A
very smart guy at the University of Georgia in Athens, Dr. Russell N.
James III, Assistant Professor, Department of Housing & Consumer
Economics, wrote a wonderful analysis of how the various tactics that
property managers employ to attract new renters pushes “asymmetric
information” to the market, which results in renter dissatisfaction and
higher turnover. (You'll be able to read the article yourself when it
goes to print later this year in the academic journal, "Housing and
Society.")
He
based the paper on game theory – as opposed to chaos theory, which is
what things sometimes feel like out in the marketplace. So how does
game theory work in analyzing a property manager’s options to grow
occupancy and income?
Here’s
how the game is played: Let's pretend two managers at identical
properties are both trying to accomplish the same goal, which is to
maximize profitability at their property. They both have exactly the
same budget. They are both playing to “win” which, in their eyes, means
that they’ll stay within budget and fill all habitable vacant
apartments – and, hopefully, get their company’s Property Manager of
the Year award.
Manager
A focuses the budget outwards and uses external recruiting expenditures
like advertising, curb appeal and move-in specials. Prospective renters
are attracted to visit the site and sign a lease based on this
activity. However, existing residents can also see what the manager is
doing, can hear about the offers and might feel as though they are
entitled to some “break” on their rent or renewal as well. So they
begin to experience some “dissatisfaction.”
Manager
B focuses internally and uses retention strategies like maintenance
responsiveness and a highly trained, well-qualified staff on site to
keep existing renters happy and satisfied and, therefore, more likely
to renew their leases.. These expenditures, however, are invisible to
someone who has not lived at the property – and trying to build
credibility with statements about service is difficult when you’re
talking to skeptical prospective renters. Who hasn’t experienced a
service nightmare at some point in their apartment life? (That’s why
there are websites about "apartment griping".)
Based
on the study, the profit performance for any property is highest using
Manager B’s strategy. But, the author admits, there is good reason to
deviate from the service-focused strategy.
As
soon as Manager A begins her outbound advertising and offers move-in
specials, she has a clear advantage in attracting new tenants, and
Manager B still needs new renters. Regardless of the superior service
at Manager B’s property, people move out. They get married (household
formation is a big one – 1+1 does not equal 2 in this equation.) They
move to a new city because of a job change. Gas prices finally drive
them to an apartment location that is closer to their work.
So,
in game theory, the competition for new renters encourages Manager B to
roll the dice and shift some funds and/or energy to the outbound
marketing strategy – and therein begins the competition. Everyone
competing for the same renters using the same tactics guarantees that
everyone’s costs go up and ROI follows.
In
the perfect game scenario, there’s a balance between resident
recruitment expenditures and resident retention expenditures.
Recruitment expenditures are carefully evaluated for return on
investment and software or service companies that help establish the
path of a lead to a lease are helping to make those calculations easier
to manage. (That’s why we’re pay for performance.) At the same time,
retention requires a focus on service at the site and maintenance well
beyond repairs – investment spending is critical to keep a property
from the high-cost damage that deferred maintenance can cause. Sound
like a high-wire act? See our article on the property manager’s job and
how tough it is.
Property
management companies that can establish a brand that is based on a high
service profile are the only consistent “game” winners because their
residents know what to expect from the brand – so when they leave a
property of that brand, they often look for another property under the
same brand umbrella. That is a tenuous relationship, however - failure
to deliver at any one property chips away at the entire brand
relationship. Then again, if it works, it works big. And that means
lower new resident recruitment costs for the brand across all
properties, which increases profitability.
So
how is the balancing act going? Does your senior management tell you
what the turnover rates are across different markets? And do you have
good support from management on both the resident recruitment and
resident retention side of the game board? It's really the only way to
manage the high-wire tension.
If you would like to contact Professor James about his article, his email is rjames@uga.edu.
Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people
- Currently 5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5