When sixty percent of corporate housing nights come from one channel, is that concentration or leverage
Take an operator with six furnished doors who pulls the source of every placement over the past year. Say four of six units filled through the same corporate housing marketplace, which takes 12 percent of gross and pays net 45 from the end of the month the guest checks out. On a $3,100 unit that's $372 a month gone and a receivable that can sit out past ten weeks on a short stay. The other two units come from direct employer contacts, say a regional construction firm and a hospital system credentialing office, both paying in ten days, both found by accident rather than by outreach. The direct accounts are clearly better per dollar. They're also just a couple of phone numbers, and one relationship can walk out the door with a single person who changes jobs. The marketplace never changes jobs. It sends inquiries in weeks when no outreach happened at all, which is exactly what the 12 percent buys. So the real question is where the next hundred hours of effort goes. Deepen the channel that already works: better photos, faster response times, more units listed, accept the 12 percent as a cost of doing business. Or spend that time on direct outreach to HR and project managers, which is slow, has a poor hit rate, and might produce two accounts in a year that then pay full freight for five years. A pattern worth watching: operators who go direct too aggressively can lose the marketplace ranking that came from consistent bookings, and struggle to rebuild it if the direct pipeline dries up. That risk is usually what should slow the decision down, not decide it outright.
Where do the next hundred hours go?
11 votes