IDX makes sense for brokers, even those who won't syndicate

Rob Hahn has said there is no meaningful difference between IDX and syndication and that he thinks brokers pulling out of syndication are a harbinger of IDX's demise, but I think he's dead wrong. I'll try to make my point here in a post considerably shorter than one of Rob's Notoriously long ones. ;-) You can see Rob's post claiming (erroneously, I think) the equivalence of IDX to syndication here; regarding the Austin "kerfuffle" as evidence of the impending demise of IDX here; and offering further comments about Austin and IDX here.

IDX is a critical service for brokers, and it's likely to remain one for at least the next couple of years, for at least four reasons. First, IDX offers listing brokers a different exchange of values than syndication. Second, brokers who want to have viable consumer-facing listings sites need IDX, because VOWs are not a viable option at present from the consumer's standpoint. Third, the listing broker gains absolutely nothing from withdrawing listings from IDX. And, finally, if listing brokers withdraw from IDX, the only possible winners will be the very syndicators with whom some listing brokers are unhappy.

Listing brokers get something from IDX they don't get from syndication—other brokers' listings. A broker deciding whether to send her listings to Zillow or Trulia is considering an exchange, which in highly simplified form sounds like this: "Should I allow Zillow to use my listings to attract consumers to its site in return for the exposure my listings will get there?" With IDX, the equation is different: "Should I allow other brokers to use my listings to attract consumers to their sites in return for the exposure my listings will get there and in return for the right to display their listings on my site?"