Facebook vs. Zillow: A breakdown of Facebook’s real estate strategy and the impact on portals around the world.


Facebook has always played a supporting role in the marketing portfolio of real estate professionals: historically, agents have been twice as likely to advertise on a listing portal than on social media. For its part, Facebook has never built features that cater directly to real estate consumers and professionals. Earlier this year, that changed—signaling a shift in strategy with major implications for real estate portals.

A month ago, Facebook announced a major update to the “Property Rentals” section on Facebook Marketplace, launching a new front-end that allows mobile users to search for rentals using a variety of new filters: rental type, location, number of bedrooms, pet friendliness and more.

  Facebook Marketplace’s Property Rentals

Facebook Marketplace’s Property Rentals


Paired with this product update are new partnerships with Zumper and Apartment List—two of the most prominent online rental platforms, which collectively receive millions of unique visitors a month—which will directly syndicate “hundreds of thousands” of rental listings to Facebook.

This is the second major step that Facebook has taken into residential real estate in three months. September saw the launch of Dynamic Ads for Real Estate, which lets brokerages and real estate websites promote live listings to Facebook users.

What do these features reveal about Facebook’s real estate strategy, and what does Facebook’s growing interest in real estate mean for portals? In this article, we’ll take a closer look at Facebook’s recent moves into residential real estate, assess its motivations and forward-looking roadmap, and discuss the implications for existing players, especially real estate portals.

Facebook and Real Estate

Facebook cemented its status as an important marketing channel for rental managers and real estate agents well before the launch of Property Rentals and Dynamic Ads. On the rental front, Facebook has long hosted groups like Gypsy Housing, home to local classified posts from individuals and small-time landlords renting their property and rental seekers seeking the perfect match. Individual landlords have been able to post listings to Facebook Marketplace since the product’s launch last fall.

But rudimentary search and lack of quality inventory has stopped rentals from really taking off on Marketplace. Though we don’t have precise data from Facebook, this qualitative observation is reinforced by the continued growth of informal housing groups.

On the sale front, real estate agents have used Facebook to build local awareness of their services or conduct targeted promotion of their listings, taking advantage of relatively slim competition to generate strong ROI. When Inman News surveyed agents on their use of Facebook this past September, one agent noted that she once spent $750 on a listing ad that generated six contracts and “hundreds” of leads.

Another agent reports that his average cost per lead from Facebook is around $5, comparing favorably to an average of $100 per lead from Zillow—although that cost per lead has jumped sixfold over the past three years as more agents bid for ad inventory. In general, Facebook has delivered high ROI to agents, but only for those willing to manually upload listings, optimize ad creative and nurture leads over a longer time horizon. 

Even without the benefit of any features specific to real estate, Facebook has already captured substantial mindshare among agents, with a September 2017 report by research firm Borrell Associates suggesting that agents are “more likely to buy ads on social media than all other forms of digital media, including listing portals.”

Assessing Facebook’s New Real Estate Features

The revamped Property Rentals section and Dynamic Ads for Real Estate seem like simple optimizations at first blush, but their impact will be substantial.

On the rental front, the product refresh and accompanying listing partnerships are game changers. Syndicating listings from established rental sites—and improving the user experience for renters—will make rental search far more useful on Facebook, attracting users who will ultimately incentivize more landlords to post inventory directly to Facebook.

Facebook isn’t settling for feature parity with powerful incumbents like Craigslist, encouraging landlords to post 360° photos to provide a better sense for what a listing is like.

Facebook is smart to focus on rentals, which are an ideal entry point into residential real estate because competition is fragmented: there is no MLS or single source of truth for rental inventory. By supercharging its network effect through listing syndication and user-side tweaks, Facebook has a shot at replacing Craigslist as the most comprehensive database of rental listings in America.

On the sale side, the launch of Dynamic Ads for Real Estate makes Facebook a far more powerful tool for real estate agents.

  Facebook’s Dynamic Ads for Real Estate product

Facebook’s Dynamic Ads for Real Estate product


Until now, agents could only target broad audiences, capturing leads with less intent than users actively surfing a real estate portal for homes. By allowing brokerages to upload a catalog of live listings and target users based on their past interaction with specific listings, Facebook lets agents market to users who directly demonstrate affinity for their homes for sale, which should improve lead quality and ROI.

Facebook’s Real Estate Strategy: All About Inventory

What do these new features have in common? Both incentivize suppliers of real estate inventory—property managers and landlords on the rental side, agents and brokers on the sale side—to upload more listings to Facebook.

The fundamental competency of an advertising platform is surfacing the right product or service (in our case, inventory) to the right consumer at the right time (in our case, transactional intent): in other words, identifying a consumer’s need and offering a relevant solution. With more than two billion users between its various products, Facebook is one of the few platforms that already has the right consumer in its grasp—and its real estate strategy targets the other pieces of the equation.

