A few months ago I read a book by venture capitalist Ben Horowitz called “The Hard Thing About Hard Things.“ It was a great read and I recommend it to anyone who currently or plans to one day manage and lead people. But on a side to that, one of the things I found really interesting is the shift he talks about in the venture capitalist business.
Over the span of a decade, venture capitalists went from being ivory tower professionals to incredibly open and transparent. And they did that primarily through blogging. Just yesterday, I saw somebody tweet out that the key to becoming a venture capitalist in 1994 was to get an MBA. Today, it’s to start a blog.
The reason I find that interesting is because I predict that the same transformation is going to happen in the real estate development business. Today, most developers are pretty opaque. The people and personalities behind the projects are still generally concealed (save for a few developers) and my sense is that there’s still very much a fear of exposing and sharing too much.
But the lesson to be learned from the VC business is that blogs have become one of, if not their most important customer acquisition tool. I read somewhere that entrepreneurs—which are the customers of VCs—are most heavily influenced by blogs over any other medium. That is how they decide who they will allow to invest in their business.
Which is why I think it’s only a matter of time before the same sort of dynamic plays out in the real estate business. In fact, one of the most common questions I get from readers of ATC is about the reputation of developers and builders. Customers—before they decide who they will allow to build their future home—not surprisingly want to know something about the developer.
So if you’re a developer looking to sell more homes or lease more space, I suggest giving blogging a try. It’s hard work, but I think you’ll be surprised at how effective a tool it can be.
The Globe and Mail ran a piece this morning called, The Realtors of Oz: Bidding wars are unnecessarily sleazy.
For anyone who has recently tried to buy a house in Toronto, you’ll know that multiple offer scenarios, also known as “bidding wars”, are a fairly common occurrence. Demand for housing in the city is great and interest rates are low. And so homes are frequently being priced below market to generate a feeding frenzy.
When I read articles like this, I’m reminded of how much frustration I have for the way the real estate market operates today. There’s poor liquidity, there’s a lack of transparency, and there are high transaction costs. I’m a free market kind of a guy and so I’m bothered by how “imperfect” the real estate market remains.
A lot of people in the business like things just the way they are, but I believe that markets function better, for everyone, when they are open and transparent, and all participants have access to information. Thankfully, I do believe that we’re headed towards a world with more transparency, not less. Information wants to be free.
Last weekend I posted a poll asking readers what they think the “capital of the world” will be in 2050. It was really the 2nd half of a two part poll. The first one asked what people think the capital of the world is today. And the majority of people said New York.
While New York still came out on top in the 2nd poll, the most notable difference is the rise of Chinese cities. Behind New York is Shanghai, Hong Kong and Beijing. And in a way, this order makes sense to me. China would like to see Shanghai on top of Hong Kong, because it’s perceived as being more Chinese (Hong Kong is still too British). But both are still more economically important than Beijing.
Still, my own belief is that China is going to need to go through some structural changes before its cities really have a chance of dethroning New York (or London, depending on your vote in the first poll). And I think it has to do with openness, transparency and freedom. Fred Wilson probably put it best when he said to basically invest in whatever China blocks:
As our [Bitcoin] panel was winding down, Superintendant Lawsky asked what countries were doing it right. I didn’t answer that question but instead decided to talk about one that isn’t doing it right and brought up China and noted that a fantastic investment strategy would be to have invested in every Internet service that China has blocked. My point being that the services China likes to block are the really important ones that have been built on the Internet.
He then goes on to say that he believes there’s a strong correlation between innovation and freedom. And I would agree. So until China stops blocking the innovation that is likely going to drive the world forward, I think it’s going to struggle to assume a true leadership position.
What are your thoughts?