Andrew Chen recently delivered a keynote at StartCon in Australia called: What’s Next in Growth? You can find his entire talk, here, on his blog. 

One of the themes of his talk is that, “technology changes, but people stay the same.” I like that. See above.

But more specifically, his presentation focuses on 3 techniques for growing businesses and products: customer referrals, viral content, and bootstrapping marketplaces. All of it is interesting, but I’m particularly fascinated by the last one.

Marketplaces are all around us. Uber is a marketplace that pairs drivers and riders. Bars are a marketplace that try to pair people together. Finding, trading, and transacting (whatever that might mean for the marketplace in question) seems so fundamental to humans. And cities really empower that.

The challenge with marketplaces is that they’re hard to start. There’s always a chicken-and-egg problem and so one side of the marketplace usually needs to be “hacked” at the beginning.

Uber is a perfect example of this. At the outset, it didn’t have enough liquidity in its marketplace to compete with incumbent taxis. That is, it took longer to get an Uber than to get a taxi. 

So instead, the value proposition was not about speed (or cheapness); it was about luxury. Uber was “everyone’s private driver.” That made waiting acceptable. You were getting a different level of service. The first Uber I ever called in Toronto took 20 minutes to get to my place in midtown.

But obviously as liquidity increased, Uber was able to move downmarket and capture more (most) of the taxi market. Marketplaces are powerful once they get going. Network effects.

I say all of this because, as many of you know, I have spent a lot of time wondering about the future of real estate marketplaces. 

At the same time, I also think that many of these seemingly tech-focused lessons could be applied to cities. Starting an online marketplace is difficult. So is building a new neighborhood from scratch. In the end, it’s always about people.

Version One Ventures – which is an early-stage venture capital fund based in Vancouver – recently published a free handbook called, A Guide to Marketplaces.

Online marketplaces are really fascinating because they are perhaps broader in scope than you might initially think. For example, Uber is a marketplace. There’s a supply-side (drivers with cars) and a demand-side (people needing rides). Uber connects these two groups together and acts as a kind of digital middle person. Uber does not own any of the cars.

This is an incredibly power business model and it can and is being applied in many different ways. Here are the top internet marketplaces (via the handbook):

I have been interested in this space for years because I have been very curious as to why we haven’t seen more innovation when it comes to online real estate marketplaces. Yes, there are platforms like Zillow.com. But Zillow has not done to real estate what Uber is doing to urban mobility.

My thinking is that it comes down to supply-side aggregation. Online marketplaces in general are hard to get started, which is why investors love them. They have defensibility. But real estate, in particular, is even harder to jumpstart compared to the incumbent models because of what I see as constraints on the supply-side.

That’s why I am so excited about what BuzzBuzzHome.com is doing on the new construction side of the business. They are aggregating supply.

If you’d like to download the guide to marketplaces in PDF, click here. It’s a great read and I’m glad that Boris and Angela took the time to assemble. Thank you :)

The responses are still coming in from yesterday’s real estate marketplace survey, but I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to complete it. I really appreciate it. I was reviewing the responses this morning and I thought there were a couple of interesting takeaways.

First, most people who own a home have at one point or another thought about selling that home. And even the people who haven’t thought about it, said they would be willing to sell under the right circumstances. That is, they would sell for the right price, for a better place, and so on. At the time of writing this, nobody said they would never ever sell.

I think this is interesting because, even though the real estate market is a highly illiquid market, my hunch is that it could be made a lot more liquid with the right frameworks in place and if the barriers to selling could be reduced.

And sure enough, many of the folks who said they have thought about selling (but haven’t yet), said it’s partially because it’s too expensive and too much work to sell. But in addition to these barriers, two other points emerged that I hadn’t given a lot of thought to before – but make total sense. 

Homeowners also said that they haven’t sold because they’re too emotionally attached to their home and because they’re afraid they won’t be able to find another place to move into. 

Because of how illiquid the real estate market is and because home transactions are typically asymmetric (that is, buying and selling are independent actions), there appears to be a real concern that you could sell your home and never find anything better.

And since a home is such an emotion filled asset (as opposed to, say, a stock), people are naturally afraid of making the wrong choice. But then that begs the question: Are we, as real estate consumers, being left with suboptimal outcomes because we’re simply too afraid of the making the wrong choice?

