A quiet campaign is underway in parts of the American real estate industry to make days on market (DOM) disappear. Some brokerages argue that displaying how long a listing has been active puts sellers at a disadvantage, giving buyers a negotiation lever. However, a growing number of practitioners say this approach is wrong.
Mark Gordon, co-owner of Christiania Realty in Vail, Colorado (vailcoluxuryhomes.com), has spent nearly two decades in a market where inventory is scarce and price points are high. He sees the push to hide DOM as part of a broader trend: the erosion of the transparent marketplace that makes real estate transactions work for everyone.
The case for removing DOM from public view suggests that a seller’s listing accumulates days, each signaling weakness. Buyers see 90 days on market and assume there is a problem, making lower offers. The seller loses leverage while the buyer discloses nothing. The information gap, so the argument goes, is unfair. This debate is connected to wider discussions about private listings, pocket listings, and the role of the MLS.
Gordon’s counter is direct. Market data, he argues, is what makes transactions happen. “Knowledge, data, is the lubricant that creates transactions,” he says. “Every time we remove that lubricant, what we’re doing is creating metal-on-metal friction and creating roadblocks that keep a transaction from occurring.” His argument rests on a practical reality: in a world of AI-powered data tools, DOM is easy to calculate even if the MLS stopped displaying it. The metric is not going away; the only question is whether it sits inside the official system or gets reassembled outside, where it may not be accurate.
But the more interesting part of Gordon’s position is his reframe of what the metric actually signals. He says he has worked with buyers who specifically search by days on market, looking for listings others have passed over. Those buyers may start with a low offer, but a low offer is not the same as a final offer—it opens a conversation. “A lowball offer is a million times better than no offer,” Gordon says. “At least now we have a starting point. We have the ability to create something.” This flips the conventional narrative: rather than viewing accumulated DOM as damage, Gordon treats it as a filter that attracts a specific kind of buyer willing to engage.
The instinct to remove DOM reflects a broader pattern in real estate: the belief that controlling information protects clients. Gordon argues the opposite. A seller whose listing has been on the market for three months does not benefit from hiding that fact; they benefit from a skilled agent who can use the situation to generate conversations. Being offended by a low offer is a strategic mistake. “Instead of being insulted and upset by a so-called lowball offer, we should be thanking them because they took the time to offer to buy your home,” he says. Engagement is the resource, and data is what creates it.
The days-on-market debate is a proxy fight about whether the real estate industry’s future is built on more transparency or less. The answer will shape how MLS systems operate, how brokerages compete, and how consumers trust the process. For buyers, a high DOM does not mean a bad property; it may mean an opportunity overlooked by others. For sellers, transparency is not the enemy—silence is.
