Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Dual real estate revolutions gaining velocity

Published

on

Revolution #1

In case you haven’t noticed, the local MLS is available to the public through literally a hundred if not a thousand websites in your market. In fact, I’d go as far as to say ya can’t swing a dead cat without hittin’ some Realtor’s IDX. (In essence, the MLS on an agent’s website.) This means that if you’re a buyer, or even if you’re merely curious, you can see pretty much anything listed in your community. I have one, though so far, it’s pretty much been for my family and friends. I don’t sell San Diego real estate to anyone with the lone exception of  those who wish to live in a 2-4 unit setup. Even if you live in East WhatsIt Ohio though, you can see whatever you want in San Diego’s MLS on my site, and hundreds like it.

Back in the day, the only way a buyer could see all that was for sale was to get an agent. Only brokers/agents had access to the MLS. See, it was their property, the listings that is, and that’s the way they treated it. They harbored the silly belief that since it was the fruit of their labor, and their entity, they’d do whatever they chose to do with it. Imagine the cheek. It worked very well, as far as buyers and sellers were concerned. ‘Course some folks always think they have a better idea. This is almost always dangerous, especially to their members when NAR begins thinking they have a better way.

See, they gave away the store. The only thing of value they had on their shelves was their listings. Now they don’t have that. What geniuses brokers/agents have at the helm of their ship, the SS NAR.

Here’s a scoop for ya — consumers don’t have a ‘right’ to my info just cuz they declare it so.

They have a right to professional service and solid expertise, ethically rendered with integrity. Wonder how it’d go over if decades ago those same consumers had declared their right to Coke’s formula? It’s the only thing Coke has of value. Once that formula can be used by anybody, they’re toast. Yet many seem to think the real estate industry was created to be their bitches. I beg to differ.

All the fuss lately about using or not using aggregators is moot from where I sit. Who cares, anyway? Any agent worth two quarters to rub together will sell their listings without using any of ’em. They’ve been doin’ it for generations. If ever an industry has been sold a bill of goods — by their own leadership — real estate is it.

It’s possibly too late now, but order needs to be restored.

I suggest a revolution. Let the biggest brokerages in each market completely withdraw from their local Board and MLS. Then they can start over from scratch. NAR would have a stroke to be sure, but they’d stop pretending everything they’ve done for the last several years has been in the brokers’/agents’ best interest. If you believe that, you should go buy some Vegas property for zero down and wait for the appreciation tsunami.

Like Bill Cosby used to say to his kids, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out.”

The various Boards of Realtors need the brokers, not vice versa. Ditto the MLS. It’s time broker-owners stop allowing the tail to wag the dog. The only thing they need to do to accomplish that is to reach down and grab a pair.

Revolution #2

The agent-centric business model has failed miserably everywhere it’s been tried for the last 40+ years. Get over it. It wasn’t a good idea from day 1. How bright must we be to know that you don’t put worker bees in charge of the hive. They’re worker bees, not risk taking, capital spending, gladiator-in-the-arena bees. The broker/owner to agent ratio has to be somewhere around 100 to 1,000/1. Yet we’ve been (That’s the editorial ‘we’, as I’d never allow it in my firm.) allowing the 1 to rule the roost since the early-mid 1970s.

Geez, guys, how’s that been workin’ out for ya lately?

Since most don’t know the history, here’s how the broker-centric model works. The broker’s in charge. The agents are to be seen and not heard. If the agents had what it took to own their own successful business, they would. But they don’t, so they don’t. They don’t get to dictate to the business owner how to run it. The broker generally pays for the bulk of the marketing. They directly or indirectly generate and/or distribute leads. They don’t view dead wood as a good thing. They do a lot more, or the same business with a lot less agents. The agents make more money even though their splits are much less than agent-centric models.

This is why teams are literally outperforming their own brokerage owners sometimes.

With rare exceptions most successful teams today are using the pre-1970’s broker-centric models. What’s hilarious to watch is how their buyer-agents are earning more bottom line money than their counterparts in the same office. Their counterparts are often making 50-125% bigger commission splits, yet bring home less bacon. Meanwhile, the poor broker/owner is not only payin’ the overhead for the schmuck to whom he’s payin’ 50-90% splits, he’s hearing ’em complain. All this while month in and month out he gets to watch a team’s team leader make as much or more money than he is as broker/owner of the company.