Andrew Chen recently delivered a keynote at StartCon in Australia called: What’s Next in Growth? You can find his entire talk, here, on his blog. 

One of the themes of his talk is that, “technology changes, but people stay the same.” I like that. See above.

But more specifically, his presentation focuses on 3 techniques for growing businesses and products: customer referrals, viral content, and bootstrapping marketplaces. All of it is interesting, but I’m particularly fascinated by the last one.

Marketplaces are all around us. Uber is a marketplace that pairs drivers and riders. Bars are a marketplace that try to pair people together. Finding, trading, and transacting (whatever that might mean for the marketplace in question) seems so fundamental to humans. And cities really empower that.

The challenge with marketplaces is that they’re hard to start. There’s always a chicken-and-egg problem and so one side of the marketplace usually needs to be “hacked” at the beginning.

Uber is a perfect example of this. At the outset, it didn’t have enough liquidity in its marketplace to compete with incumbent taxis. That is, it took longer to get an Uber than to get a taxi. 

So instead, the value proposition was not about speed (or cheapness); it was about luxury. Uber was “everyone’s private driver.” That made waiting acceptable. You were getting a different level of service. The first Uber I ever called in Toronto took 20 minutes to get to my place in midtown.

But obviously as liquidity increased, Uber was able to move downmarket and capture more (most) of the taxi market. Marketplaces are powerful once they get going. Network effects.

I say all of this because, as many of you know, I have spent a lot of time wondering about the future of real estate marketplaces. 

At the same time, I also think that many of these seemingly tech-focused lessons could be applied to cities. Starting an online marketplace is difficult. So is building a new neighborhood from scratch. In the end, it’s always about people.

Version One Ventures – which is an early-stage venture capital fund based in Vancouver – recently published a free handbook called, A Guide to Marketplaces.

Online marketplaces are really fascinating because they are perhaps broader in scope than you might initially think. For example, Uber is a marketplace. There’s a supply-side (drivers with cars) and a demand-side (people needing rides). Uber connects these two groups together and acts as a kind of digital middle person. Uber does not own any of the cars.

This is an incredibly power business model and it can and is being applied in many different ways. Here are the top internet marketplaces (via the handbook):

I have been interested in this space for years because I have been very curious as to why we haven’t seen more innovation when it comes to online real estate marketplaces. Yes, there are platforms like Zillow.com. But Zillow has not done to real estate what Uber is doing to urban mobility.

My thinking is that it comes down to supply-side aggregation. Online marketplaces in general are hard to get started, which is why investors love them. They have defensibility. But real estate, in particular, is even harder to jumpstart compared to the incumbent models because of what I see as constraints on the supply-side.

That’s why I am so excited about what BuzzBuzzHome.com is doing on the new construction side of the business. They are aggregating supply.

If you’d like to download the guide to marketplaces in PDF, click here. It’s a great read and I’m glad that Boris and Angela took the time to assemble. Thank you :)

The responses are still coming in from yesterday’s real estate marketplace survey, but I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to complete it. I really appreciate it. I was reviewing the responses this morning and I thought there were a couple of interesting takeaways.

First, most people who own a home have at one point or another thought about selling that home. And even the people who haven’t thought about it, said they would be willing to sell under the right circumstances. That is, they would sell for the right price, for a better place, and so on. At the time of writing this, nobody said they would never ever sell.

I think this is interesting because, even though the real estate market is a highly illiquid market, my hunch is that it could be made a lot more liquid with the right frameworks in place and if the barriers to selling could be reduced.

And sure enough, many of the folks who said they have thought about selling (but haven’t yet), said it’s partially because it’s too expensive and too much work to sell. But in addition to these barriers, two other points emerged that I hadn’t given a lot of thought to before – but make total sense. 

Homeowners also said that they haven’t sold because they’re too emotionally attached to their home and because they’re afraid they won’t be able to find another place to move into. 

Because of how illiquid the real estate market is and because home transactions are typically asymmetric (that is, buying and selling are independent actions), there appears to be a real concern that you could sell your home and never find anything better.

And since a home is such an emotion filled asset (as opposed to, say, a stock), people are naturally afraid of making the wrong choice. But then that begs the question: Are we, as real estate consumers, being left with suboptimal outcomes because we’re simply too afraid of the making the wrong choice?