There seems to be a great deal of new content hitting the wires in multifamily right now. Conference season is in full swing, bringing a surge of new ideas and perspectives. There are several topics that are top if mind that will be appearing in these pages this fall. But I'm particularly excited about a series of new podcast interviews will be released over the next few weeks.
Every once in a while, you come across an idea that's much bigger than you initially realize. About a year ago, I published a paper on how unit-level search is redefining multifamily websites. It's a simple concept: Humans tend to search for things visually, and that increasingly applies to technology experiences: think Uber, travel or restaurant booking sites or apps, and so on. Multifamily assets are physical, so to meet the expectations of prospects and residents, maps need to be central to apartment search.
There has been a great deal of talk about multifamily revenue management over the last few days. Last Friday, the Department of Justice's (DoJ) long-anticipated "algorithmic pricing" lawsuit affecting multifamily revenue management dropped.
Since then, I have been involved in many discussions about this news, particularly the central problem I see with these lawsuits: the allegations are simply false. What has surprised me somewhat through conversations over the last few days is that good-faith actors in the industry do not understand the gap between the allegations and the reality of how the technology works.
It's been some time since I wrote about the ongoing drama facing multifamily revenue management. The last few months have seen a few developments, attracting what might generouslybe described as a mixed bag of industry commentary. It's getting harder to cut through the (ahem) noise.
Followers of my writings on multifamily property management have probably noticed that I am in my "multifamily maintenance should work more like single-family" era. The two may be showing signs of converging, as this article will attempt to explain.
The City of Brotherly Love provided a backdrop for this year's NAA APARTMENTALIZE that was fresh in novelty, if not in weather. An energy-packed conference offered new insights into some of our industry's most rapidly changing areas. There's lots to talk about, and it is with some trepidation that I share a recap focused on two of the most buzzwordy topics: centralization and AI. However, these were the biggest stories that caught my eye at NAA this year.
Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with my views on what motivates people to buy software. Sellers tend to characterize value propositions in terms of numbers ("Roll out this software and increase your x by y%!"). Buyers of technology, on the other hand, are seldom impressed with these projections, at least during the phase of a sales cycle when they are most persuadable.
There's been a lot of coverage of centralization on this website over the last few years. As this year's 20for20 white paper explained, maintenance differs profoundly from either admin or leasing centralization. Leasing and admin tasks can be automated away or, in the case of leasing, made self-serve. We can offer residents some self-serve maintenance options, but most of the time we need a team member to deliver the service.
Spring conference season this year is a bit more interesting than usual. It's mostly thanks to a couple of new conferences on the circuit that I think will further important industry conversations. A few weeks ago, the inaugural "Forum," Hosted by Funnel Leasing, established a new place to discuss the increasingly popular topic of centralization. Last week saw the inaugural REBA Insights conference in Vail, CO. There were parallels between the two events that I will discuss in this post.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the experience of participating in a Colorado state congressional hearing on a proposed law to outlaw revenue management. One of several points in that article was about the potential gap in our industry's advocacy that appears when state legislatures create national problems.
There seems to be a great deal of new content hitting the wires in multifamily right now. Conference season is in full swing, bringing a surge of new ideas and perspectives. There are several topics that are top if mind that will be appearing in these pages this fall. But I'm particularly excited about a series of new podcast interviews will be released over the next few weeks.
Every once in a while, you come across an idea that's much bigger than you initially realize. About a year ago, I published a paper on how unit-level search is redefining multifamily websites. It's a simple concept: Humans tend to search for things visually, and that increasingly applies to technology experiences: think Uber, travel or restaurant booking sites or apps, and so on. Multifamily assets are physical, so to meet the expectations of prospects and residents, maps need to be central to apartment search.
There has been a great deal of talk about multifamily revenue management over the last few days. Last Friday, the Department of Justice's (DoJ) long-anticipated "algorithmic pricing" lawsuit affecting multifamily revenue management dropped.
Since then, I have been involved in many discussions about this news, particularly the central problem I see with these lawsuits: the allegations are simply false. What has surprised me somewhat through conversations over the last few days is that good-faith actors in the industry do not understand the gap between the allegations and the reality of how the technology works.
It's been some time since I wrote about the ongoing drama facing multifamily revenue management. The last few months have seen a few developments, attracting what might generouslybe described as a mixed bag of industry commentary. It's getting harder to cut through the (ahem) noise.
Followers of my writings on multifamily property management have probably noticed that I am in my "multifamily maintenance should work more like single-family" era. The two may be showing signs of converging, as this article will attempt to explain.
The City of Brotherly Love provided a backdrop for this year's NAA APARTMENTALIZE that was fresh in novelty, if not in weather. An energy-packed conference offered new insights into some of our industry's most rapidly changing areas. There's lots to talk about, and it is with some trepidation that I share a recap focused on two of the most buzzwordy topics: centralization and AI. However, these were the biggest stories that caught my eye at NAA this year.
Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with my views on what motivates people to buy software. Sellers tend to characterize value propositions in terms of numbers ("Roll out this software and increase your x by y%!"). Buyers of technology, on the other hand, are seldom impressed with these projections, at least during the phase of a sales cycle when they are most persuadable.
There's been a lot of coverage of centralization on this website over the last few years. As this year's 20for20 white paper explained, maintenance differs profoundly from either admin or leasing centralization. Leasing and admin tasks can be automated away or, in the case of leasing, made self-serve. We can offer residents some self-serve maintenance options, but most of the time we need a team member to deliver the service.
Spring conference season this year is a bit more interesting than usual. It's mostly thanks to a couple of new conferences on the circuit that I think will further important industry conversations. A few weeks ago, the inaugural "Forum," Hosted by Funnel Leasing, established a new place to discuss the increasingly popular topic of centralization. Last week saw the inaugural REBA Insights conference in Vail, CO. There were parallels between the two events that I will discuss in this post.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the experience of participating in a Colorado state congressional hearing on a proposed law to outlaw revenue management. One of several points in that article was about the potential gap in our industry's advocacy that appears when state legislatures create national problems.