Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times published an article this morning about Opendoor – a startup that I have written about multiple times on this blog – called, The Rise of the Fat Start-Up. (His definition of “fat” is that the startup owns lots of hard assets, which considered atypical in tech.)
Below are a couple of interesting tidbits from the article:
Opendoor has raised over $300 million in equity and over $500 million in debt since inception.
Opendoor plans to be in 10 cities by the end of this year.
Average commission charged on Opendoor is 7.5%, which is higher than a traditional real estate agent and higher than what was quoted before in the press. The higher % is because of certainty and convenience.
Opendoor offers a leaseback option if you’d like to stay in your house for a period of time after you’ve sold it.
Their conversion rate (offers made to closings) is about 30%.
Other startups are now in the market with similar models, including Offerpad and Knock. Zillow is working with Offerpad on a pilot. Someone is starting to feel threatened.
The article also quotes a blogger and real estate analyst named Mike Delprete. Heads-up: His blog is called “Adventures in Real Estate Tech.” I’m sure this will appeal to many of you. I obviously just subscribed.
Mike dug into MLS records in order to figure out Opendoor’s transaction volumes, since the company is not releasing this information. Here’s what he found (the chart is up to March 2017):
The trend line is certainly moving in the right direction. But Mike also believes that Opendoor is only netting around $8,320 in profit per home and that much of it is driven by appreciation. There’s also substantial risk in owning so many homes – each one is usually held for a few months.
But you can be sure they’re thinking well beyond where they are at today. Expect many more updates on this blog.
Steven Ballmer – the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the LA Clippers – has just launched a website called USAFacts.
He describes it as a 10-K for the US government. Put differently, it is a non-partisan website offering a “data-driven portrait of the American population, our government’s finances, and government’s impact on society.” It provides a complete look at revenue and spending across federal, state, and local governments.
There is no commercial motive behind the website and Ballmer has been quoted in the New York Times saying that he’s “happy to fund the damn thing” whether it ends up being 3, 4, or even 5 million a year.
I love good data and in this current era of “fake news”, I think these sorts of initiatives are exactly what we need.
Ever notice how whenever you’re taking an Uber the driver usually gets another fare just before he (Uber drivers are overwhelmingly male) is about to drop you off? That’s on purpose.
Earlier this month the New York Times published an interactive feature describing how Uber uses behavioral economics (or psychological tricks) to encourage its drivers to work longer, take more fares, and so on.
Here’s a quick sidebar note about behavioral economics from Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School:
According to the traditional view in economics, we are rational agents, well informed with stable preferences, self-controlled, self-interested, and optimizing. The behavioral perspective takes issue with this view and suggests that we are characterized by fallible judgment and malleable preferences and behaviors, can make mistakes calculating risks, can be impulsive or myopic, and are driven by social desires (e.g., looking good in the eyes of others). In other words, we are simply human.
And now back to Uber. One tactic they use is goal setting. People are drawn to goals. This translates into driver messages like this one: “You’re $10 away from making $330 in net earnings. Are you sure you want to go offline?”
But the experiment I found most interesting from the NY Times piece is the one that Lyft completed where it discovered that showing drivers lost/dropped fares was a far more powerful motivator than showing completed rides. In other words: Look at all this money you’re losing out on by not driving!
This finding is in line with something I’ve written about a few times before on this blog: prospect theory. One of the tenets of this theory is that “losses hurt more than gains feel good.” We, humans, tend to focus more on the former.
Of course, Uber is not alone in employing behavioral economics. Every app on your phone is being continuously optimized so that it gets as much of your attention as possible. But where is the line between encouragement and manipulation?
If you’re interested in this topic, check out this HBR article called, Uber Shows How Not to Apply Behavioral Economics.