tigho is forcery, nyc, real estate, advertising, tech

an aerial view of the SPURA lots; the wide street running east-west is Delancey

Last month, Community Board 3 approved a set of guidelines for the future development of ten sites along Delancey and Essex Streets, part of the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area, or SPURA. The guidelines cover many aspects of proposed development (e.g. the fate of the Essex Street Market, the potential for a new school) but the central debate has been over the affordability of the approximately 1000 new rental apartments that are expected to be built.

The words “mixed-income” appear several times in the guidelines, as in this sentence: “The mixed-income character of the neighborhood must be reflected in the development plan for the sites.” In the past, city officials, developers, and local residents have been unable to agree upon what exactly this kind of directive should mean, which is one reason why the sites have remained undeveloped for 43 years.

The guidelines propose what is being called the “50-50 plan”: 50% of the new units (or about 500 units) will be offered at market rate and 50% will be offered for other income levels, including 30% for people making up to $40,000 a year for a family of four.  Graphic designer Manuel Miranda and I looked at the details of the proposal, and compared them to data on the income levels of existing residents. Manuel’s graphic below, imagined as a kind of community bulletin or “Public Notice,” shows that while the guidelines do propose a mixed-income development, the lion’s share of new apartments—the market rate units—will be affordable only to a tiny fraction of the current residents of Chinatown and the Lower East Side.

It’s easy to look at the vast parking lots along Delancey and imagine that they are a blank slate for development. In fact, as the many people who’ve worked to create the guidelines have discovered, there are many constraints on what can be built there. In the coming months, Open City will address how these constraints have influenced the SPURA guidelines. Hopefully, these posts will add to the ongoing discussion about what the city’s goals should be for new development in these and other rapidly changing neighborhoods.

infographic by Manuel Miranda

As we’ve written on our blogs before, new technologies are profoundly improving display advertising. In the last few years, there’s been a technological Big Bang, creating new ways to buy display ads across the web: exchanges involving real time bidding, demand side platforms, improved ad networks and more.

These technologies are enabling marketers to seize the digital moment and run far more effective campaigns, but just as the universe changed dramatically following the Big Bang, the digital buying marketplace has changed forever, requiring some new “laws.”

The three laws of display advertising physics

1. The Theory of Relativity: What’s better, a demand side platform, or an ad network? It depends

Our clients often ask us if they should use our DSP (Invite Media), or our network (the Google Display Network), especially as the distinction between the two platforms blurs. We often answer with an analogy from the world of stock investing (it’s not perfect, but it’s a first step). The first question is whether to buy and sell yourself, or engage someone else to manage your portfolio:

• The online broker model: For buyers looking to manage the details of their ad buying and use their own technology and data, a DSP like Invite Media is often the best option. This is similar to an online broker that lets you log in and closely manage your investments (and, as with Invite Media, get access to special trading features, market intelligence and expert advice).

• The stockbroker model: Some marketers have a desired campaign result (such as a target reach for a new car campaign, or a number of conversions for a sporting tickets campaign). They want to outsource the details and have a customized, transparent media solution designed for their campaign. The Google Display Network most often fits this bill—it’s like having a stock broker manage your portfolio to meet your investment goals.
  

Both platforms enable access to huge pools of ad space, deliver the same types of ad formats and facilitate similar ways of targeting ads. Again, it’s like buying stocks—whether you choose an online broker or stockbroker, you can select from thousands of types of stocks, markets and investment products.

2. Fusion Theory: Why contextual and audience buying release more energy when combined

Some have suggested that audience buying (delivering ads based on users’ interests) and contextual advertising (targeting ads to content) is an either/or proposition. However, we believe it’s the combination of the two that is most powerful.

• With effective contextual advertising, you can get the maximum reach while delivering your message in highly relevant locations—like news articles related to your products—in the precise moment a person indicates interest. Contextual advertising is vital to building brand awareness and reaching new prospects at relevant moments.

• Audience buying—such as remarketing—enables marketers to reach people who have already shown an interest in a particular topic or brand. This is especially effective for re-engaging consumers.

