« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 29, 2005

The Most Important Communication

The single most important communication an owner receives from the management company is the first one. When a new owner moves into an association, management usually will send them a package of information containing a welcome, information about the association, assessments, and contacts. Some packages will contain other items like a directory, newsletter, forms, or more paper. A few managers will include a video welcome in hopes that people will watch what they won't read. When was the last time you reviewed what new owners received? Have you done any sampling/surveys to see if its being read and understood? Why is this important? Because you and the association are going to establish some early perceptions in the mind of the new owner(s) with this package.

Does it capture their attention, or is it easily put aside for some future time? Sending someone nothing but text on plain sheets of paper is probably the quickest way to get ignore. The first page they see should be designed to grab them and let them know there is some good stuff inside. Use of graphics, colors, bold print and interesting language will attract the reader to actually read the document and might encourage them to read more. Also, they will be more willing to read future communications if they feel that it will be interesting.

The welcome package should be warm, not formal. You're welcoming a new neighbor, not sending a violation notice. Smiling faces, words in quotes, upcoming social events are just some of the things you can include. Consider sending it on a softer, warmer color paper.

Also consider sending more than one welcome communication, with the first one being all warm and fuzzy, with subsequent communications designed to pass along more detailed information. If the first one does its job, the follow-ups should get read. Look at what you're sending. What message is it conveying? Is it the one you want?

Posted by joewest at 2:02 PM

October 11, 2005

Why did they leave?

I was talking with a manager that I've known for more years than either of us care to remember. She had left the firm she had been with for 15 years and started her own company. We were discussing the fact that the number of community association management companies in our market had doubled in the last year and that the majority of them had been started by people like her, experienced managers who, for whatever reason, decided to make a go of it on their own. Hurt feelings, turf wars and a leveling of fees has resulted.

Managers leave companies for all kinds of reasons: better opportunities elsewhere, burn-out, personality conflicts, incompetence, pay ceilings, new challenges, and so on. I'd like to look at the group that CEO's would like to keep and kick around some ways to do so.

What do you do with the manager who has been with you for 10 or 15 years and has hit the top end of the pay scale? Few associations are willing to pay the premium for that experience for more than a few years. Sooner or later, a new board starts comparing costs with nearby associations and figures that experience isn't worth the cost. You then have to move a lower cost person in and then find additional income to cover the long-term employee or coming up with some stop-gap measure that is rarely satisfactory to either party. Companies will often start up branch offices with that person heading it up, but even that has limits....where do they go from there?

Here's an idea to think about, why not let them run their own company as a subsidiary of yours, rather than watching them become a competitor? I'm not talking about a partnership....most mangement company owners are alpha-types who don't play well with others. Instead, form a reasonably independent firm that targets a niche market that you would like to get into. Instead of trying to fit high-rise management into your firm which was built on HOA management, let the new firm specialize in it. Specialization is an attraction to clients. Lets face it, who would they rather contract with, a firm that does nothing but high-rises or a company that has one or two in their portfolio.

You can share computer networks, financial managment and maybe some other back office systems, but in the front of the house they can design and build the company to fit their niche. It beats trying to pack a new market into a structure designed for something different, which never quite seems to work as well as you want it to.

How you choose to structure this new entity is up to you, although it should be created to succeed, not loaded down with obligations and requirements that restrict or frustrate it. Whether you choose a completely new name to help it with its new market or whether you want to keep some semblance of your existing name for branding is up to you. I think that a new name, followed by "A subsidiary of ....." might accomplish both purposes.

Give your best people a chance to live your lifestyle. It's a better option than facing them as a competitor.

Posted by joewest at 12:53 AM