When thinking about the home sales market, I find it useful to look at the relative velocity of sales.

This metric captures just how significant the slowdown in home sales was over the past few years, and how strong the recovery has been in 2009.

Since 1999, the number of homes sold in October has been 48% higher than the number of homes sold in January, on average.

Screen shot 2009-11-25 at 11.44.25 AM.jpg

The home sales market performed within a relatively narrow band from 1999 to 2005. In 2006, however, October home sales were only 16% higher than January. The market had come to a virtual halt.

In 2009, October sales are 94% higher than in January.

From month-to-month, the relative velocity of home sales follows a fairly predictable pattern. The next chart shows sales from July to September for each year in the past decade.

2009 is clearly an anomaly, inasmuch as there has been minimal drop-off in home sales at the beginning of fall.

Screen shot 2009-11-25 at 11.52.46 AM.jpg

Clearly, the impending expiration of the government housing tax break in November helped to sustain the market velocity. While it’s likely that the rate will slow into the winter, the artificial stimulus has had the effect of re-charging the home sales market. Inventory has been worked off and the gap between seller and buyer price expectations has narrowed.

Going into 2010, we have the dynamics of a normalized housing market in place.

B8BC0BEF-8EDE-4D95-8672-E74266E023DF.jpgC83B218F-60B4-4736-8F2C-39C34A22679B.jpgABEA103A-B719-45B1-9AF3-EC699E65E148.jpgCF1FFD29-5D96-4476-A010-C099D82E1A92.jpgCE0B54B7-71DA-49FC-BF31-8DC33DEC38FC.jpg065DAAE2-E45A-425F-A613-7DEAA00EF560.jpg30BC799C-43E8-48AC-84EF-621AD08EC708.jpgIt’s the time of month again to take a snapshot the housing market. We’ve got the new data on existing home sales, new home sales and price trends from all of the authorities, with accompanying commentaries.

The month showed strong performance in unit sales and a continued moderating of prices.

The seasonally-adjusted pace of existing home sales topped 6.0 million in October, according to NAR, returning to a level last seen in February 2007. Non-adjusted existing home sales were up 21% over last year.

The increase in sales has helped to drive down inventory to 7.0 months, a 35% decline from the peak levels experienced just over a year ago.

The New Home market also posted between than anticipated results, with a similarly strong drop in inventories.

The increase in velocity of unit sales has contributed to an continued improvement in price strength. The Case-Shiller Home Price Index posted its fourth consecutive monthly gain in September, after 27 consecutive declines.

Altos Research reports a narrowing of the difference between the price of homes being sold and the price of new homes coming onto the market. This trend demonstrates that buyer and seller expectations are coming more into line, creating the context for a more liquid market.

A quick scan of the web shows a broad range of punditry around the state of the home sales market. There are three basic points of view. First, a series of stimuli, including low mortgage rates and government tax breaks, have contributed to false energy in the market. Second, that the continued strain on the job market will drive more foreclosures into the housing market, putting further downward pressure on home prices. And third, that the housing market has found a relative bottom, with a combination of pent-up demand and artificial stimuli giving a shock to a moribund system.

My point of view more closely aligns with the third. Homes are selling. There isn’t enough surplus demand to revitalize the construction market. The shadow inventory of bank-owned homes will continue to put downward pressure on prices, contributing to choppy price performance for a couple of years. The natural level of the home sales market, given population and employment dynamics, is somewhere between 5.75 million and 6.25 million units sold a year.

Credit to Calculated Risk, Altos Research and Carpe Diem for the charts.

Over the past 12 months, we’ve participated in a dramatic shift in the online market place in the multi-family industry.

Screen shot 2009-11-25 at 10.04.55 AM.jpg

As you can see from the table showing the performance of five top multi-family sites, the share of the top 3 has declined by 1.4 million unique users, or 21%, while the share of the next 2 (ApartmentGuide.com and ApartmentFinder.com) has increased by 694,000 users, or 45%. The overall market for the top 5 sites has declined by 716,000 users, or 9%.

