Technology of the Week – The Housing Industry

5

October

2017

5/5 (3)

The video below describes how online platforms revolutionized the housing industry and the way in which house owners, house buyers, and tenants connect with each other in the Dutch housing market:

Group 45: Rosanne Baars, 406184 ; Roy Ouwerkerk, 459406 ; Yuxin Sun, 406080 ; Pieter Vreke, 372189


1. History

The first real estate brokers in the Netherlands arose in 1284. They acted as the connecting party between trading partners. They earned money from commissions. In the home-rental industry, homeowners initially connected with tenants via physical notes in public spaces. In the 19th century housing corporations and social housing emerged. Consequently, private homeowners struggled to find tenants and started using the intervention of brokers, who received a fee for every contract signed (Van den Elzen, 2013).

2. Current Situation

Decades later, the rise of two-sided online brokerage platforms completely changed the way in which homeowners and tenants communicate. The emergence of these platforms weakened the role of offline brokers, which has several benefits:

  1. For online brokerage platforms, the physical infrastructure and assets that offline brokers use is no longer needed.
  2. Building and scaling networks became cheaper.
  3. Homeowners have access to a larger customer base.
  4. Tenants have access to a larger number of houses and it is easier for them to compare, due to more transparency.
  5. Transaction costs decreased, since most of the physical communication is replaced by online communication.

These eventually led to a decrease in effort and time needed for the rental process. However, for the process of buying/selling a house, offline brokers still coexisted along with online platforms, because buying a house has a large impact on people’s lives, which increases one’s willingness to pay (Bloomberg, 2013).

3. Platform Properties

Current housing platforms have several properties:

  1. A triangular structure, composed of four parties:
          Demand side users: Tenants or buyers
          Supply side users: Homeowners
          Platform providers: Online platforms/communities
          Platform sponsors: Technology providers
          Platform providers and platform sponsors are mostly employees the same company
          (Eisenmann, Parker, & van Alstyne, 2009)
  2. Strong cross-side network effects. A large number of house-owners offering houses on a website attracts tenants, and vice versa.
  3. Subsidies for either the demand or supply side of the platform, while charging the other side. In this way, more users are attracted and network effects increase. The reason why the same part of the platform is not charged consistently, is that different platforms target different niches with different willingness to pay.
  4. Interoperability; many platforms redirect demand side users to related platforms.
  5. Targeting of niches, who have needs for different features.
  6. Low homing costs. Subscription fees are reasonably priced and currently reducing.

4. Future Expectations

Housing platforms are expected to change in the following way:

  1. The number of housing platforms is expected to keep increasing due to existence of niches and low homing costs niches exist and homing costs are low. At the same time, population growth, internationalization and increasing transparency may lead to an increase in housing rental as opposed to buying property (Independent, 2016).
  2. Platform’s profit margins may increase, since increasing demand and decreasing supply for housing rental might lead to increased willingness to pay of demand side users (De Volkskrant, 2014). However, increasing competition among platforms might drive margins down. These two effects can eventually cancel each other out.
  3. Smart-home devices will increase efficiency for both landlords and tenants (Independent, 2016). This will make property management easier, since it might eliminate physical communication and provides more information.
  4. Increasing use of big data analytics. For example, Housing Anywhere is experimenting with this. (Statsbot, 2017).
  5. Convergence of the house rental and real estate industries, because house buyers might get more comfortable with online approaches (Harvard Business Review, 2016).
  6. Companies from adjacent markets may envelop incumbents.

References

Bloomberg. (2013, March 8). Why Redfin, Zillow, and Trulia Haven’t Killed Off Real Estate Brokers. Retrieved from Bloomberg.com: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-07/why-redfin-zillow-and-trulia-havent-killed-off-real-estate-brokers

De Volkskrant. (2014, November 2014). De kloof met de Randstad is niet meer te dichten. Retrieved from De Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/de-kloof-met-de-randstad-is-niet-meer-te-dichten~a3780161

Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & van Alstyne, M.W. (2009). Opening Platforms: How, When and Why? Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Gawer, A. (ed.), Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 131-162.