Imagine an entire company based on today’s team concept. You don’t have to, cuz I lived it. It closed more sides than anyone in my local market, San Diego, for five consecutive years, than anyone. They did it with never more than 30 full time agents, and about a dozen part-timers. Over 1,000 sides a year. Their competitors? Some had as many as 16 offices. They had triple, sometimes quadruple the number of agents and still couldn’t keep up. In my experience there were two basic reasons for this.

1. Broker/owners acted like broker owners. They were in charge of their own businesses. What a concept. They were brave enough not to kowtow to a buncha wannabes who, frankly, couldn’t find their asses with a map, two guides, and a GPS.

2. If an agent wasn’t cuttin’ it, they were shown the door. Non-producers were not treated as mascots, as they are today in agent-centric models. In other words, you were a professional producing agent, or you were gone. What a concept.

Oh, and by the way? That brokerage wasn’t part of either the local Board or the local MLS, both of whom came hat in hand, begging him to please join and share with them his bounty. Go figure.

The tiresome “raising the bar” discussion

The cry for ‘Raising the Bar’ is well meaning, but mostly misguided.

There are those with very good intent who want the industry to make it more difficult to become an agent or a broker, and/or want continuing education to be more rigorous. I understand their thinking. I’m 60. Been hearing the ‘raise the bar’ mantra since I was a teenager. How’s that been workin’ out for us? Don’t answer, it was rhetorical. But if we all take a few steps back so as to view the big picture, maybe we can begin to come together on a different approach. The big picture? It comes down to two realities merged into one prototypical person — and they represent, easily, around 70-85% of currently active licensees to one degree or another.

They work for a brokerage without producing much if any business. Also, regardless of the many classes they may’ve been coerced into attending, they don’t know much about the law, procedures, and general practice of real estate agency. Combine those two — lack of production and general industry ignorance — and you get the periodic outcry for ‘raising the bar’. Hey, I have a idear, why don’t we insist as broker/owners that our agents be producers or be gone? Producers generally know what they’re doing on all fronts.

What a concept! The vast majority of all listings/sales of 1-4 units is done by far less than 20% of the licensees out there. Said another way, if tomorrow all brokerages were suddenly operating the broker-centric model, the merit based culture would be the natural result. The huge majority of agents out there who take up space more than anything else would, like steam, heat the air then disappear. They’d never return either, cuz bottom-line production requirements would be the barrier they’d never be able to navigate.

Would love to hear your thoughts.  Back to the future may just be what’s beginning to happen now.

Jeff Brown specializes in real estate investment for retirement, has practiced real estate for over 40 years and is a veteran of over 200 tax deferred exchanges, many multi-state. Brown is a second generation broker and works daily with the third generation. With CCIM training and decades of hands on experience, Brown's expertise is highly sought after, some of which he shares on his real estate investing blog.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
30 Comments

30 Comments

  1. Lesley Lambert

    January 30, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    My mom was my first broker (she started real estate in the 80's) and this was how she trained me. I credit my training in the above methods as being what has allowed me to survive and even thrive in a bad market. Some good points that I am certain a lot of people don't want to acknowledge.

    • Jeff Brown

      February 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      As the industry is slowly forced into the broker-centric model, Lesley, something tells me they'll acknowledge it. 🙂

  2. herman chan

    January 30, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    hi jeff! i think in theory a merit based brokerage would work, but the fact of the matter is many brokerages don't' chop off non-producers b/c brokerages make money off the non-producing agents by selling classes, certs, desk/franchise fees, tech fees, blah blah blah.

    • Jeff Brown

      February 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Hey Herman — They do that cuz their model simply is a big FAIL.

  3. Nick Molnar

    January 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Sorry Jeff, that day is dead (or dying). If all an agent has to offer is listing data and a well-trained team, they should make plans to exit the business. Launching a brokerage is now well within the capability of a smart high-schooler with a four or five figure budget (depending on the market). And the listing data ultimately belongs to the sellers. It sounds like you offer a real value to your investor clients and help them in ways they are unable to help themselves. Why do you think residential brokerage should offer anything less?

    • Jeff Brown

      February 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      Somehow I think we're not communicating, Nick. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. You're right about anyone being able to START a brokerage, but they'd fail just like the brainiacs who've been bringing in extra income streams just to stay afloat. The listing data belongs to me, period.

      I own the listing, period.

      The old model fired incompetents. They slowly but surely ended up with quasi all-star teams after a relatively short time. Nothing's changed since then, Nick. Sellers want their homes sold, at the highest possible price and in the shortest period of time. It was true when I first started in '69, and it's true today.

