I have a friend who is a big fan of Tesla. And judging by what’s going on with the company’s stock these days, he is not alone. This morning he sent me this article talking about how Tesla has introduced an entirely new business model for the automotive industry. The two key takeaways are as follows. One, Tesla is in many ways a software company. The hardware and software onboard each vehicle are continually getting better and oftentimes these improvements are delivered to their customers for free via over-the-air updates. This is not how the incumbent car companies work. And two, fully electric vehicles are going to crush after-sales revenue by virtue of the fact that electric vehicles simply don’t require the same amount of service. So now you’re in a position where the cars last longer (and apparently depreciate a lot less). This might seem bad for business, but if you can build an ecosystem of energy products and services around said car, then maybe you’ve got a big ass Tesla moat. Maybe. I have no idea what the company should be valued at today, but all of this is interesting to me and I’m fairly certain that the car I have right now will be the last combustion engine vehicle I ever own. Depending on when autonomy arrives, it may also be the last car I ever own.
Tag: business model
-
Business model innovation
Fred Wilson has a great post up on his blog today about open protocols. By open protocols he is referring to things like TCP/IP (transmission control protocol and internet protocol), HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol), and SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol). Whether you realize it or not, you rely on these protocols every single day if you go on the internet, browse the web, and write emails.
If you’re interested in these sorts of nerdy things, I recommend you read his post. I’m not going to write about open protocols today – though I do find them fascinating. Instead, I would like to talk about the last paragraph of his post.
Here it is:
“I believe that business model innovation is more disruptive that technological innovation. Incumbents can adapt to and adopt new technological changes (web to mobile) way easier than they can adapt to and adopt new business models (selling software to free ad-supported software). So this new protocol-based business model feels like one of these “changes of venue” as my partner Brad likes to call them. And that smells like a big investable macro trend to me.”
This is interesting to me for 2 reasons.
First, business model innovation is incredibly powerful. Once a company has built itself up around an existing model, it can be painfully difficult to change. Imagine you have a 200 person sales team that would become unnecessary should you pivot your business model. Are you going to fire them and make the switch?
This is also one of the reasons why some tech companies can exist for so long before they make any money. Sometimes – but not always – it’s because the investors believe that if the company has users, attention or whatever it may be, that they will figure out a way to monetize them/it. And maybe, just maybe, it’ll be a business model that no one has ever thought of before.
Second, look how he is publicly sharing his investment thesis. Why would he do that? Shouldn’t he just go off and do it and not tell anyone? Clearly, he too believes that there’s greater value in being open and transparent.
-
Real estate company? No, a lifestyle brand.
This past weekend a rooftop restaurant, pool, and entertainment venue called LAVELLE opened upon atop 629 King Street West here in Toronto. It’s on the rooftop of a condo by Freed Developments, that for some reason is no longer called the Thompson Residences.
Here’s a sampling of their Instagram to paint you a picture:
I mention this not because I went, but because I think it’s interesting to see how Peter Freed is evolving his company and brand. He is best known as a real estate developer. But what he wants to do and what he is doing is turning Freed Developments into a “vertically and horizontally integrated progressive lifestyle company.”
According to this recent press release, LAVELLE is the first venture of Trademark Hospitality Inc., which itself is “a branch of Freed Hospitality.” This is him selling not just selling a place to live, but selling a particular lifestyle and a certain community – and then taking an active and ongoing role in the programming of it.
The other example that comes to mind is that of Equinox Fitness. I’m sure you all know this company, but what you may not know is that it’s owned by a real estate development firm called Related. The New York-based company acquired them in 2005 (closed in 2006) for about half a billion dollars.
Here’s why they did it (excerpt from this press release):
Related and Equinox have historically shared similar visions. Both companies are known for their commitment to lifestyle, service, innovation and design, and have a passionate following amongst dedicated upscale consumers. The companies’ respective customers have similar demographic and psychographic profiles and both foster fiercely loyal clientele who are passionate about their brands.
Related has redefined the residential marketplace, created the benchmark for sophisticated urban living and has been committed to quality fitness facilities in its buildings since the mid-eighties. Since its inception 15 years ago, Equinox has been widely recognized for being an industry innovator and for delivering an unparalleled fitness experience.
Both companies will enjoy a number of key strategic opportunities from the partnership. Related will secure a well known brand as a quality anchor tenant for key current and future developments. This will also help Related to enhance the quality of its amenities and facilities available to residents.
So this is not a new thing. In both of these cases, the goal is to create a brand and identity centered around a precise lifestyle. I mean, Related even mentions “psychographic profiles” in their news release. They know who their audience is, just as Freed does.
Another way of looking at this is how it ties into what I see as a broader shift away from just development to more city building. It’s not just about throwing up a building and then moving on. It’s about trying to foster a certain kind of community and lifestyle. We may not all agree on what that community should be, but overall I think it’s an exciting direction for cities.
If you’re taking a similar approach in your business (or even if you’re not), I would love to hear from you in the comments below.
-
What is this a building for ants?