Harvard Business Review. (2016, November 17). Real (estate) disruption: how technology may change the housing market. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://rctom.hbs.org/submission/real-estate-disruption-how-technology-may-change-the-housing-market/

Independent. (2016, August 10). How technology could revolutionise the future of renting. Retrieved from Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/how-technology-could-revolutionise-the-future-of-renting-smart-meter-landlord-bills-a7182306.html)

Rabobank. (2017). Rental housing: Rising prices in a high-potential market. Retrieved from Rabobank: https://www.rabobank.nl/bedrijven/cijfers-en-trends/vastgoed/real-estate-report-2017/sub-markets/rental-housing

Statsbot. (2017). Housing Anywhere discovered the best way to share data across a team and help them stay on track with key metrics. Retrieved from Statsbot: https://statsbot.co/customers/housinganywhere

Van den Elzen, W. (2013). The future of the Dutch housing corporations.

Please rate this

Snapchat: A Platform Mediated Network success story

29

September

2016

4/5 (1)

 

Snapchat was launched in September 2011. It is a mobile app you can download to your iPhone or Android smartphone, which you can then use to “chat” with friends through photos, videos and captions (so called “snaps”). An unique feature of Snapchat is that these photos or videos are “self-destructing”. After a few seconds after it’s been opened by the recipient, it gets deleted instantly (Moreau, 2016).

Another social media application is Facebook. Launched in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, more than ten years later it reported a revenue of 17.93 billion US dollars and an accumulated net income of 3.69 billion US dollars over 2015 (source: Statista). Like Facebook Snapchat is charging no costs to users. But a big difference lies in the fact that Snapchat didn’t had a clear business model. Years after the launch, people had no clue were Snapchat was planning to make money with. Therefore it was a big surprise that it had turned down a 3 billion US dollars offer from Facebook (Fiegerman, 2014), because Snapchat didn’t earned a dollar yet. At Snapchat they could only dream of revenues like Facebook had.

So why did Evan Spiegel, founder of Snapchat, refused this offer? The answer lies in the power of the network. Nowadays almost everybody has a smartphone and carries it everywhere at all time. Users are able to download Snapchat for free, making it very accessible. This resulted in a large user base of 200 million users. Compare that with other big social media platforms as Instagram (300 million), Twitter (302 million), LinkedIn (364 million) and Facebook’s (1.4 billion), and everybody will agree that Snapchat created an interesting and promising network (source: Investopia). The users of snapchat use the app a lot. Snapchat reported 100 million daily active users worldwide in May 2015 (source: Statista). The network is an essential part of the success of Snapchat and provide us with a good example of the network effect. The network effect is a phenomenon whereby a service becomes more valuable when more people use it (source: Investopedia).

After acquire such a large user base, Snapchat improved their app and service in such a way that money could be made. In an effort to move beyond just messaging, Snapchat introduced a new featured in early 2015 called “Discover”. After this update, the platform of Snapchat provides two services. First, there is the possibility for people to send each other snaps. Here users rapidly switch between the role of sender and receiver. Secondly, snapchat makes it possible for media publishers to send content to their large user base, using Discover. Here the role of sender and receiver are changeless. Discover allows media publishers to have daily content featured on the app. In this way Snapchat can make money, using the user base they built up.

Only a short time after Snapchat has launched Discover, it has been asking some top brands to pay $750,000 a day for placement (Adweek, 2014). In May 2015, only months after launching Discover, Snapchat was valued at 16 billion US dollars (Kosoff, 2016). Snapchat only provides the network, which illustrates the power of their network and Platform Mediated Networks in general.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Fiegerman, 2014:
http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#S_oEAssOXmqj
Moreau, 2016:
http://webtrends.about.com/od/Iphone-Apps/a/What-Is-Snapchat.htm
Adweek, 2014:
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/snapchat-asks-brands-750000-advertise-and-wont-budge-162359
Kosoff, 2016:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/why-snapchats-valuation-is-better-than-it-looks
Investopedia:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/061915/how-snapchat-makes-money.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/network-effect.asp
Statista:
https://www.statista.com/topics/2882/snapchat/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-revenue-and-net-income/

Please rate this