temp off market" So I take the embed code off of his tour so no more 3D until he extends the hosting. Then the listing came back on the market. It re-appeared back on Realtor.com with the 3D Tour. My client must have seen it their and realized that I don't control with this (or he may even read this forum, who knows?). So I emailed him saying that I noticed that the tour was once again 'For Sale' but he said, thanks but still didn't want to renew. Now I am out of pocket. I don't want to delete the tour on Matterport as quite often, if the seller re-lists with another agent, I will re-sell the tour at 50% discount (as long as the original agent is ok with that which around 70% are). 2nd reason is that I had one of my clients sellers saying that they don't want their 3D Tour to appear on Realtor.com. He thinks we have control over it. We told him we don't. And so his client must be pissed at the agent as its still active on Realtor.com. He told us that he called Realtor.com for removal and was told by them that they could remove it for him. Its still there, so I guess that their support doesn't know that its not even possible for them to remove it.  |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| ** UPDATE ** I [contacted Matterport] above issues ... --- Houston, we have a Huge problem. You should know that I have my own Tour template that i serve my Real Estate clients tours on. I also upload tours to Realtor.com through their picture path portal. I have always done this because I have complete control over all aspects of the tour by serving tours on my own template. If a client owes for something on the tour and doesn't pay, I temporarily take the tour offline. I charge my clients separately in regard to hosting Matterport tours as Matterport charges me, the account holder, for hosting. I do this as my Matterport tour pricing starts at the low low price of just $99. You can imagine my surprise that when I turned off the 'sharing' option of a tour in my Matterport account that the tour still appeared on Realtor.com I needed to turn off the sharing option so that the tour would no longer display online because someone did not pay me for hosting renewal of a tour. To my complete surprise, turning this off did not take the tour down from Realtor.com. This is serious and needs a fix immediately. We should have the control over whether or not OUR TOURS, YES OUR TOURS appear on Realtor.com. Please respond. --- ... and just got this response. It appears that Matterport can remove them from Realtor.com. I will be asking for all of mine to be removed although this is a massive pain in the neck as they want URLs from Realtor.com as well as the Matterport link. But if enough of us do this, then maybe they will implement an on/of syndication button: Hi Colin, We apologize for the late response and also that you are not having the best experience with sharing to Realtor.com. If you still need this model removed from the listing, please send us an email to support@matterport.com with the Matterport link and the Realtor.com listing link and we'll get this taken care of ASAP. Thank you, -[Redacted] |
||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Colin, since you have a conversation open with Matterport on this subject, would you mind asking for clarity on how models are being syndicated to Realtor.com? | ||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Sure, I am about to send them this email: So I guess your instructions above is the manual way of having to have you guys remove the 3D Tour Button on Realtor.com. I want you to know that this has created a lot of work for me. So from now on, rather than me having to send you an email asking for removal of the tour button, I guess the only way for my Matterport Tours not to appear on Realtor.com is to not input any address on the capture app. Correct? Out of curiosity, could you please tell me what criteria is used from your end to realtor.com in the syndication process? Please remove the following 3D Tour Buttons from Realtor.com:..................... In the email, I will also send them every single link button thats on Realtor.com along with the Matterport link for removal. I honestly think its a bad idea with this button. It detracts from the Home Tour link (which is almost to the point of hidden). With Tour links, everything can be found from Hi Res Photos, to video tours and the 3D Tour itself. I mean, who's going to bother to look for the Tour link once they have seen the 3D Tour? I bet no one. Any agent on this forum that has realtor.com stats from their realtor.com login page? It used to be that you could see how many times your tour link was clicked. |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, I sent @hometakes a note saying, "It is amazing that you turned off sharing and it did not retract the syndication.." He gave me permission to share his reply (below). Dan --- Yep, and I took the address out too. I think that once its hooked on, it don't let go.... Im going to tell my operator not to put an address on the tours from now on..... Not sure how that will work with my file system... But I just can't have it do this.... I actually think its a terrible idea with its own bottom. Tour buttons are the only thing I think that should be there. When someone clicks on any tour button, the property most of the time is displayed with much better photos, video and 3D tours from a good template..... I just can't imagine getting very many clicks on the tour link on Realtor.com page now that the 3D button is so prevalent. It just dominates. The tour button is now almost hidden off to the right side and no longer hovering above the photos where it once was for years. Now its off to the side of the page --- I am super-surprised that if you turn off sharing, that the syndication does not get recalled. Or, at the very least, there is management of