In a previous article, I wrote about how the phrase “seller choice” has become the industry’s preferred justification for the wave of private listing strategies now sweeping the country. I said I was pro-seller choice, pro-private listings and critical of the Clear Cooperation Policy — and I meant all of it.
What concerned me was not the practice itself. It was the gap between what “seller choice” means in a press release and what is actually happening at the kitchen table.
The concern is simple: If sellers are being guided toward a decision without being shown both the benefits and the trade-offs, they are not making a genuine choice. They are following a recommendation. That is the conversation I am asking our industry to have.
A note on terminology: When I use “private listing” in this article, I am referring broadly to any pre-market strategy — including true private listings that are never publicly advertised and coming-soon or Preview listings that appear on portals but restrict showings. The trade-off conversation applies equally to both.
A seller who sees both sides of this decision and still chooses to list privately has made a genuine choice. A seller who only sees one side has been given a script.
What informed seller’s choice actually looks like
Before a seller signs a listing agreement, they deserve to understand two things: what they gain from a private or pre-market approach and what the independent research shows as a potential trade-off. Not brokerage research. Third-party data from sources with no financial stake in the approach the seller chooses.
The table below shows what both sides of that conversation look like together. This is not a policy proposal. It is a floor. A minimum.
Every seller, before signing a listing agreement that involves any private or pre-market phase, deserves to see both columns — in plain language, at the kitchen table, before the pen hits the paper.
Pre-market strategy vs. full MLS — what every seller should see
| Benefits of a pre-market strategy | What the research shows |
| Privacy — no public listing history during the pre-market phase | Pre-market listings can take longer to sell — median 37 days vs. 20 days for full MLS listings |
| Less foot traffic — seller controls showings | Sellers who limit pre-market exposure can see a price difference of 1.5–3.7% compared to full MLS listings |
| No days-on-market accumulation during the pre-market phase | 87% of listings that start pre-market still move to the full MLS eventually |
| One trusted point of contact handling all buyer conversations | A limited buyer pool means less competition — competition is what drives price up |
What the standard should be
The honest conversation at the kitchen table sounds like this:
“There are real advantages here — 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 to make that call with both sides of the picture.”
That is a conversation an agent can actually have. It respects the seller’s intelligence, honors the legitimate benefits of the strategy and makes sure the trade-off is on the table before the decision is made.
The agents who have this conversation will build something that competitors who show only one column will not: A client who made a genuine choice. And genuine choice — informed, respected and supported — is the only version of seller’s choice that actually protects the agent and the consumer at the same time.
Darryl Davis is the CEO of Darryl Davis Seminars. Connect with him on Facebook or YouTube.