      That day may be dead, but the teams are showing their broker/owners the way. Agent-centric models simply do not work. They're doomed from the start.

  4. Drew Meyers - ESM Exec Designs

    January 31, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Exactly why I think (know) brokers like m realty in portland and m squared in wash dc are on their way to killing their respective markets…

  5. Bruce Lemieux

    January 31, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    The 70s offered many delights like awesome clothes and spectacular shag carpet. People who ran 26 miles were labeled as freaks. Now, you're a freak if you don't. It was a golden age.

    Still, I wouldn't like to see the return of cars that rust and don't run, double digit mortgage rates, or restricted access to home listing data. Consumers should have easy access accurate and non-spammy home listing data. Good for consumers, good for our industry. I'm less concerned about how they get it (syndicated, IDX, etc).

    Revolution #2 really resonates. The methodology for the big brokers in my market is simple: grab as many agents and market share as possible. Remove all risk to operate a profitable business, give cubes, free business cards and office managers (often to babysit) — and take a high split. As agents get better and want a bigger share, they are lured by the do-it-yourself, agent-centric models. Now, agents need to invest heavily in processes, technology and coaching to acquire and convert leads – which is time not selling. Now imagine a world where the broker manages the business, generates the leads, and coaches – and holds accountable – the agents who spend 100% of their time selling. Sounds like a pretty good trip back to the 70s to me.

  6. Jeff Brown

    February 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Love the comparisons, Bruce. As far as #1 goes, the public has unfettered access through hundreds, sometimes thousands of IDXs in each local market. My gripe is MLS/Board treating its members like street walkers. There's simply no need, and the professionally listed home sells quickly and for more without the aggregator circus clown acts. 🙂

    Does my model interest you for your brokerage?

    • Bruce Lemieux

      February 1, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      As it turns out, I'm in the last stages of launching my own brokerage. The organizational model will look a lot like a team where the broker (my wife and me) will concentrate on lead generation and listing conversion, with a couple buyer agents focused 100% on sales. At this point, I don't see how new 'listing agents' would come on board since I'll have a very structured listing process, but I don't need to figure that out right now. I'm excited about our listing model – we'll see if my market likes it once it launches. When it's completely out of my brain and fully realized in a marketing plan, I would like to send it over to you so you can shoot holes in it. An unvarnished critique would be appreciated — I know that you’re very good at being ‘unvarnished’ 🙂

  7. Stephanie Crawford

    February 4, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Bruce, send that model over to me while you are at it. Would love to check it out 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion Editorials

Culture can be defined by what employees don’t say

(OPINION) What your employees say defines your business. What your employees don’t say defines your culture.

Published

on

women in leadership lean out

Whether the boss realizes or not, employees – the folks who often manufacture, handle, and sell the products themselves – can see sides of the business that management could easily overlook, including potential risks and improvements. So how do you make sure your employees are speaking up? A new study by Harvard researcher Hemant KakkarSubra Tangirala reveals that when it comes to speaking up, your company culture is probably either encouraging or discouraging it.

Tangirala wanted to compare two theories as to why employees choose to stay quiet when they could share their worries or ideas with company management. The “personality perspective” presumes that shy, reticent employees simply don’t have the gumption to speak up; therefore, the way to get more perspective from your employees is to make a point to hire extroverted people.

Meanwhile, the “situational perspective” posits that the company culture may either be encouraging and even expecting employees to speak up or discouraging it by creating an environment wherein employees “fear suffering significant social costs by challenging their bosses.”

In order to test these two theories against one another, Tangirala surveyed nearly 300 employees and 35 supervisors at a Malaysian manufacturing plant. First, the survey measured each employee’s “approach orientation,” that is whether or not, all things being equal, they had a personality more inclined to speaking up or staying mum. Next, employees were asked whether they thought their input was expected, rewarded, or punished. Lastly, supervisors were asked to rank the employees as to how often they spoke up on the shop floor.

The survey showed that both personality and the work environment significantly influenced whether or not an employee would speak up – however, it also showed that environmental factors could “override” employees’ natural inclinations. In other words, if employees felt that they were expected or would be rewarded for speaking up, they would do so, even if they aren’t naturally garrulous. On the other hand, even the most outspoken employees would bite their tongues if they thought they would be punished for giving their opinion.

