The private listings war might be comical if it weren’t so consequential. Not long ago, the industry was throwing tomatoes at the brokerages pioneering private listings. There were lawsuits, op-eds, public condemnations and no shortage of righteous indignation.
Then, almost overnight, half of all agents in America woke up affiliated with a company that has formalized its own private listing strategy. And now everyone is gathered around the same table, calling it seller choice.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY
I want to be clear about where I stand. If you search my articles here on Inman, you will find a consistent record: I am pro-seller choice, I support the right of sellers to list privately, and I have been on record against the Clear Cooperation Policy for the harm it caused by driving listings underground. That has not changed.
What has changed is what is happening at the kitchen table. And that is the conversation I want to have.
A choice made without complete information is not really a choice. It is a guided recommendation dressed in the language of autonomy.
What is actually happening at the kitchen table
Across the country right now, sellers are sitting down with listing agents who arrive with beautifully designed materials explaining the benefits of pre-market and private listing strategies. The materials are professional. The arguments are compelling. And the benefits are real: privacy, less foot traffic, no days-on-market risk during the pre-market phase, and one trusted agent handling all buyer conversations.
For the right seller in the right situation, those advantages genuinely matter.
The conversation I’m asking agents to have is an honest one — not a scary statistics lecture, just a balanced presentation. Something like:
“There are real advantages to this approach — less disruption, fewer strangers through your home, one person handling all buyer conversations. The trade-off is that limiting who sees the home early on may affect how much competition we create on price. Some sellers decide those benefits are worth it. Others want full market exposure from Day 1. I want you making that call with both sides in front of you.”
That conversation is not happening consistently at listing appointments today. Most sellers are hearing only the upside. And a seller who only hears the upside hasn’t really made a choice — they’ve been presented a recommendation.
The market test argument does not hold up
One of the most common arguments for the private-first approach is that it allows a seller to “test the market” before going public — to validate pricing and generate early demand without accumulating days on market.
But what does it mean to test the market? A genuine market test means exposing your product to the market — the whole market — and measuring the response.
When a listing is shown only to buyers connected to one brokerage’s internal network, that is not a market test. That is a focus group inside one company. The results tell you how a specific, pre-selected audience responded to your home. They tell you nothing about what the full market of competing buyers would have offered if given the same opportunity at the same time.
Testing your price within one brokerage’s network is not testing the market. It is testing one corner of it — and calling the result market intelligence.
The benefits that are real — and the conversation that needs to happen
Private listings do offer real benefits to some sellers. A smoother transaction with less foot traffic is a genuine advantage for sellers who prioritize discretion and convenience. For a seller with young children, privacy concerns or a complicated personal situation, those benefits are real and worth weighing.
The honest agent presents both sides: Here are the real benefits, and here is the trade-off. Limiting the buyer pool may affect how much competition you generate, which can affect the final price. The seller deserves to weigh that before they decide, not discover it after they close.
My concern is not about what brokers do. Brokers will build the systems that serve their businesses, and large brokerages developing in-house platforms and portal partnerships are making rational business decisions.
My concern is at the kitchen table. The agent sitting across from a homeowner has a fiduciary obligation to act in that seller’s best financial interest. That obligation includes making sure the seller understands both sides of any strategy before they sign.
Real seller choice begins with real information.
Darryl Davis is the CEO of Darryl Davis Seminars. Connect with him on Facebook or YouTube.