Marketers combining these types of buying can reach a broad range of people, then hone their messages to particularly good prospects to maximize the impact of their campaigns. We’ve seen that this approach drives better campaign performance; third party studies back it up.

3. The Law of Perpetual Motion: Why marketers should embrace a rapidly moving industry

Display advertising is in a state of constant motion, caused by the acceleration of online media consumption and the explosion in new technologies.

• Advances in computer science are driving changes in advertising. To illustrate: creativity has always been at the heart of good display advertising. But look at what’s become widely used by marketers in just the last few years—rich media technology, new mobile and video formats and dynamic creative technology that can take a creative ad concept and automatically bring it to life over millions of websites.

• The industry is literally moving faster as media buyers start to increase their use of real-time bidding (RTB) technology, which allows them to evaluate and bid on ad space on an impression-by-impression basis. We recently undertook an industry study with Digiday, surveying more than 300 digital media buyers, agencies and intermediaries about their thoughts on RTB in the year ahead. Some revealing findings:

• 88% of buyers plan to buy via RTB in 2011, up from 75% last year.
• 47% of media buyers say that the benefits or RTB will increase their overall digital advertising budget this year (16% said it would not, 37% were unsure).
• Spending on RTB is quickly moving out of the "test budget" range: 79% of buyers estimate that more than 10% of their digital display budgets will go to RTB in 2011. 33% estimate that 50% or more of their digital display budget will go to RTB. And 7% estimate 90-100% of their digital display budget will go to RTB.
• 29% of media intermediaries (such as DSPs, ad networks, and exchanges) anticipate their volume of real-time bidding will increase by 100% or more versus last year. 19% believe it will go up by at least 200%.
• More formats are moving to RTB: 34% of buyers say they are extremely or very likely to purchase rich media ads via RTB this year, 32% are extremely or very likely to purchase dynamic creative ads via RTB, 20% are extremely or very likely to purchase mobile display ads via RTB, 18% are extremely or very likely to purchase in-stream video via RTB and 14% are extremely or very likely to purchase mobile rich media via RTB.
• Nearly half (48%) of publishers surveyed say they plan to increase the amount of inventory they will make available via RTB. 28% are still deciding. Only 24% said they were not planning to increase RTB inventory.

We’re seeing this rapid growth and change first-hand. Since we acquired Invite Media in June 2010, the number of advertisers on the platform has doubled; agency spend has grown by almost 300%. And spending on display ads on the Google Display Network is growing more than 100% annually in a large number of countries. Publishers are benefiting from these changes as well (for example, a recent study found that publishers who participated in the DoubleClick Ad Exchange see an average 188% revenue lift when the exchange wins the auction).

In this new era, the most effective campaigns will be driven by marketers who rethink how they connect with people in this rapidly moving industry. Whether it means partnering with technology providers to buy better, or exploring the infinite possibilities of today’s creative units, embracing new media and technology provides a key way for marketers to differentiate and grow their businesses in a new universe.

The future

Unlike the Big Bang, the expansion in our industry is not chaotic or random. We’re moving towards a single platform that seamlessly incorporates the best technologies for planning, buying, serving, creating and measuring display ads; one that will enable marketers to effectively reach and engage people across desktops, tablets, videos, mobile devices and TVs.

Posted by Neal Mohan, Vice President of Product Management

Susi Yu, a senior vice president of development at Forest City Ratner, said in an interview with Insights from The Real Deal that hundreds of apartment brokers -- by invitation only -- came over several days starting the second week in February to view her company's units at 8 Spruce Street, the tallest residential tower in the city. It has drawn intense interest through its impact on the skyline and its high-profile architect, Frank Gehry

A new plan unveiled by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday will put QR codes on all NYC building permits by 2013.

New Yorkers who scan the codes will be able to learn details about ongoing projects, read complaints and violations related to the location, or click on a link to easily make complaints of their own.

According to a statement from the mayor’s office, the codes will link to a mobile version of the Department of Buildings Information System. As existing permits at 975,000 building and construction sites in New York City expire, the codes will be added to the new permits that replace them. Codes will also be added to after-hours variances and Place of Assembly certificates of operation.

