Zillow has ditched its climate risk scoring system just one year after launching it, citing complaints from real estate agents who claim the data is misleading and causing lost sales.
The decision comes as no surprise, given that Zillow recently scaled back its use of the scores. Instead of displaying a numerical score on listings, users are now shown a small link to First Street's climate risk data. This change was reportedly made in response to industry pushback, with some agents feeling that the risk assessments were putting unwanted pressure on potential buyers.
First Street, the organization behind the original climate risk scoring system, is not happy about the change. Spokesperson Matthew Eby claimed that "the risk doesn't go away; it just moves from a pre-purchase decision into a post-purchase liability." This suggests that First Street believes its scores are valuable for helping consumers make informed decisions after they've purchased a home.
The California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), which is one of the primary users of Zillow's database, has expressed relief at the change. CEO Art Carter noted that displaying flood risk data can have a significant impact on property desirability. However, he also questioned the accuracy of First Street's data, suggesting that areas with no reported flooding in 40 or 50 years were unlikely to experience flooding in the next five years.
First Street pushed back on this criticism, stating that its models are built on "transparent, peer-reviewed science" and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes.
The decision comes as no surprise, given that Zillow recently scaled back its use of the scores. Instead of displaying a numerical score on listings, users are now shown a small link to First Street's climate risk data. This change was reportedly made in response to industry pushback, with some agents feeling that the risk assessments were putting unwanted pressure on potential buyers.
First Street, the organization behind the original climate risk scoring system, is not happy about the change. Spokesperson Matthew Eby claimed that "the risk doesn't go away; it just moves from a pre-purchase decision into a post-purchase liability." This suggests that First Street believes its scores are valuable for helping consumers make informed decisions after they've purchased a home.
The California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), which is one of the primary users of Zillow's database, has expressed relief at the change. CEO Art Carter noted that displaying flood risk data can have a significant impact on property desirability. However, he also questioned the accuracy of First Street's data, suggesting that areas with no reported flooding in 40 or 50 years were unlikely to experience flooding in the next five years.
First Street pushed back on this criticism, stating that its models are built on "transparent, peer-reviewed science" and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes.
. I mean, it's not like they just got a bunch of complaints from agents, but also scaled back the scores themselves? Sounds like a middle ground to me... or am I missing something? 
. They're saying the risk doesn't go away, it just moves to after you buy the house. That's a valid point, but what about when people are considering buying in the first place? Don't they deserve some info on potential climate risks?
. But at the same time, if First Street's data is not super accurate, does it even matter what the score says? It just seems like a PR move by Zillow to pacify agents... or maybe they're actually just trying to avoid some bad vibes 
.
.
Those agents were just trying to do their job, right? Now, I know some people might say that climate risk scores are a great thing and should be more prominent, but honestly, I think this is all about finding that sweet spot where we can make informed decisions without freaking out the buyers 
. And yeah, First Street's still standing by their data, which is totally fair 
. It's all about nuance here – the risk might not go away, but maybe it's just shifted to a different part of the buying process? 
i think this decision says more about how our current system works than about what's best for the planet. it's all about who has the power and influence - in this case, real estate agents. they can dictate what info gets displayed and when, effectively watering down the whole thing. what's next, are we gonna let people just ignore the problem until it's too late? 
. but let's be real, who actually reads those links anyway? 
️
. It's just so frustrating when corporations cave to industry pressure over doing what's right for the planet. I mean, who gets to decide how to use this data anyway? Real estate agents who want to make a quick sale? 
.
The fact that CRMLS was expressing relief at the change just makes me think Zillow's decision might've been more about avoiding drama than actual accuracy concerns...
i mean, they're based on science and all... but at the same time, crmls is like "hey, let's just calm down & assess the data in a more nuanced way" 
anywayz, it'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out 
its like we're stuck in this limbo where no one wants to take responsibility for climate change 
. and i'm low-key impressed that first street's still pushin back on the accuracy criticism 
. And now First Street is all like "but we're still good, our data is sound" 
. It's not like First Street was trying to force-feed people data or anything 
.
. I mean, it was a great idea at first, but I guess the agents just didn't want to hear the truth about their listings 
. And honestly, I'm not surprised they scaled back the scores, it was a bit too much pressure on buyers.
what do you guys think - should real estate companies be more transparent about climate risks? 