The study also identified two major areas wherein employees could be either encouraged or discouraged from sharing their perspective. First, employees can be encouraged to suggest improvements or innovations that will increase workplace safety and efficiency. Secondly, employees should be expected to speak up when they witness dangers or behaviors that could “compromise safety or operations.”

Although the study was limited, it seems to point towards the importance of creating a workplace culture wherein your employees are rewarded for speaking up. Doing so could potentially provide you with invaluable insights into how to improve your business – insights that can only come from the shop floor.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

How to change your negative mindset into something of value

(EDITORIAL) Once you’re an expert, it’s easy to get caught in the know-it-all-trap, but expertise and cynicism age like fine wine, and can actually benefit you/others if communicated effectively.

Published

on

mindset

In conversation with our friend John Steinmetz, he shared some thoughts with me that have really stuck with us.

He has expanded on these thoughts for you below, in his own words, and we truly believe that any individual can benefit from this perspective:

Over the last few years I have realized a few things about myself. I used to be trouble, always the dissenting opinion, always had to be on the opposite side of everyone else.

Then, I started reading everything I could get my hands on dealing with “how to change your attitude,” “how to be a better team player,” etc.

Over the course of that time I realized something. I realized that there was nothing wrong with me, only something wrong with how I communicate.

Unfortunately, once someone sets the context of who you are, they will never see you as anything else. I was labeled a troublemaker by those who didn’t want to “rock the boat” and that was that.

In my readings of books and articles by some of the most prominent technical leaders, they all had something in common. Paraphrasing of course, they all said “you can’t innovate and change the world by doing the same thing as everyone else.” So, in actuality, it wasn’t me, it was my communication style. For that reason, you have to say it out loud – “I will make waves.”

Physics

There are two things I reference in physics about making waves.

  • “A ship moving over the surface of undisturbed water sets up waves emanating from the bow and stern of the ship.”
  • “The steady transmission of a localized disturbance through an elastic medium is common to many forms of wave motion.”

You need motion to create waves. How big were the waves when the internet was created? Facebook? Just think about the natural world and there are examples everywhere that follow the innovation pattern.

You see it in the slow evolution of DNA and then, BAM, mutations disrupt the natural order and profoundly impact that change.

Communication

Where I was going wrong was, ironically, the focus of my career which is now Data. For those who do not know me, I am a product director, primarily in the analytics and data space.

More simply: For the data generated or consumed by an organization, I build products and services that leverage that data to generate revenue, directly or indirectly through the effectiveness of the same.

I was making the mistake of arguing without data because “I knew everything.” Sound familiar?

Another ironic thing about what I do is that if you work with data long enough, you realize you know nothing. You have educated guesses based on data that, if applied, give you a greater chance of determining the next step in the path.

To bring this full circle, arguing without data is like not knowing how to swim. You make waves, go nowhere and eventually sink. But add data to your arguments and you create inertia in some direction and you move forward (or backward, we will get to this in a min).

So, how do you argue effectively?

First, make sure that you actually care about the subject. Don’t get involved or create discussions if you don’t care about the impact.

As a product manager, when I speak to engineering, one of my favorite questions is “Why do I care?” That one question alone can have the most impact on an organization. If I am told there are business reasons for a certain decision and I don’t agree with the decision, let’s argue it out. Wait, what? You want to argue?

So, back to communication and understanding. “Argue” is one of those words with a bad connotation. When quite simply it could be defined as giving reasons or citing evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.

Words matter

As many times as I have persuaded others to my point of view, I have been persuaded to change mine.

That is where my biggest change has occurred.

I now come into these situations with an open mind and data. If someone has a persuasive argument, I’m sold. It is now about the decision, not me. No pride.

Moving forward or backward is still progress (failure IS an option).

The common thought is that you have to always be perfect and always be moving forward. “Failure is not an option.”

When I hear that, I laugh inside because I consider myself a master of controlled failure. I have had the pleasure to work in some larger, more tech savvy companies and they all used controlled experimentation to make better, faster decisions.

Making waves is a way of engaging the business to step out of their comfort zone and some of the most impactful decisions are born from dissenting opinions. There is nothing wrong with going with the flow but the occasional idea that goes against the mainstream opinion can be enough to create innovation and understand your business.

And it is okay to be wrong.

I am sure many of you have heard Thomas Edison’s take on the effort to create the first lightbulb. He learned so much more from the failures than he did from success.