While other governments have run campaigns using QR codes, New York City seems to have taken a particular liking to the barcode-like graphics. The codes are already in use on Department of Sanitation vehicles (they link to a public service announcement about recycling), and the city covered Times Square with them in June to celebrate Internet week and promote select agencies.

This is an exchange, that happens to throw off data

A current discussion within the MLS and tech vendor industry is around the issue of listing syndication. This post by Brian Larson, and the discussions therein, is a pretty good summation of the thinking on the part of MLS executives, vendors, and consultants. As Victor Lund of the WAV Group, a leader in the world of MLS consulting, notes in the comments:

Syndication is absolutely a nightmare on many levels – the control of the data quality is gone – leaving behind dregs like duplicate data, false data, reproductized data, resold data, loss of ownership by brokers, loss of copyright by MLSs, reduction in the quality of curated listing content – yadda, yadda.

For what it’s worth, I agree with Victor 100%… if the MLS is a data collections company, like say NPD Group which collects retail data from thousands of point-of-sales systems. Then the practice of syndication is a nightmare, and a disaster.

I believe, however, that there is a real question as to whether the subscribers to the MLS, the brokers and agents who actually create the data that constitutes the valuable intellectual property at question, see things that way. Most working real estate brokers and agents I know think of the MLS as a way to advertise properties for sale (let’s stick strictly with listing brokers/agents for now). I don’t believe that they think of what they’re doing, when they’re at the MLS screen entering data, as anything other than putting in information to get a house sold.

The popular and oft-heard response to this line of reasoning is, “Well, it’s both, Rob”. (Shortly followed by or preceded by, “You’re so black-and-white; the world is shades of grey, son!”) It is true that I tend towards black-and-white thinking, even if I recognize that in the real world of implementation, sometimes you have to tolerate shades of gray. But it is because without such clarity in thought, effectiveness in action is impossible.

Another way to think about it is from a prioritization standpoint. Fine, a MLS is both a data repository and an exchange. Which is its primary identity, and which is the secondary? Consequences follow from the answer.

If the MLS Is A Data Repository

Let’s say that the answer is that a MLS is a data repository. It may have begun as a way for brokers to cooperate in getting a house sold, but in this day and age of the Internet and sophisticated data analytics, the primary purpose of a MLS is to provide clean, accurate, timely property data to real estate professionals, consumers, and other users of real estate data.

Certain consequences follow this definition of the MLS.

1. Syndication must be eliminated, except in cases where the MLS can make a reasonable business decision to do syndication, under its licensing terms, with varying degrees of control dependent on compensation.
2. In fact, if the MLS is primarily a data repository, its membership agreements probably should spell out that it will be the exclusive provider of listings data, and that the listing brokers and agents will surrender their rights to send the same intellectual property to a different source. If I contract to write columns for AOL, I cannot then send that same column to Yahoo, unless our agreement says I can. The same analysis must apply to listings entered into the system by brokers and agents.
3. Intellectual property rights, sharing of those rights, and various mutual licensing arrangements must be clarified and agreed upon by all participants, including the real estate agent who is actually doing all of the data entry. At a minimum, if the MLS is a data repository, and its subscribers are paying to create the valuable intellectual property that is being deposited into the repository, then some accommodation has to be reached between the MLS and the subscribers as to if, when, and how those content creators ought to be compensated for their efforts.
4. The data that is being entered, aggregated, and re-sold/licensed needs to be examined for more than what it is today. There are hundreds of data fields in a listing that go unfilled because they’re not particularly relevant for attracting buyers to the property. But maybe those fields — like soil type, distance to power lines, etc. — are very relevant for sophisticated users of the data.
5. IDX must be put back on the table for discussion.
6. There has to be a discussion about the equal treatment that listing brokers and buying brokers receive in the MLS. The former creates IP that will be leveraged and monetized; the latter does not.
7. A real discussion has to be held as to the minimum useful geography if a MLS is to be thought of primarily as a data repository. Real estate may be local, but data is not particularly useful unless it’s at a certain size. It’s impossible to do trend analysis on four closed sales in one zip code.