The overall decline of the market is a by-product of reduction of demand for investment-grade rental units, driven by the economic downturn, as evidenced by the declining financial performance of leading REITs and the sober outlook for the year ahead. In fact, two other leading multi-family sites, MyNewPlace.com and ApartmentRatings.com, were down a combined 501,000 unique visits versus prior year in October 2008.

All of the media players serving the multi-family market have experienced operating pressure as property managers have reduced marketing budgets and increased their demands for accountability and concessions from the marketplace.

Over at the blog Being Present, Todd Dubner looks at this shift in a more discrete fashion, with details for each of the participants over the last 12 months. Todd speaks to the benefit to online traffic that the distribution of print copies delivers. A very small percentage of traffic at ApartmentFinder.com is driven by paid search; the majority of traffic comes from direct log-ins to the web site and from organic search. This trend is a result of a focused strategy to build traffic from our print distribution and by developing targeted content and a broad social media footprint in order to tap into multi-word searches from apartment shoppers.

I’m intrigued, however, by the order of magnitude of the shift and the relatively small shifts in share of marketing spend that have accompanied this change. I would venture that fewer than 4 points of marketing spend share in a $750+ million market have shifted over the past year, despite the 200 basis point shift in online audience.

http://www.urbandigs.com/shift.jpgThe audience shift has definitely been reflected in significantly higher lead generation at the Apartment Finder business; anecdotally, we know that a similar increase, at least in terms of online lead generation, has been noted at Apartment Guide.

The surplus of marketing options, and the relative changes in performance, create an interesting dynamic in a tightly described market, such as multi-family.

From a purely objective point of view, marketing spend should shift to those media channels that are increasing their value by growing audience share and increasing lead share, while improving the quality of their leads.

In a declining market with seasonal variations, tracking this objective measure is challenging. And, ultimately, determining the quality of a lead in any market means being able to measure the conversion of hard leads — phone calls — into hard activities, such as visits or purchases.  Few businesses have the wherewithal to track these details accurately, never mind in the multi-family space, and, as I’ve noted before, trying to attribute leads to single sources in a market with multiple free information resources misses the benefit of saturating a market with branded messages.

From a subjective point of view, there is a lot of logic to slow shifts in market share.

An important part of working with a media or marketing partner is trust, reliability and continuity. When you shift from one partner to another, you take a risk that the benefit you’ve received from the service will be disrupted in the transition. During periods of shifts in market dynamics, businesses are slow to change their buying habits because of the relative risk of change.

Typically, price can be a lure, but price is rarely the primary reason for making a change from one partner to another.

What happens, then, is that market shifts develop over time, as emerging new forces in the market demonstrate reliability, productivity and trust.

The decision to shift is also influenced by a calculation about whether the market change is structural or marginal.

In the Internet marketplace, share can shift fairly rapidly as new entrants dilute the market or as existing entrants change their investment in acquiring customers. Ironically, the relative ease of transfer experienced by consumers is not equally experienced by the marketer: Each partner has different systems for order entry, billing, service and fulfillment.

In some respects, the changes in the multi-family internet market over the past year are structural. At Apartment Finder, we’ve built our larger audience base by changing our operational approach, not by increasing our overall spend on Internet marketing. We’re only half way through our operating plan and expect to see improvements in audience growth, lead production and lead conversion. Apartment Guide has also clearly shifted their operating model. [For insight into the Apartment Guide strategy, see the investor relations section of their  corporate web site.]

http://www.pixalo.com/gallery/data/500/crystal_ball.jpgIn this challenging environment, I would venture that property managers are acting logically in evaluating their third-party marketing spend by emphasizing  subjective criteria while insisting on accountability and concessions from their favored vendors. They are also acting logically in looking at solutions that can reduce their reliance on third-party marketing while bolstering their own control over lead generation and renewals. (At NCI, we have some interesting visibility into these conversations by virtue of our CommunitySherpa service.

The multi-family marketing landscape has been highly ordered and orderly over the past five years. This past year has witnessed  dynamic market shifts that will  have a profound impact on the size and distribution of marketing investments by property management companies. It is going to take some time to play out, but the landscape will look very different when it is done.

What it will look like and who will sit in which seats? I don’t have that kind of crystal ball!

