Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Leaving a real estate franchise to become an independent broker

Published

on

Former franchisee

This week I changed my real estate brokerage affiliation from a franchise and am now an independent. I’ve done a lot of soul searching about which path to take, and suffice it to say that at the end of the day, I see more value in my own name and my brand, than any franchise. Perhaps I should have gone down this path from the start, when I opened up, but that’s water under the bridge.

In cleaning out some files, I found a business card folder from the summer of 2007, when I attended franchise training and also a broker-owner conference. I was on a high, ready to set the would on fire, and collected a number of business cards from other broker-owners that summer. When I flipped through the cards, I had the brainstorm that I’d see how many were still in business, almost five years later. How many were still with the franchise, how many closed up shop, and how many switched affiliations? The answers may or may not surprise you.

What has become of other franchisees?

I had 25 cards in my file. That’s not a huge sample, but I think we can still see some trends from my random collection of cards. I googled every name to see if I could track them down.

The people to the immediate right and left of me were at franchise training were still in business, but had dropped the franchise and gone independent.

Four of the names in my book showed up nothing in google searches. I assume they had dropped out of the business completely. I know that one of them was out of business within 6 months (I had heard that right away, as it spread through our grapevine) so I knew I wouldn’t find him.

Five of the brokers in my pile of cards were still with the franchise. I noticed that three of those five were longer term brokers, whose cards I had picked up not at franchise training but at the conference.

Four had switched from one franchise to another (most notably, Keller Williams gained the most convertees, which confirms NAR statistics published each year about franchise growth).

The trend to go independent

But the biggest trend was in dropping the franchise to go independent. Fully 12 of the names in my stack pulled up in searches at independent offices not affiliated with a national name.

I’ve read numerous articles about the value of the brand, the value of being affiliated with a major national (or international) company. I’ve worked for a franchise office, I’ve owned a different franchise office, and after 11 years in this business, I just don’t see the need to push a corporate logo over my own brand.

You, the agent, either sell the buyer/seller client on you and your services, or not. There are great offices with Brand A or B or C and there are ones down the road that, to be honest here, suck. It’s not the logo the client buys into, it’s you the agent or you the broker. It’s Brand “Agent”.

At the end of the day the client only wants his problem solved: find me a house or sell my house. The logo on that sign should not matter more than the agent who puts the sign in the ground. Exceptional communication skills, solid knowledge of the market, and top notch marketing matter more than that logo.

A personal business decision

To argue the franchise side, they’ll say that they provide systems, tools and support to help the broker succeed. That is true, and if it were not then no franchise would succeed. The question is are you using those tools or not? Is the support really there that you need? Do you want or need their systems or do you have your own in place?

I am not sorry I affiliated with a franchise five years ago. I consider the price I paid to be my MBA in real estate brokerage. Affiliating gave me the courage to go out on my own, and in the beginning, I did take advantage of programs and tools to help me get running. But as time went on, I realized that my own office was morphing more into “my office” and I did not need the franchise support.

I would surmise many of the brokers who de-franchised in the past few years did it because of the money factor — to save money. That’s part of my decision as well. I run a lean operation and see how being independent will benefit our office with less fees for agents to pay, freeing up marketing dollars.

I listened in on a seminar the other day and the speaker said 50% of all new agents drop out within the first year, and 75% within two years. I’m happy to see that new franchisees failing are not at the 50% level, but the numbers above are sobering. I would say owners of franchises should be paying attention to the trends to un-affiliate.

Erica Ramus is the Broker/Owner of Ramus Realty Group in Pottsville, PA. She also teaches real estate licensing courses at Penn State Schuylkill and is extremely active in her community, especially the Rotary Club of Pottsville and the Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce. Her background is writing, marketing and publishing, and she is the founder of Schuylkill Living Magazine, the area's regional publication. She lives near Pottsville with her husband and two teenage sons, and an occasional exchange student passing thru who needs a place to stay.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Tannis Engel

    February 5, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    We opened our independent brokerage two years ago. It has been a huge success and we would never look back. Our clients love it, none of our business dropped off. We have had great success with recruiting new and experienced agents and they have had the same great response from their clients.
    We had all of the same questions and concerns when we left the franchise company we worked with but we took a chance andbit was definitely the right choice for us.