”I didn’t fail. I just found 2,000 ways not to make a lightbulb; I only needed to find one way to make it work.” – Thomas Edison

It is important to test what you think will not work. Those small failures can be more insightful, especially when you are dealing with human behaviors. Humans are unpredictable at the individual level but groups of humans can be great tools for understanding.

Don’t be afraid

Turn your negative behavior into something of value. Follow these steps and you will benefit.

  1. Reset the context of your behavior (apologize for previous interactions, miscommunications) and for the love of all that is holy, be positive.
  2. State your intentions to move forward and turn interactions into safe places of discussion.
  3. Learn to communicate alternative opinions and engage in conversation.
  4. Listen to alternative opinions with an open mind.
  5. Always be sure to provide evidence to back up your thoughts and suggestions.
  6. Rock the boat. Talk to more people. Be happy.
  7. A special thank you to John Steinmetz for sharing these thoughts with The American Genius audience.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Why tech companies should embrace Artist Residency Programs

(EDITORIAL) With technology founders wiping themselves with money while also truly caring about culture and inclusion, they’re missing a huge opportunity by ignoring artist in residency programs. Even Amtrak does it – come on, y’all.

Published

on

artist in residency programs

There’s a ton of cash in the tech industry. Like, more money than your primate brain can process, like “get-the-country-out-of-debt” money – Scrooge McDuck swimming in gold levels of cash. That’s how profitable technology has become.

And we’re not just talking laptops and smartphones, either. All of those monthly subscriptions you’re not thinking about, the Hulu, Netflix, Microsoft Office, that extra storage for your MacBook or iPhone, that’s all got a name: Software as a Service (SaaS) and with major players like Apple and Disney upping their stakes in the game – this model ain’t going anywhere.

Our thermostats are connected to our iPhones, and our cars are plugged into a matrix that’s fed into the Internet. Everywhere you look, the tech industry is changing everything. Everyone has a smartphone, a tablet, and a laptop, or a television that’s Internet-enabled.

And for everything that’s connected to the Internet, someone’s making a buck.

According to CTA, the tech industry will make $398B this year, and The Big 5 – Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook are worth a combined three trillion dollars. What do these companies do with all of the cash?

These companies typically pay well. To hire the best, workers want a payday. That’s fine, everyone who bangs at their job should get their slice of the action. After that, companies invest in culture and hiring that next tier of top talent. But, after the company offsites in a wooded cabin, the multi-million-dollar research projects, and the fully covered healthcare are accounted for, there’s still dough to play with.

Let’s get creative.

A lot of the more prominent tech companies have established that giving back is critical to their mission. Teams do charity work, they fly to other countries to help build schools; all kinds of amazing wonderful things are happening thanks to some of the world’s biggest players.

But what if those same companies established a new precedent – What if they established artist in residency programs?

One of the greatest professional experiences of my life was working for Atlassian and traveling between the Austin, San Francisco, and Sydney offices. While I was there to write for them, I’m still a writer, I always worked on my stuff. I’ve written in cafés in North Beach after browsing City Lights books where Ginsburg stomped his feet. I’ve been in bookstores in Sydney, never taking for granted for a second that I was beyond lucky to have this chance; that experience opened up a world that money had prevented me from exploring.

Can you imagine being allowed to fly to another office to work in a different environment, just for a change of scenery? It’s staggering what a comprehensive program could do for the arts community. The money and infrastructure is there, and so long as companies continue their dedication to paying it forward, this should be an added flavor to that mission.

This might sound like a shocker, but most of your friends who pursue art for a living ain’t exactly making windfalls of cash.

Most artistic types are freelancers or have multiple side hustles – they wait tables, or slug away in the bars, they cut corners on life’s everyday expenses in pursuit of their art. Your average painter, cartoonist, writer, filmmaker, they’re all chasing the project that gives them a chance to make their art their living. The problem is, for most creatives, it’s a dog chases its tail kinda life and that tail ain’t getting any longer or tastier.

How would it work?

Companies should work with the Alliance of Artist Communities (AAC) and set up a residency program. The AAC had been setting up residencies across the country for years, so while this is a feel-good philanthropic endeavor, the organization knows every tax break and loophole out there.

And realistically, the AAC has to, considering the culture of treating the arts in our communities is seen more of a begrudging, “we should probably do this” offense rather than an important investment. Most artistic programs receive pennies on the dollar, and most creatives live hand to mouth in pursuit of their dreams, and for many tech founders, the story is relatable, only they’re masters at problem-solving. Creativity doesn’t have to be pen to paper and the outcome being a funny doodle of a dog riding a skateboard, the creative mind is our innate core, we’re programmed to search for inventive ways to solve problems.

