What should we rank prospects on?
Today the ranking scores eight things — and leans hardest on the ones we can measure
least. This is a tighter set, built from what actually predicts a good PropFlow deal and what we can
really know about a company.
A decision for Fede + Sean
Rank on these three
1
Who runs the buildings
We know this well
Owners who own and run their own buildings come first. They feel the pain every day, and one
person can say yes. That is your best customer in a sentence.
Known for 374 of 514 companies — and the deeper research going on now is naming the
actual decision-maker (330 of the last 450). This replaces two old factors that were asking this
same question twice.
2
Which property software they run
Knowable, filling in
Not "do they have a gap" — which system, because that decides how easily we can plug in:
- ▲AppFolio — our strongest integration and expertise. Best fit, score up.
- ▲Yardi — where we're headed next. Good, a smaller boost.
- ▼RealPage — they turned down our integration, so these are much harder to onboard. Pulls the score down.
- ■Anything else / unknown — sits in the middle until we learn more.
The old sweep could only spot software for 87 companies from the outside; the deep
research now has it for 211 of the last 450 and climbing. More concrete — and more useful — than
the old "gap" idea.
3
Size — smaller operators first
We know this well
Big enough to be a real operator, but we start with the smaller fish, not the giants. This flips
the old "2,000–5,000 units is the sweet spot" — you want to land smaller first and work up.
We have a size for most companies; the real counts are being verified now (226 done
in the deep research so far). Exact cutoffs — where "too small" and "too big" sit — are yours and
Sean's to set.
Two to argue about with Sean
4
Can one person say yes
Improving
A concentrated decision means a faster deal. Overlaps a little with "who runs the buildings" —
but not always; a big owner can still have a committee.
5
Building class (A / B / C)
Our weakest data
You said this matters, and I agree — B and C buildings have the walk-in and phone volume our
automation is built for (Nick said exactly this on the KAGE call). The catch: nobody publishes
class. We infer it from building age, rents, and photos, so it's our lowest-confidence signal.
Making it solid would mean paying for a data feed (CoStar or Yardi Matrix) — worth a yes or no.
Drop from the ranking
Timing (leasing season). That's when to call, not who fits. Keep it as a
note on the card, not a score.
Warm path (do we know someone there). That's about our way in, not their
fit. Show it as a ✓ flag next to the score, don't bake it into the ranking.
The decision
- Lock the top three as above — who runs the buildings first, then which software, then size (smaller first)?
- Add either of the two debated factors — and for building class, do we buy a data feed or keep it a rough guess?
- Confirm "smaller first," and roughly where the size cutoffs sit.
Once you and Sean pick, I rebuild the ranking around just
these and re-score everyone.