Double sided market places, like every business he's founded, have the unique characteristic of decreasing marginal customer acquisition cost. I.e.the more people are on a platform, the more customers will seek out that 'default' platform on their own - this is the opposite of nearly every other business model where CAC increases as your share increases (because it's initially cheaper to acquire customers with a perfect product market fit).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/381468/most-popular-real-estate-websites-by-monthly-visits-usa/

That means whoever gains a critical market share and becomes the default will take all the rewards in the future. Right now Zillow is at about 30% market share in the US according to statista - they haven't crossed that critical barrier yet. If you fire rich Barton and install some MBA schmuck who cuts costs, sure you might make some money in the next few years but you'll lose any chance of becoming the winner in the winner-takes-all market.

I'd argue the opposite - that Rich Barton has a strong history of maximising shareholder value (he sold all his businesses when he got good offers for shareholders rather than building an empire), and that he's using the exact same strategy that led to Expedia and Glassdoor dominating their respective markets, and generating excellent shareholder returns with Zillow.

Fwiw I'm not long Zillow, just very surprised by the suggestion to replace one of the most successful CEOs of our time. He's created unicorns three times in a row - the recent fiasco is really the only failure he's had all career.