An interesting, quick analysis of global GDP trends by Mark Perry, a University of Michigan professor, shows that on the big stage, the United States has held its share of economic production remarkably steady for the past 40 years.

F00DD3CB-A523-4AEA-A3BA-9145CB194CF6.jpg

Bottom Line: World GDP (real) doubled between 1969 and 1990, and has increased by another 60% since then, so that world output in 2009 is more than three times greater than in 1969. We might mistakenly assume that the significant economic growth over the last 40 years in China, India and Brazil has somehow come “at the expense of economic growth in the U.S.” (based on the “fixed pie fallacy”) but the data suggest otherwise. Because of advances in technology, innovation, and significant improvements in U.S. productivity, America’s share of total world output has remained remarkably constant at a little more than 25%, despite the significant increases in output around the world, especially in Asia.

I’m struck also by the relative leveling out of global resources between the big three economies — Europe, Asia and the U.S. The trends don’t portend well from Latin America and Africa, which have experienced virtually no change in share, despite various economic development initiatives over the past four decades.

When popular sentiment recovers, and our economic underpinnings feel more stable day-to-day, how will the behavior of the American consumer have changed?

The marketing strategy firm Decitica has released a thoughtful and interesting study that suggests marketers will have to think about consumer segmentation differently, and that posits that the changes in behavior currently manifested will remain present for an extended period of time.

Decitica operates with the assumption that people will do things in the future that they are doing repeatedly today with a high degree of satisfaction and confidence. That perspective suggests that “The Great Recession,” as the researchers term it, has the power to change consumer behavior on a broad scale. The two factors driving this potential for change are the sheer length of the recession, which creates the context for repeated actions, the the sheer breadth of the recession, which creates the context for a forceable change in behavior because of a change in circumstance.

The Decitica survey identies four distinct consumer segments emerging from the recession:

  • Steadfast Frugalists, 20% of the population;
  • Involuntary Penny-Pinchers, 29% of the population;
  • Pragmatic Spenders, 29% of the pipulation; and
  • Apathetic Materialists, 22% of the population.

In their report, the researchers characterize the first two segments as being particularly challenging for marketers to influence, because of constraints in either their resources or habits. The second two segments offer more potential for marketers to influence.

In terms of demographic segmentation, the frugalists and the penny-pinchers are 60% female. Pragamatic spenders are largely male, and the aparthetic materialists, who are predominantly members of GenY, have slightly more men than women in their ranks.

What does Decitica’s research tell us about the shift in disposition of these four segments?

First, buying isn’t a pleasure sport anymore. The percentage of men with a household income of more than $75,000 who say they get a lot of pleasure from buying things has declined from 61% to 48% in the last year, and the respondents don’t expect the pleasure of buying to significantly increase in the year to come.

Screen shot 2009-11-19 at 10.43.00 PM.jpg

Impulse buying has declined dramatically, by close to 200 basis points on average for all fourth of the consumer segments.

Screen shot 2009-11-19 at 10.43.17 PM.jpg

This change in buying behavior has been accompanied by a increase in negative emotions like stress, worry and fright. The majority of respondents report that the levels of stress and worry that they have experienced in the past year continue to exist.

Screen shot 2009-11-19 at 10.43.54 PM.jpg

These results, which are more closely denominated to actual consumer activity, align with the broader sentiment surveys published by Gallup and The Conference Board. In addition, the short-term buying intention and consumer sentiments reported by BigResearch reinforce the conclusions presented by Dectica.

The implications are significant for marketers. In an environment where shopping is not an activity that satisfies emotional needs, a marketer needs to effectively communicate to a consumer the utility and relative value of the goods or services. A perceived need has to be clearly satisfied.

This suggests that we will shift back to an advertising and marketing approach that is clearly benefits driven, and that product design and development will focus on core quality and application.

Ironically, this kind of market generates more relative value for companies with strong brand identities that support their basic product promise. And, ironically, the marketing tools available to companies in the Web 2.0 world — such as social media and content marketing tools — can create a marketing information environment that generates the security and confidence that cautious and concerned consumers will need to make buying decisions.

Here’s the Decitica presentation summarizing their survey findings.