expectations. Seems like Matterport needs to: 1. Give Pros the option to opt-in to syndication by: 1) All models 2) model-by-model 3) by folder 2. Revenue share with Matterport Service Providers Pro Community 3. When sharing gets turned off; syndication gets retracted. Or, at least manage expectations that once syndicated, can not be recalled. I do like syndication. I do like it better with revenue share. But, at the very least, Matterport needs to do a better job: 1. explaining how syndication works 2. give us control of opting in/out (ideally with the default set to no syndication. All, Other thoughts? Dan |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Definitely set to no. It should be an "opt in" option. I always say, if you are going to do it, do it right. Someone here correct me if I am wrong with my Guesstimate, but I would say that what 90% of uploaded Scans are of Real Estate? If it is, then Matterport should be asking through chris who can ask questions here about what we think about their ideas before they go ahead and implement it. Or is that asking too much? |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| NEWS FLASH! NEWS FLASH UPDATE and its GOOD NEWS: I got a response from Matterport (although not entirely accurate but good news none the less. Hello Colin, We are working on adding an option for users to fully disable content distribution in their Portal. That should come out within a couple weeks. Until then if you don't verify the address it won't get sent to Realtor.com for matching to their active listings. If there's currently models that you need taken down from Realtor.com please let us know the model link and the link to the listing. We apologize for the inconvenience. Best, [Redacted] Matterport Support |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Las Vegas |
VTLV private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So there it is, treat the "Verify address" button as a syndication tool. Thank you @hometakes.  |
||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Actually no. Thats the bit in their response that isn't accurate. I have plenty that made it to Realtor.com that were not verified addresses. | ||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Las Vegas |
VTLV private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @hometakes oouuchie! The saga comtinues! |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @hometakes @VTLV Well, it's obvious that Matterport had studied this post - and @hometakes emails. They recognize the problems and are still thinking through the permutations and tactical solutions. So, I would do my best to be patience. 1-one thousand ... 2-one thousands ... 3-one thousand. Are we there yet? I'm sure Matterport will get this fixed and it will just take some time. I could imagine that everyone at Matterport thought that syndication would be 100 percent embraced by the community with no downsides. Obviously, that's not the case. @hometakes I look forward to seeing the next email update that [redacted] sends you when all these issues are resolved. Thanks again for your details posts on this topic and follow-up with Matterport ... Best, Dan |
||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, Looks like Matterport read every word of this discussion - and acted on it - and in a way we (all) wanted and expected. ✓ You can Opt-Out of Realtor.com Distribution Nice to see Matterport setting the default to opt-out. Dan |
||
| Post 20 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thats Great that they made it so that you have to opt in if you want it. The best thing I like is that you can opt in, and if someone wants it removed, you can opt out and within 24 hours its taken down from the syndicated site or sites. They say that we will be able to chose the syndicated sites too. Now thats what I call options. Options are good Matterport. You see how you win accolades from us. Thats how you make raving fans with almost all of your customers. Options. Give the customer the option to choose. Even if some are paid for. My clients can unbranded my branding on my tour template for a fee. Guess what, some are willing to pay it. It started when a client requested it from me and said that they were willing to pay for it. And then another. I took a risk and paid my developer to make this available. The risk was of course was that is would cost me more to pay my developer to build this option into my system than I would collect from the fees that these two clients wanted. Both only ordered a few tours per year. Well, "shiver me timbers" and waddaya know? It turns out as soon as it was available as an option on my ordering page, many others ordered it. Turns out that there were a lot of silent people out there that wanted it. Got the money that my developer charged me to do this back already and now its a revenue stream adding to my bottom line. Maybe food for thought: if you charged $5 for Matterport branding removal per tour, you may surprise yourself and add a great revenue stream. If it doesn't, you can always take it down. Pass me a Kleenex or make me a Xerox please. I need to get a Matterport done on this home. You are ALREADY the name for 3D tours, just like Kleenex is to to tissue and Xerox is to copy. Everyone recognizes a Matterport Tour whether your name is on it or not.  |
||
| Post 21 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @hometakes Well said. If Matterport simply offered to remove the branding per model fee - and/or offered a plus cloud account that included extras Pro features such as no Matterport branding - Matterport in one bold move could endear itself to the Pro Community. They have announced - or implemented - so many great features in the last few months that they could block defections and 1st camera decisions going to the new 3D-VR-360º-Street View Cameras announced or shipping from competitors. This is not rocket scientist stuff. Dan |