Each or all of these things can be modified, tweaked, or changed based on how strongly the secondary purpose of advertising a home for sale is to the MLS and its subscribers. But if the MLS is widely understood by all stakeholders and participants to be a data repository, the relationship between the brokers, agents, Associations, and the MLS will likely need to be renegotiated.

If the MLS Is An Exchange

If, on the other hand, all of the stakeholders and participants understand the MLS to be an exchange, created for the primary purpose of selling a home, then other consequences follow.

1. Whatever value the property data might hold, that value is subordinate to the primary value of advertising a home for sale. Syndication must not only continue, but be expanded, and the propriety of charging licensing fees and other revenues at the cost of wider advertising distribution must be examined.
2. The whole concept of data accuracy and data integrity has to be understood in the context of advertising a property for sale, rather than the context of third party users such as government agencies, banks, and academics.
3. MLS rules and practices should be re-examined in light of the clarified understanding of the MLS as an exchange facilitating the sale of a home.
4. MLS products and services that do not advance the primary goal of advertising homes for sale need to be validated by the leadership and by the subscriber membership.
5. There has to be a discussion not of minimum geography, but of maximum geography. It isn’t logical to believe that if the MLS is merely an exchange, and real estate is local, then a super-regional MLS could serve the advertising function as effectively as a hyperlocal one.

Again, these consequences can be modified, tweaked, altered, and so forth based on the particular MLS’s stakeholders deciding how much to be influenced by the secondary function of data services.

My Take On The Issue

My personal take, after laying out the issues, is that a MLS is first and foremost an exchange, created for the primary purpose of advertising homes for sale. The exchange activities happen to throw off extremely valuable intellectual property as byproduct: accurate, timely, and comprehensive data on real estate activities. To the extent that the activity generates valuable assets — much like how fertilizer is often a byproduct of raising cattle — the MLS should attempt to control and monetize those assets. However, like any other byproduct, one would not impinge on the primary purpose for the sake of the secondary.

The whole syndication debate is far more complex and far more detailed, of course. And as I’ve mentioned, in the real world of implementation, there are going to be some grey areas. But I believe much of the confusion in the industry today around the issue stems from the fact that the big assumption has not been adequately communicated, discussed, or accepted by some of the main stakeholders: brokers and agents. Debate and settle the big question, and the details can be resolved using the clear understanding of primary vs. secondary purposes.

Google is taking its biggest step yet toward making search results more social.

Though Google remains many people’s front door to the Web, people have increasingly been turning to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to search for shopping tips, what to read or travel information from people they know. Google said Thursday that its search results would now incorporate much more of that information.

“Relevance isn’t just about pages — it’s also about relationships,” Mike Cassidy, a Google product management director, and Matthew Kulick, a product manager, wrote in a company blog post announcing the new features.

Google has had a version of social search since 2009. People could link their Google profiles to LinkedIn and Twitter, for instance, and posts their friends had created would show up at the bottom of search results. But only a small percentage of people did this, and the chances that one of your LinkedIn contacts has written a blog post on a city you’re planning to visit is relatively slim.

Now, links to posts from friends across the Web, including on Twitter, YouTube and Flickr, will be incorporated into search results, not hidden at the bottom of the page, with a note and a picture telling you the post is from your friend. So if you are thinking about traveling to a beach in Mexico that a friend has visited, a link to her blog could be a top result.

Google will also let you know if a friend of yours has shared a particular link on the Web. This is a big change, because before, Google would only highlight material that acquaintances actually created.

You might be more likely to read an essay on a topic related to your job if a professional contact on Twitter shared it, for instance. That is a point that many Web publishers, including The Huffington Post and Forbes.com, have taken to heart.

Finally, Google users will be able to privately link their social networking accounts to their Google profiles. Before, those connections were made public, which might have discouraged some users. People will see social results only if they are logged in to their Google accounts and have connected their social networking accounts.

Notably, there is no mention of Facebook in Google’s announcement, through the company blog post says social results will appear only “if someone you’re connected to has publicly shared a link.” Facebook posts are generally private, and Facebook has made it difficult for Google to import social information, as several Google executives have complained in the past.