This summer, I did several posts about the shift that I believe needs to take place in traditional publishing workflows in order to adapt to the new web environment and stake out a strong position serving online communities. At the core of this shift is the concept of Sharing, distinct from the traditional linear publishing workflow. At the core of Sharing, I postulated, is the activity of Curating content. As active experts in a category, our most valuable activity can be sifting through and dynamically organizing the content created in our market space.

In eMedia Vitals. consultant Mark Danziger marks curating as one of two critical skills for the new era of media.

  • Leading conversations will be the first skill, and it starts with the ability to tell a story without monopolizing the conversation – by including the knowledge and viewpoints of others who have something to contribute, and by respectfully dealing with those who are not as knowledgeable and leading them toward knowledge with a chain of facts and logic.
  • Curating will be the next skill, because it implies the ability to find stories told by others and bringing them forward to a broader audience. Remember the “It’s not news because it’s not in the Times” attitude? That is changing, because there is a lot of news out there and no news organization – even in the heyday of news organizations – can afford the staff to cover all of it.

Mindy McAdams, an online journalism professor at the University of Florida, has done some work to more precisely define the nature and benefit of the curation model.

In an age where anyone can be a publisher, it is now up to the editor to curate the best of the massive amounts of content now available in a way that is easily digestible. The role of the journalist is much like a museum curator whittling down, say, 19th century Neo-Classicism, into a single, walkable hallway.

“Aggregation is just bringing stuff together, just collecting stuff and laying it out there. We used to do that more in the old days,” says McAdams.

Scientists are in the midst of an ongoing debate about the relative value of openness and collaboration in their profession. The activity of science publishing has been a de facto authority-creation machine, with editorial boards doing peer reviews on science papers that were being considered for publication in journals. The act of publishing in the journals — which were supported by high-priced subscriptions — was critical to the career trajectory, and ultimate economic value, of a scientist.

As communities expand on the web, and collaborative and networking tools are enhanced, many scientists are calling for an open source model of research, where papers would be shared and collaborated on in wiki-type environments.

One proponent of the open approach to science research is Abhishek Tiwari, who writes the science blog FishEye Perspective.

B1A6FD98-C725-4369-AD96-EA8AB07282DF.jpg

Tiwari is also a gifted designer of information graphics. His graphic above is one of the clearest examples I have seen of demonstrating the process of group curation.

In essence, the filtering occurs as the community of trust narrows. The opportunity for editors is to put themselves in the midst of the content sharing that is going on in their market, and to leverage the power of trusted connections in order to diminish the sheer work of defining which information elements should be included in the curated collection.

The biggest challenge that I have seen, as we’ve introduced the concepts of Sharing and Curating to our content teams, is changing the orientation of information and editorial authority. A traditional editor sees his or her role as creating original and authoritative work.

While there is still a clear position for that work, it needs to be augmented by the identification of other high quality work in the market. In fact, the balance should be between truly original work and curated work. In that model, the consumer of information will look at the brand as a critical hub in their knowledge experience.

Tell someone that you have a blog, or that you think they should have a blog, and you’ll get met more often than not by blank stares.

What’s a blog? Too often, we describe it as a place where people are able to publish whatever they want on the web.

From Wikipedia:

The term “weblog” was coined by Jorn Barger[58] on 17 December 1997. The short form, “blog,” was coined by Peter Merholz, who jokingly broke the word weblog into the phrase we blog in the sidebar of his blog Peterme.com in April or May 1999. Shortly thereafter, Evan Williams at Pyra Labs used “blog” as both a noun and verb (“to blog,” meaning “to edit one’s weblog or to post to one’s weblog”) and devised the term “blogger” in connection with Pyra Labs’ Blogger product, leading to the popularization of the terms.

In talking with local businesses about their web strategy, I’ve stumbled on a much simpler way to explain blogs.

A blog is a web site that you can build quickly and can change as frequently as you want at virtually no cost.

That gets peoples’ attention: You mean I can update my web site whenever I want?

Yes.

That’s the underpinning of Web 2.0, social media and community: the ability to change frequently and at minimal cost.

Blogs are not just publishing platforms; they are application platforms for activating social connections.