We just turn it off as society deems creativity an expendable commodity.

Creativity shouldn’t be relegated as frivolity, but essential.

In the world of artistic residences, paying bills is an issue. So, many programs have to drum up funds, find donors, seek out worthwhile endowments, search for tax breaks. Many are non-for-profits because they need grants for just about everything.

But in tech, cash is there aplenty.

Instead of throwing a Christmas party with a $100K budget for each office around the world, that money could be better spent on social enrichment. I’ve worked in the tech world for the past six years, and I’ve seen a lot of wasteful spending. While I love a good massage chair experience, that money could have been spent elsewhere versus giving staff of over three hundred already fabulously well paid people fifteen minutes of “me time.”

For one year or whatever predetermined amount of time, a company would allow a creative in their city to “join the team.”

What’s that look like?

Allow someone to create in these offices that are more like adult Disney World with their free snacks, open collaboration, catered meals, and endless perks. Give an artist a space that was once a small meeting room and let them do their thing.

The culture aspect of a creative being dropped in the average technology environment would blow their minds – most tech companies strive for diversity and inclusivity, and this program would be a brushstroke in that palette of reasoning.

By giving the creative the chance to mix it up with people who think in code, in marketing campaigns or how to “disrupt the market,” the influence would be impactful: a developer might become a nature photographer, or maybe a mixed media artist helps the marketing team see a problem from a different point of view. If there are anything companies in tech suffer from, it’s a little too much inward focus.

Change everything with a pen stroke.

Some campuses are so big (Facebook, Apple to name just two), they could support two or three artists at a time.

Indeed, Atlassian, Oracle, Uber, Lyft, all have multiple offices around the world. Imagine an extroverted painter working in a common room, while people move to and from meetings, getting that flash of inspiration, even if minute.

That’s beautiful.

Maybe instead of continually talking about code depositories or the next sprint, people got hip to new books? Maybe an essayist learns how to use Trello to manage their weekly pitches or maybe even further, they learn about how agile principles work could make their processes more manageable?

And while this person is getting paid, maybe they’re earning more money than they’ve ever seen. What if someone who’s always worked minimum wage jobs were given an $80K gig to create? Sure, you’d need to coach them on saving up for when the program is over, but for that period, being restricted to the dollar menu wouldn’t be everyday life.

The results would be staggering. The average working artist has to grind while others are asleep, early in the morning or late at night, they find ways to communicate their feelings, but while still making sure rent is on time.

Companies could establish an annual open competition where artists of whatever designated mediums submit their work.

Maybe it’s film or painting, or gosh, even a writer. But for that year, the winner gets to attend the fun parties, the culture building events, but most importantly gets paid well for their residency.

If the competition is opened up beyond the borders of the company’s home base, that works, too. Most bigger companies have a few corporate apartments that are barely used. Giving someone a room wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

Artists could donate their skills to workshops, creative programming, even create art specifically for the space. Most offices anywhere could use a little freshening up, or at least an ongoing blog series, something.

As for the perception of “selling out” the artistic culture has changed, where it was once punk rock to keep everything as DIY as possible, most of us creatives are fighting against a sea of other talented people all of the time, the chance for exposure on a bigger level, but also being financially free is worth wearing a few corporate branded t-shirts. And honestly, tech companies generally aren’t as gross as the old school monoliths of the past, most of the executive boards are made up of actual people who started from the bottom.

As my friend Jason Saul of BirdNote once told me, “don’t think of it as ‘selling out’ we’re in a hip hop-driven culture, you’re blowing up.”

There are residency programs on farms, a recycling center in SF, in the woods, the Florida keys, Amtrak got into the residency game for a while, just as Padre Island in Texas, the national parks all have them, even the CERN large hadron collider has an artist in residence program.

To double-down even further, even The Mall of America, the place where you can buy a corn dog or visit one of five Victoria’s Secret stores (who needs that many panties?) or ride a rollercoaster, has an artist in residence program.

The artist is given $2500 for a week, plus a hotel room and are allowed to roam the mall 24/7. LaGuardia airport in New York rehabbed an old Hudson News and converted it into a kiosk to people watch and create, so why not the tech companies who purposely set up shop in buildings in the heart of downtowns across the world or amongst trees in sprawling acreage?

This is possible.

Who’s going to be first?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!