    • Esmeralda

      January 26, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      As a new agent wanting to be independent what would you recommend I do? I’m in california?

      • william suarez

        May 26, 2016 at 12:37 am

        Hello Esmeralda. What part of California are you in? You say new agent wanting to be independent. Do you hold a brokers license or just a sales license? When you mean independent, do you you mean to work alone without a broker? If you hold just a sales license then you have to hang your license with a broker.

  2. Jim Flanagan

    February 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Erica,

    Interesting post! "Systems, tools & training" were the reasons we originally franchised over 25 years ago. Much has changed in that time.

    I considered "independence" upon our last renewal; it was the peak of the market and technology was leveling the playing field. My ego was pushing me one way and my "gut" was playing it conservative. My gut won and the market fell out a year and a half later.

    A franchise brand will never replace an agent's knowledge, skill and experience but with one third of our industry turning over annually, and the challenges all brokerages faced over the last 6 years, there is "safety" in numbers. And, personally, I believe the "market correction" woke up our brand to the reality that it is the agents and brokers who feed their families!

    Today's technology has commoditized all the real estate brands, one way or another, and the individual broker and agent must identify and market their own "unique selling point" to win the client. The power of the franchise has shifted; from a "closer" to an "opener". The majority of the agents, in our market, would not have an opportunity to pitch their "USP" without the brand's introduction.

    Should the compensation structure of the franchise agreement be re-evaluated? Maybe. As brokers, and agents, our "service fee" is challenged daily.

    Time is the great equalizer and the best teacher. We shall see what the next real estate "frontier" offers.

    Much success to you and your independence,

    Jim Flanagan

    • Jeff Brown

      February 6, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      Hey Jim — I'd appreciate your answer, along with Erica's answer to these questions.

      Setting the franchise/independent debate aside, is the real root of the problem the underlying agent-centric business models BOTH are now employing? Isn't agent compensation the reason most large firms, franchise or not, have bought into title, escrow, and mortgage firms? Do you think the broker-centric models (from back in the day) teams are using so successfully are more conducive to long term success?

      Thanks

  3. Matt Thomson

    February 5, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Great thoughts. Each person is going to be different, for sure. You hit the nail on the head when you ask if folks are using the tools that are provided by their franchise.
    Personally, I can't imagine ever leaving Keller Williams. I could never recreate what they give me, and I get the feeling of being independent and branding my name, not theirs.
    At the same time, I often wonder why some people who are with us choose to be with us. They don't take advantage of any of the training, systems, tools, anything that we offer.
    For them, independent wouldn't work either, thus the rise in 100% brokerages that charge nothing and offer nothing.
    Best wishes on your journey…for some I believe it's a fantastic choice. For others of us that need a little more guidance, I couldn't do it!

  4. Matt Warmack

    February 5, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Good story.

    I think what you are running is very similar to the Keller Williams model – you just are not inside of a Keller Williams office. The research shows that the team brand is much more important than the national brand. I run Urban Abode Group within/powered by Keller Williams, but most of my clients only know me as Urban Abode Group as that's the most important brand. As a team owner I only have to worry about my team/group recruiting & hiring and not the office staff – at the end of the day that makes me happy to know I don't have to worry about the office staff.

    • Jeff Brown

      February 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Hey Matt — My guess is you pay your team members, especially the buyer-agents significantly less than typical brokerages. I also infer your model is by design or default broker-centric. That is, your efforts supply leads, and therefore the agents under you gladly benefit from those leads, and make more than their 'independent' counterparts who oft times are paid double or more the commission split.

      • Erica Ramus

        February 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Hey Jeff… and Matt. Interesting posts. I guess I am old fashioned broker centric. I provide the name and the leads pour in. I am the rainmaker. I pass on all leads to the agents. The only ones I "work" are personal friends or past clients of mine. I bring in the leads and pass them on. I am here to supervise and intervene if someone needs me. I don't do title/escrow etc as other firms have. This has pissed off other lawyers and firms and in fact has brought us more business as we are the fiercely independent firm who does NOT have that in house. It works for us!

