Real estate works best in the open — here’s why 

Thinking big about residential real estate success requires a big-picture perspective. Industry Decoded features industry experts who can enrich your understanding of issues affecting the industry as a whole.

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author.

There's a narrative happening in real estate that deserves a closer look.

The storyline says that "privacy creates scarcity," that "scarcity drives higher prices," and that "a carefully 'sequenced' private marketing approach can outperform carefully sequenced full market exposure." 

It's a compelling story that borrows from luxury brands, high-end product launches and Hollywood releases — but the problem is this: In real estate, these ideas are being used without clear definitions, without measurable standards and without consistent evidence.

And when you strip the language down to what's actually happening, the argument begins to fall apart.

What does 'private' actually mean?

Is a listing private if one person knows about it? Five? Fifty? One hundred? Two hundred? Five Hundred? Thousands? If a property is shared across a brokerage network of several hundred or even several thousand agents, can we reasonably call that private? If those agents are speaking with their buyers, their colleagues and their networks, how long before the broader market is effectively aware? 

Not long. Maybe immediately.  

At some point, it seems that the term loses its meaning. And let's be honest: Is a listing really private if there is a "for sale" sign in the yard or the listing information is on a site that can be shared? This isn't privacy, it's selective distribution with restricted access. The listing isn't hidden. It's just being shared with a chosen group instead of the entire market.

That distinction matters, because the next claim depends on it.

Does privacy create real scarcity?

In real estate, scarcity has always meant something specific — few listings for buyers, or few buyers for sellers. It's never been about how few people know a property is available for purchase, but about how many potential buyers can compete for it at the same time.

And here's the uncomfortable question: How does an agent decide who to expose the property to? Often, it seems like it means "us," and whoever "us" is, that's who gets the information.

Isn't it a little convenient to say "we're creating privacy for a seller by limiting exposure" — and then share it with everyone in our company, possibly including those who never sell in that price range or agents who are new to real estate? 

That doesn't seem like scarcity for the benefit of the seller. It looks like "us versus them," where the "us" is arbitrary.

Why does this matter?

Exposure drives demand — period

The market doesn't reward potential. It rewards participation. The more fully you bring the market to a property, the more fully the market shows up in the price.

Limiting exposure doesn't create true scarcity. It just reduces the number of buyers who can participate. 

Consider a simple scenario: One buyer sees a property early and makes an aggressive offer to avoid competition. Did they overpay? Was the home underpriced? There's no way to know. The seller may accept a price, but the market never got to weigh in.

Now introduce a second or third buyer. Suddenly, there's competition, urgency and negotiation pressure. That's where the more accurate price discovery begins. And that's where sellers gain their real leverage.

Exclusivity may create a perception of scarcity, but competition is where real value is established.

The fewer buyers who know about a listing, the easier it might be to sell — but the more buyers who know, the harder it is to miss the best price.

That's not philosophy. That's probability.

In practical terms, you don't create demand through exclusivity. You risk missing it.

Breaking down 'sequencing,' price reductions and days on market

In theory, bringing a property to market in phases — testing interest, gathering feedback, building momentum — can be smart. But for sequencing to be a real strategy, it has to be defined.

So, here's the question: What determines when a property moves from private to public?

Is it time? A set number of days? A certain number of showings or inquiries? If no acceptable offer comes in, does the next phase begin?

Without clear triggers, sequencing isn't a system, it's discretionary. And discretionary systems can't be measured, repeated or proven.

Another argument often made is that public price reductions harm sellers by signaling weakness. Maybe — or maybe the seller is using a price reduction to reinvigorate interest and signal the market that they're serious about selling. 

But that's not the issue here. 

The claim is that limited access means fewer people know there's a price drop, but if a listing has already been shared across an internal network, that network knows the original price. When the price drops, the network knows that too — it's just contained within a preferred audience. And here's the kicker: That "private" audience is the same group that was supposed to sell the property in the first place.

Let's not pretend that a listing coming to MLS after it didn't sell privately goes unnoticed. Every agent knows it was shopped and didn't sell. The idea that you've somehow avoided "days on market" isn't reality. It's wishful thinking. Aspirational at best. Likely untrue.

So, the issue isn't whether people know. It's which people know and who gets to decide who knows. 

Controlled visibility — and the incentives behind it

There's actually an economic term for this called "information asymmetry," which is what occurs when one party in an economic transaction possesses greater material knowledge than the other, leading to potential market inefficiencies, imbalances of power and, in severe cases, market failure.

Make no mistake about it: The approach being advocated and already being taken is absolutely putting the entire marketplace at risk. And for what reason?

A quick word about "seller choice."

Of course, sellers have choices. They always have. But choice alone doesn't make a strategy good. In every professional field, the client makes the final call, but the professional's job is to present the options clearly, explain the trade-offs and do it without bias driven by their own incentives.

And the incentives are worth noting.

Private and pre-market strategies can create real advantages for the agent and brokerage: Concentrated lead flow. More opportunities for internal transactions. Stronger recruiting stories. Less reliance on outside platforms. 

None of that is inherently bad for consumers. They're just advantages for the agent or their company — not the consumer. And this should be fully acknowledged when advising a seller.

Why? Because a fully informed choice requires full transparency. Not a sales pitch. 

The future of the MLS

Most of these strategies still rely on the MLS. Let that sink in.

If a property sells privately, the process ends there. But in most cases it doesn't. It ultimately goes to the MLS for full exposure. That tells us something important. The MLS is still the ultimate tool for price discovery.

Now play it out.

If every brokerage starts holding listings back and only turns to MLS when nothing else works, what does the MLS become?

It becomes the Market of Last Resort.

The place where properties go after everything else has failed. The back-up market. And once that perception takes hold, the role of the MLS starts to erode fast. Not because it stopped working, because it stopped being used first. 

If this were to happen, it would be a fundamental shift in how the residential real estate marketplace has evolved. From a transparent system built on shared information for the good of all sellers and buyers to a fragmented system built on selective access for the good of the brokerage.

This isn't simply a debate about listing strategy

It's an existential question about how the market actually works.

Feedback has value. Preparation matters. Sequencing can be useful. And all can be done within the framework of an open and transparent marketplace — we've been doing it for years.

But if the goal is to give sellers the highest probability of achieving the best possible outcome, there is still one mechanism that consistently delivers that result: Broad exposure that creates the opportunity for real competition.

Anything else may produce a result — but it doesn't reliably produce the best one.

The more fragmented the marketplace becomes, the less informed the consumer becomes. And that always comes with consequences.

Gary Keller is the executive chairman and co-founder of Keller Williams, where he helps set the strategic direction to create alignment, scale and efficiencies across the KW ecosystem. He is also a New York Times bestselling author of several books, including The Millionaire Real Estate Agent, The Millionaire Real Estate Investor, SHIFT: How Top Real Estate Agents Tackle Tough Times, and The ONE Thing: The Surprisingly Simple Truth Behind Extraordinary Results.

Widely regarded as a top business leader, Keller is a recipient of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award and has been recognized by Realtor Magazine as one of real estate's most influential thought leaders.