3 ms·

> Nowhere in here did it say these people needing to submit the approvals had pricing responsibility. It's right there in the text of the lawsuit: >> ...If Le

> Nowhere in here did it say these people needing to submit the approvals had pricing responsibility. It's right there in the text of the lawsuit: >> ...If Lessors wish to diverge from the “approved pricing” they must submit reasoning for doing so and await approval. RealPage encourages participating Lessors to have daily calls between the Lessors’ employees with pricing responsibility and the RealPage Pricing Advisor. >> 52. If there is a disagreement between the participating Lessor and the RealPage Pricing Advisor, the dispute is often elevated to the Lessor’s management for resolution, and specific reasons justifying a departure from RealPage’s pricing level are usually required. But RealPage emphasizes the need for discipline among participating Lessors and urges them that for its coordinated algorithmic pricing to be the most successful in increasing rents, participating Lessors must adopt RealPage’s pricing at least 80% of the time Now you can reasonably dispute whether the Lessor employee carrying out day to day responsibilities actually has pricing responsibility if they're unable to vary prices by themselves, but what is not normal is that the higher pricing authority which usually doesn't need an approval process appears to sit with employees of what is notionally a third party software vendor for a lot of notionally competing landlords [nb I edited my previous post slightly whilst you were replying. Slight change of phrasing but I don't think it materially affects your reply]

vel0city 4y ago
> Now you can reasonably dispute whether the Lessor employee carrying out day to day responsibilities actually has pricing responsibility I do dispute it, because it even suggests later that "the dispute is often elevated to the Lessor’s management for resolution". It implies some percentage of these disputes don't bother getting elevated, probably because that user actually did have pricing authority and could just change the price. Most users of the system would not have this permission. Just like most employees at the checkout counter can't change the price without approval. Do I agree this market is a bit strange for having these algorithmically generated prices? Sure. Should it be investigated for potentially illegal business practices? Sure. Is requiring a manager approval for changing the price from what those with pricing authority originally set it to, even if that price is essentially "auto", strange? No.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > It implies some percentage of these disputes don't bother getting elevated, probably because that user actually did have pricing authority and could just change the price Or it implies that when the Pricing Advisor won't change the model, they are persuaded to back down and accept the prices given, by a company that insists its valuation model will only work if clients adhere to its prices >80% of the time[1]. Or that sometimes the "Pricing Advisor", notionally a customer success employee of an ISV, has some sort of executive authority to adjust the price which that Lessor's own employee doesn't. Certainly those two outcomes are those the drafter of the lawsuit intended to imply, regardless of which is actually the most frequent. It'd be odd if a company put the equivalent of a checkout operative on the call with a third party "Pricing Advisor" to discuss the price (both in general and in the context that RealPage supposedly encourages daily calls with employees "with pricing responsibility"). [1]I sold an algorithmic valuation model once. It's something of an understatement to say that this is not how valuation models ordinarily work or the sort of feedback a valuation professional behind the model would ordinarily give to clients...
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Your argument is quickly drifting away from what you were originally suggesting, which was that RealPage had some power to arbitrarily block their customers from changing their prices and truly enforce their suggested prices (see your statement "is typically the only party in the loop with the ability to settle the disagreement"). Now its just that they have a lot of persuasion to those with pricing authority. Which sure, investigate that, I agree. So yeah, investigate those calls. Investigate how the pricing algorithm comes up with its price. Investigate how much the marketing is pushing cartel-like behavior. Smash it with a hammer if they're breaking the law. But the fact that requiring front of line employee pricing changes to be approved by someone in management at the property management/ownership as something wrong or needing investigation, that's pretty normal. Most users of RealPage wouldn't have pricing authority! They're front of house salespeople. Its these kinds of requests to change the prices that would come under review, and that approval wouldn't be at the decision by RealPage. Sure, maybe RealPage has a lot of persuasion over the person making that final decision, but ultimately whoever has pricing authority at that property (not a RealPage employee) isn't the one that clicks "Approve" either way. Awaiting approval from your manager to change the price is not evidence of price fixing, which is what I originally replied to.

vel0city 4y ago

> Now you can reasonably dispute whether the Lessor employee carrying out day to day responsibilities actually has pricing responsibility I do dispute it, because it even suggests later that "the dispute is often elevated to the Lessor’s management for resolution". It implies some percentage of these disputes don't bother getting elevated, probably because that user actually did have pricing authority and could just change the price. Most users of the system would not have this permission. Just like most employees at the checkout counter can't change the price without approval. Do I agree this market is a bit strange for having these algorithmically generated prices? Sure. Should it be investigated for potentially illegal business practices? Sure. Is requiring a manager approval for changing the price from what those with pricing authority originally set it to, even if that price is essentially "auto", strange? No.

notahacker 4y ago
> It implies some percentage of these disputes don't bother getting elevated, probably because that user actually did have pricing authority and could just change the price Or it implies that when the Pricing Advisor won't change the model, they are persuaded to back down and accept the prices given, by a company that insists its valuation model will only work if clients adhere to its prices >80% of the time[1]. Or that sometimes the "Pricing Advisor", notionally a customer success employee of an ISV, has some sort of executive authority to adjust the price which that Lessor's own employee doesn't. Certainly those two outcomes are those the drafter of the lawsuit intended to imply, regardless of which is actually the most frequent. It'd be odd if a company put the equivalent of a checkout operative on the call with a third party "Pricing Advisor" to discuss the price (both in general and in the context that RealPage supposedly encourages daily calls with employees "with pricing responsibility"). [1]I sold an algorithmic valuation model once. It's something of an understatement to say that this is not how valuation models ordinarily work or the sort of feedback a valuation professional behind the model would ordinarily give to clients...
- vel0city 4y ago
  Your argument is quickly drifting away from what you were originally suggesting, which was that RealPage had some power to arbitrarily block their customers from changing their prices and truly enforce their suggested prices (see your statement "is typically the only party in the loop with the ability to settle the disagreement"). Now its just that they have a lot of persuasion to those with pricing authority. Which sure, investigate that, I agree. So yeah, investigate those calls. Investigate how the pricing algorithm comes up with its price. Investigate how much the marketing is pushing cartel-like behavior. Smash it with a hammer if they're breaking the law. But the fact that requiring front of line employee pricing changes to be approved by someone in management at the property management/ownership as something wrong or needing investigation, that's pretty normal. Most users of RealPage wouldn't have pricing authority! They're front of house salespeople. Its these kinds of requests to change the prices that would come under review, and that approval wouldn't be at the decision by RealPage. Sure, maybe RealPage has a lot of persuasion over the person making that final decision, but ultimately whoever has pricing authority at that property (not a RealPage employee) isn't the one that clicks "Approve" either way. Awaiting approval from your manager to change the price is not evidence of price fixing, which is what I originally replied to.