Why concentrating a land-mailer campaign in one corridor can outperform spreading it across counties

Take a case worth studying in land wholesaling. A first round of campaigns runs 900 to 1,200 letters spread across four counties, chosen because the price bands look similar. Results are fine and forgettable: two assignments per campaign, average fee around 5,200, and every deal requires learning a new planning office, a new set of minimum lot rules, and a new group of buyers from scratch. A second approach puts the same total spend, 2,840 all in with skip tracing, into a single corridor, roughly a 14 mile band along a state highway where a metro's subdivision edge is moving outward. All 1,100 letters go there instead. Results: 19 conversations, 5 contracts, 4 closed assignments, with fees of 8,400, 11,000, 9,600, and 6,200, averaging 8,800. The improvement is not better sellers. It comes from doing the split analysis for the whole corridor before mailing, so that when a 12 acre parcel comes in, the operator knows within ten minutes whether the frontage supports three lots or one, and which two builders are already buying within four miles. That lets the operator hold price instead of taking the first offer, and can produce competing bids from builders on the same parcel. The risk cuts both ways. Concentration means exposure to a single planning department changing its frontage or minimum lot standards, which happens and would strand the whole buyer thesis at once, since those standards are set locally and do not carry to another county. It also means real dependence on a handful of large holdings, since a small number of family-held parcels can account for a disproportionate share of contracts. The stronger version of this approach spreads across two adjacent corridors rather than one, so a single planning decision cannot take the whole channel out, while still keeping the pre-mail demand mapping that made the concentrated approach work.

brandonlee36 SP1BPRO 15

Answer

aaron_fitz10 PU1APRO 13

I'll argue with the attribution rather than the result. Fee per deal doubling gets credited to corridor knowledge, but some of that is real: two builders bidding against each other on an 11,000 deal only happens when both are known to exist. Three campaigns ran before this one though, so the operator improved at the same time the targeting changed. The fourth campaign should beat the first three even run across four counties again. The piece that does look clean is a ten minute answer on frontage. Knowing whether 12 acres is three lots or one before price gets discussed is what allows refusing a low first offer, and that's a per-corridor asset that concentration builds and spreading doesn't. So the honest test isn't this campaign against the old ones. It's the next two corridors against each other, run at the same time by the same operator. If a second corridor takes three campaigns to produce 8,800 averages, the learning curve was doing most of the work and concentration just sped it up. On the concentration risk: a family holding worry is bigger than a planning department worry. Planning changes are usually noticed and slow, with a visible comment period. A single family deciding not to sell gives no notice at all, and two of five contracts sitting in one such conversation is 40 percent of a pipeline at risk.

aaron_fitz10 PU1APRO 13

1 reply

Reply Anonymous