  5. jay Great Falls

    February 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Generally…franchise shmanchise. I highly recommend looking into opening your own brokerage, but not from scratch.

    Being indie rocks for the hyper independent. It's rare to get anything of value from a franchise as the consumers care about the authority of the agent–not what logo they have. And by the time you go solo do you really need "training?"

    The costs of running your own show are so small as a legal business address/virtual office is just $200/month is most markets. I used to pay $1300/month for my 100% split. Now the same brokerage only offers 95% for the same fee (different franchises have their own monthly fee though and some are much lower).

    Open a JustNewListings.com Realty in your market–not as a franchise but with a license to use the name and more importantly to use the high powered google juiced up domain JustNewListings.com/your-state-city-real-estate. Putting a google indexed IDX on your spot of the justnewlistings.com domain gets you rankings for address and community keyword searches, etc. much faster than starting from scratch.

    And I've finally opened up to letting agents who do not want to open a new brokerage to put their IDX on my domain and approval of their board and broker for a very small referral fee. I think most associations will accept that justnewlistings.com/state/city/real-estate is like leasing a condo in an office building. You get a little piece of the building /state-city-real-estate but it is still yours to do with what you want and has only your broker info on it and or blog and IDX.

    This is the agent's response to 3rd party sites like Trulia hogging the search engine rankings. Local agents should rank for keywords of all sorts–not 3rd party sites. And my PR 6 domain is a great way to achieve this and the costs are much lower than a franchise with a "recognized" company.

    The newest JustNewListings.com Realty office is being opened in Wilmington, NC this Spring and then in Charleston, SC end of year . rough draft of Wilmington without the IDX feed yet is here for example: https://www.justnewlistings.com/north-carolina-wilmington-real-estate.html

    I'll write and video about this on Active Rain soon. But we need an agent response completely local and independent agent by agent in each market and I see my domain headed this way.

    The big question is whether to convert the site to WordPress or keep it on the REW (real estate webmasters) host who does deliver an outstanding product to be sure.

  6. CIndy Jones

    February 6, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Erica-Congratulations. There is no doubt in my mind that you made the right choice and will a success as an independent broker. I haven't looked back since going out on my own and with all of the tools available it's an easy decision to make. Though the franchises may spend big dollars on national advertising in the end the bottom line is how we treat our clients and present ourselves professionally that makes all the difference in a successful transaction.

  7. CreaRealty

    November 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Great post and thanks for sharing.  I myself recently became a Broker and am at a crossroad. My questions to you is how are you going about the E&O Insurance / Risk Management cost?  Do you see a difference in price?  Thank you

  8. Pingback: how to become an architect | Info Menarik

  9. Kim Davis

    October 19, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    I recently obtained my broker’s license and my current broker has asked if I’d like to take over one of the offices. It is a small privately owned brokerage firm. Being that the firm is small, there is no office space, no sophisticated software, etc. I will be basically building it from the ground up. Can anyone suggest would an appropriate fee schedule would be to the owner for something like this? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    • Lani Rosales

      November 12, 2015 at 10:42 am

      Kim, I spoke with the author of this editorial, and she said that it’s a very personal decision with too many variables unknown to reply. Perhaps consider chatting with some peers in your market for an answer? Sorry we weren’t more help!

  10. Philip

    July 17, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    I enjoyed the article, and seriously thinking about opening my own independent brokerage in New York. For me, the large franchise Brokerages tend to be often corrupt when it comes to sharing any strong leads with their agents. They usually make one or two Superstars, while everyone else scrambles for crumbs. That negative experience that so many real estate agents experience in their first year, is the reason for them leaving the business in its entirety. The experience that I have had with small independent Brokers has been totally Positive, Forthright, and Honest. A total Win-Win for everyone involved. The Brokers I have dealt with from independent real estate offices, have all tended to be very secure with themselves, and absent of the ego problem. I for one, am in the Independent Brokerage camp all the way.

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!