||
| Post 22 • IP flag post | ||
|
Premium Member North Palm Beach, FL |
hometakes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Oh, And I forgot to say, Matterport had no problem stripping our branding when it gets uploaded to Realtor.com..... Just seems a bit unfair to me that my "Presented by Hometakes" is gone from the 3D tours that get syndicated to Realtor.com. So they can strip out branding from our tours and keep theirs? Seems to me that they want other agents to see our 3D tours on Realtor.com and to call them about purchasing a camera from them. You see the agent wouldn't know that my tour company shot the tour. All that remains to me seen is Matterport name. So I for one won't be helping them to sell more cameras to agents. I won't be syndicating any of my tours anywhere, not without my logo. I call for a boycott on this especially seeing how there is no revenue sharing. Your thoughts on this Dan? |
||
| Post 23 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Las Vegas |
VTLV private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Ha ha! I was right! lol. Quote: Originally Posted by VTLV |
||
| Post 24 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, Looks like Matterport did exactly the right thing (by listening to you all) about Matterport Syndication; now known as Matterport Content Distribution. In this Matterport Newsletter sent Wednesday (6 September 2017), Matterport writes: 1. Default setting to opt-out (terrific!) 2. Can globally opt-in for all (terrific!) 3. Can opt-in individually (terrific!) 4. Can opt-out individually (terrific!) 5. You can change your mind and the change will happen within 24 hours (terrific!) 6. Matterport recommendations when more than one Matterport Spaces with the same address (terrific!) 7. Matterport has a separate support email address for Content Distribution questions (terrific!)  Matterport obviously read every word of this discussion and acted accordingly. Matterport Content Distribution is a HUGE value to our Spaces. And, at the same, time, there are reasons why we do NOT want our Content distributed or want to undo content distribution, etc. Content Distribution has value that you can either charge additional for or include in your bundle. I am super-excited about how Matterport handed this. What do you think? Dan --- Hi All, Matterport sent the following newsletter to its clients on Wednesday, 6 September 2017. Feel free to comment below. Best, Dan ---   -- Hi All, This is the Matterport Support page for Content Distribution. I have included it in its entirety because this is such an important topic for Matterport Service Providers. Dan ---                 Source: Matterport Support Page for Content Distribution |
||
| Post 25 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GlennTremain @Baxter @Namecomingsoon @hometakes @VTLV @Metroplex360 @AerialView Would you participating in ....WGAN-TV Live at 5 (pm Tuesday, 12 September 2017) discussion about Matterport Content Distribution (formerly known as Matterport Syndication Beta). Please post that you can join or Private Message me. Thanks, Dan |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Reminder: @GlennTremain @Baxter @Namecomingsoon @hometakes @VTLV @Metroplex360 @AerialView Would you participating in .... WGAN-TV Live at 5 (pm ET Today, 12 September 2017) discussion about Matterport Content Distribution (formerly known as Matterport Syndication Beta). Please post that you can join or Private Message me. Thanks, Dan |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
Video: WGAN-TV | Matterport Content Distribution: Good or Bad? (Formerly known as Matterport Syndication Beta) | Commentary by WGAN Forum Founder Dan Smigrod |
||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
|
Hopscotch private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Chiming in..so I don't know how many of you have used LoopNet and/or CoStar for marketing commercial spaces, but I used it for a client for about a year. Every time a photograph is uploaded to the system, it stays there indefinitely and becomes part of the property's photo stream from which you can then select on the backend. If a property is sold or changes hands, or is up for lease again, then as an admin in the LoopNet/CoStar account I could select from a ton of pre-existing photographs for that building. I have always thought that the Matterport tour would be absorbed by these platforms in a similar way once we could syndicate. Realtor.com is just the first. On LoopNet many photos would be out-of-date, but many weren't. And, now for eternity, the photos that I took will probably stay on CoStar. You get paid for them once by the client, and then they become the domain of another entity. I think that syndication without royalties is a pretty raw deal for photographers; it builds the value of the platform and/or aggregator, but pays no residuals for that content. I imagine that we could see an ASCAP (music-industry royalties) type of regulating body that supports creators getting a small amount of revenue every time a model is viewed. To me, it's no different than a Spotify listen, or a YouTube play, and since it is all measurable, then whatever monetary value is derived from it, no matter how inconsequential ($.0001), could also be credited to the creator and copyright holder. At the very least, revenue from adjacent advertising can be measured, that we know. As for the GPS, I don't know how they've configured it for the Pro2, but I know that not all smartphones require a data connection or WiFi for GPS navigation to work. There are plenty of GPS systems that operate without a connection...so I'd be curious to know if the Pro2 is already configured that way, or if that setting can be remotely manipulated. |
||
| Post 29 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?