Multifamily Blogs

This is some blog description about this site

Seabiscuit or Secretariat: What Supplier Horse Would You Ride?

Seabiscuit or Secretariat: What Supplier Horse Would You Ride?

The result of a recent supplier partner evaluation was to “keep riding the same horse.” In response, the supplier emailed back, “Thanks. I'll try to be Seabiscuit.” To which I replied, “Well, actually, I was hoping more for Secretariat.”

Truthfully, I was trying to be clever, but it did get me thinking about what should be at the core of an ideal multifamily vendor relationship.

On one hand, I've always been a fan of Horatio Alger stories, so the appeal of Seabiscuit, the undersized underdog who comes to the rescue and becomes an unlikely hero when he's needed most, is palpable. On the other hand, who doesn't like the idea of working with an “unflawed hunk of beauty and beast”, a sure thing at 1 - 10 odds who wins races by an unimaginable 31 lengths.

I recently learned the fact that broke the tie. Secretariat's necropsy (i.e. horse autopsy) revealed that his heart weighed 22 pounds, or two and a half times the size of the average horse’s heart.

The heart is the source of stamina and endurance, both of which are needed to complete lengthy and difficult tasks. But more importantly, “heart” is the origin of tenacity, fortitude, and pluck—traits that manifest themselves in caring and going above and beyond what is expected, or even thought possible.

As much as I'm a sucker for the unlikely hero, in the end, my vote goes to Secretariat—and suppliers with the huge hearts.

 
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

HAHA! I LOVE this blog!!

  Brent Williams
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

LOL that is so funny! I would have never thought of a suplier in that way...:D

  Jolene Sopalski
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Brent and Jolene - I'm glad you liked the blog post. It was actually inspired by a recent "fire drill" which reminded me about the need to rise to these occasions, cheerfully and with heart.

  Ellen Thompson
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Wish I could be clever here, for I am a real fan of horse racing (print of Secretariat has graced my home for 20 years--I love people/animals with big hearts) and would love to come up with names for various horses/types of horses and juxtapose them with suppliers.

What we can all think about is why do various management companies continue to use suppliers that they know are deficient? I see this in so many areas. Laundry seems to be the most incredible. I call it the abused spouse syndrome. Service is poor for long stretches of time, and come renewal the big abusive laundry company promises "to never hit them again" and the client says "ok". Right after the renewal contract is signed, the abuse starts again. Is it because the abuse happens to the site level people/residents and not the people signing the contracts? Are senior people so unaware of the sadness they inflict on their site managers in exchange of a spreadsheet that shows a big pot of money (that never quite so materializes)?

When it comes to software providers, why do clients add ancillary products even as they complain that their requests for customer service go to some black hole? I can understand sticking with the original software purchase (too hard to change), but to reward the bad behavior by increasing the revenue stream seems counterproductive. Why do they not hold their provider accountable for broken promises made during the sales process?

It would be great if people could chime in with providers that have gone out of their way to show heart, care, and the "extra mile." There are some companies out there that people seem to really love. Planet Telecom comes to mind (they changed their name to something else), and people really seem to love Satisfacts. Why? My guess is that the leadership starts from a caring chief executive who passes along a culture that it is best to care for the client first, and to then think about the profit/cost later. For some magical reason,...

Wish I could be clever here, for I am a real fan of horse racing (print of Secretariat has graced my home for 20 years--I love people/animals with big hearts) and would love to come up with names for various horses/types of horses and juxtapose them with suppliers.

What we can all think about is why do various management companies continue to use suppliers that they know are deficient? I see this in so many areas. Laundry seems to be the most incredible. I call it the abused spouse syndrome. Service is poor for long stretches of time, and come renewal the big abusive laundry company promises "to never hit them again" and the client says "ok". Right after the renewal contract is signed, the abuse starts again. Is it because the abuse happens to the site level people/residents and not the people signing the contracts? Are senior people so unaware of the sadness they inflict on their site managers in exchange of a spreadsheet that shows a big pot of money (that never quite so materializes)?

When it comes to software providers, why do clients add ancillary products even as they complain that their requests for customer service go to some black hole? I can understand sticking with the original software purchase (too hard to change), but to reward the bad behavior by increasing the revenue stream seems counterproductive. Why do they not hold their provider accountable for broken promises made during the sales process?

It would be great if people could chime in with providers that have gone out of their way to show heart, care, and the "extra mile." There are some companies out there that people seem to really love. Planet Telecom comes to mind (they changed their name to something else), and people really seem to love Satisfacts. Why? My guess is that the leadership starts from a caring chief executive who passes along a culture that it is best to care for the client first, and to then think about the profit/cost later. For some magical reason, that seems to bring in great profits.

I happen to represent several intensely caring vendors. (none mentioned above) What strikes me about them is how they care for the client first, and worry about costs later. Each day that I go about representing them, I go armed with the fact that I have a team of people that first looks to be remarkable, and then looks to care.

Seems impossible to post specific vendor horror stories here (others that have done so have received swift letters from various legal departments of the offending, and generally guilty vendors), but we could share stories of vendors being remarkable, showing big, big heart and going that extra mile. Even more helpful, would be to mention the specific people inside of that vendor company that went above and beyond. Hopefully, we can find some patterns here, and those firms that treat clients this way can benefit accordingly.

Read More
  Robert Garcia
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Robert - I had no idea you were such a big fan of horse racing. Sadly, I'd be at a loss to name any other horses after adding Man o' War and Smarty Jones to the list.

I think more shout outs and affirmations of a job well done would mean a great deal, especially to individuals. I agree there is much more to be gained by pointing out what's good. When things go wrong, it seems to get around anyway.

  Ellen Thompson
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

@Robert - I agree with the SatisFacts mention! Doug Miller (and everybody that works there, frankly) is on my all-time wonderful people in multifamily list!

  Brent Williams
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

All I can say is ..well done Ellen and well said Robert. Love the analogy and the applications.

  Jonathan Saar
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

Ellen, this is a great point your bring up and it certainly makes a lot of sense. When it comes to business you have to manage risk thoughtfully and when it comes to picking a horse to ride on you also have to make sure it has been well trained... Robert brought this point home by not talking about the product but the people behind the product which is what has the most impact on the outcome and experience.

  Frederic Guitton

Comment Below

  1. Posting comment as a guest. Sign up or login to your account.
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location