One of the things you’ll often hear people deride at cocktail parties is the trend toward smaller urban dwellings. They get called “shoeboxes” and “cubby holes in the sky.” So let’s unpack that a bit today and try and better understand the economics behind it all.
When a new building is being developed, pretty much everything gets normalized to a per square foot (or square meter) number.
This is important because saying that building X cost $50 million to build and building Y cost $100 million to build doesn’t tell you much if the buildings are completely different.
However, saying that building X cost $500 per square foot to build and building Y cost $475 per square foot to build, tells you that building Y, despite being more expensive in absolute terms, was actually cheaper and/or more efficient.
The same is true on the revenue side. And typically, developers are looking (struggling) to meet a certain per square foot number in order to make the project financially feasible.
For instance, let’s say you’re building a 100,000 sf condo building. Once you subtract the non revenue generating spaces, you might determine that you need 85,000 sf x $600 per square foot in revenue in order to make the project feasible.
But there’s a back and forth game that needs to be played here. You have to ask yourself: for the product that I’m hoping to build, does $600 psf translate into something that people can actually afford?
You might think: everyone keeps telling me at cocktail parties that condos in this city are too small. So I’m going to build a bunch of 1,800 sf, 3 bedroom condos. Based on the above, these homes would be priced at around $1.08 million (1,800 sf x $600 psf). Your on-site signage would read: “Condos coming soon. From the low $1 millions.”
But wait a minute, how many families can afford a condo north of $1 million? Some could, but definitely not the majority. So then you determine through rigorous market analysis that $600,000 would be a better number. That is something that is within reach of more families.
But then you look at the math and realize that if you build that same 1,800 sf home, your per square foot revenue number now drops to $333 psf ($600,000 / 1,800 sf).
Given that you bought the land for $100 psf buildable (market price in the area) and that your construction costs alone are going to be $250 psf, you realize that you’re now underwater ($100 + $250 psf > $333 psf) without even adding in any soft costs (consultant fees, city fees, and so on). If you showed this to your investors on the project, they would throw you out of the room.
So instead of building that 3 bedroom condo at 1,800 sf, you say to yourself: what if I made it 1,000 sf? You’re confident that your architect could lay out a terrific condo at that size and it now magically gets your per square foot revenue number back up to $600 psf.
This solves two problems: it returns the project to positive feasibility and it keeps the total sale price within reach of more people. It promotes greater affordability. So you go ahead and do it. Boom – shrinking urban dwelling.
All of this is not to say that this is fair or unfair, good or bad. It is simply to say that this is the way it often is.
-
Mr. Robinson — Architect as Developer
I first learned about the work of Jonathan Segal back when I was in architecture school. And he was somebody I immediately admired.
At the time, I was struggling to figure out where I wanted to position myself between architecture and real estate development, and he was somebody who had seemingly figured it all out: he simply merged the two.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Jonathan Segal, he has made a name for himself by being a pioneer of the “Architect as Developer” business model. That is, he acts as both the architect and the developer/client.
This business model isn’t going to suit everyone, but I suspect that we’ll see more of it in the future.
Of course, it doesn’t just have to be an architect acting as a developer. It could also be an architect and a developer joining forces or some other permutation. Whatever the case may be, design and innovation are central to business today and that’s why I think this model will only become more relevant.
Below is a short 3 ½ minute video about Segal’s latest project, called Mr. Robinson. It is located in San Diego. If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[vimeo 155403927 w=500 h=211]
If you’d like to see the typical floor plans or rent one of the apartments (they start at $2,400/month), click here.
Now I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. Do you like the project?
-
The benefits of sharing — what real estate could learn from tech
One of the reasons I decided to start blogging was because I saw how open the tech community had become – with respect to sharing their ideas and experiences – and I thought that the same thing could and should be done in real estate, as well as in city building more broadly.
But in many ways, the real estate industry is the antithesis of the tech industry. We are slow moving and secretive of our ideas. Now, some of this is driven by fundamental differences in terms of how these two sectors operate. It’s a lot easier to test and iterate on your ideas in tech than it is with actual bricks-and-mortar. But I still think about ways in which we, in real estate, could be pushing the envelope.
As one example of what I’m talking about, take Union Square Ventures in New York. They call themselves a “thesis-driven venture capital firm”, which means they come up with a framework and core set of ideas, and then use those to drive their investment decisions.
You would think that these frameworks and ideas would be pretty sensitive. I mean, they are the core drivers of their business. But their entire website is actually set up around sharing and collaborating – with the public – on these ideas. Here’s a screenshot:
Each topic is something they are “thinking about” and something they want to make an investment in (or already have). Fascinating.
Many of you, I’m sure, would argue that there are risks to doing this. But there are also benefits, some of which are driven by collective intelligence. By sharing their ideas and hypotheses with the public, it helps to evolve their thinking. After all, their investment thesis is not a static thing. It grows over time.
But in addition to this, it also makes it abundantly clear to their customers (entrepreneurs) what they believe in and what they look for. And I am sure this helps them with deal flow. More and more customers aren’t just “buying” a product, they are also “buying” a philosophical underpinning and belief system.
Can you imagine a real estate firm doing something like this? I can. But it’s not happening yet, as far as I know.