Listing inventory is the bedrock of Facebook’s strategy to capture market share in real estate ad spend. Even if Facebook had perfect knowledge of a consumer’s intent to rent or buy a home, it can only monetize that intent if it has a “product”—a listing—to display.

Accumulating a greater volume and variety of real estate inventory has another major benefit: by giving consumers more opportunities to interact with real estate, Facebook learns more about their preferences and intent, which enables more effective targeting. For example, Dynamic Ads for Real Estate already helps agents automatically target consumers who have visited their websites and browsed their listings. But a strong rental platform allows Facebook to add another powerful targeting tool to the mix, letting them advertise to folks searching for rentals with demographic characteristics that also make them likely buyers.

The more precise targeting options available to agents, the stronger a case Facebook can make to brokers that they should syndicate listings directly to Facebook. This is when things get interesting: if enough agents use Facebook real estate ads in a given market, we can even imagine progressive MLS boards—who have been eager for more leverage against the portals—syndicating listings directly to Facebook.

This presents the billion dollar question: will Facebook attempt to compete directly with real estate portals? We don’t believe Facebook wants to launch map-based real estate search, or turn the Marketplace into a fee-generating product for rental and sale listings. In the short run, Facebook is laser focused on improving its advertising product for real estate professionals and capturing a higher proportion of ad spend from portals.

Things could get worse for portals in the long run. We discuss this in greater detail below, but as Facebook accumulates more inventory and learns how to precisely mate those listings to consumer needs, it may be able to leapfrog map-based search entirely by using natural language queries from the homebuyer and precise algorithms to match users with the perfect home for them.

This won’t happen for years, but inventory would make it possible—and as we’ll discuss below, cultivating and protecting proprietary inventory is one way that portals can fight back.

The Impact on Portals: Competition for Premium Spend

The primary impact of Facebook’s move, in the short- to medium-term, will be increased competition for premium ad dollars from real estate agents. In the U.S., 70 percent of Zillow’s revenue comes from real estate agents, and the trend extends to each major international market.

Facebook’s entry into real estate advertising represents clear and direct competition for this premium spend. Real estate agents will have another top-tier platform to spend money on to generate additional branding for themselves, generate leads, or promote the homes they are selling. Premium spend usually has no upper limit; agents can spend as much as they want to promote themselves or their listings.

Zillow Reacts: Premier Agent Direct

Facebook launched its Dynamic Ads for Real Estate product last August. Two months later, Zillow announced a partnership with Facebook and “Premier Agent Direct,” an advertising product that pushes ads directly to Facebook.

Zillow’s reaction is straight-forward: the move gives it a seat at the table. With Facebook’s potential competition in the space, Zillow has decided the best way to stay relevant is to embrace the new Facebook advertising product and offer it to its existing customers.

  Zillow’s Premier Agent Direct product

Zillow’s Premier Agent Direct product


At the time, Zillow said it “wasn’t just buying ads and reselling them.” In reality, that’s exactly what it’s doing, but with the benefit of using Zillow’s user data to improve relevance and targeting. Zillow has assumed the role of a middle man. Agents can go directly to Facebook to spend their ad dollars, or they can continue spending with Zillow and get exposure on Facebook. It’s a win-win where Zillow stays relevant, Facebook generates ad revenue, and agents maximise their exposure across multiple channels.

Each option has its own benefits. Buying ads directly from Facebook gives agents more control and highlights their brand, compared to a co-branded experience through Zillow.

For Agents: Buying from Facebook vs. Buying from Zillow

Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 2.40.59 PM.png

The Two Key Strategic Pivot Points

Facebook’s entry into real estate will illuminate two key strategic pivot points, around which the Facebook vs. real estate portal competition will focus.

The first strategic pivot revolves around the user experience, pitting search vs. match. The current consumer experience on real estate portals is focused around searching and browsing. Visitors scan a map, enter search criteria, or browse through featured listings. It’s the equivalent of flipping through a glossy magazine or scanning the pages of a newspaper classified section.

The very nature of the Facebook product lends itself to matching experience. Real estate listings will be targeted to consumers based on what Facebook knows about them (in the same way it already targets advertising). This targeting is among the most sophisticated in the business given the amount of information Facebook knows about its users. The majority of Facebook users won’t be searching for real estate; they will see real estate presented to them.

The second key strategic pivot is all-of-market vs. some-of-market. Real estate portals maintain their reputation as the best place to find a home because they have all of the inventory available in the market. When a consumer is searching for a new home, they want to look where all of the properties for sale are available.

Facebook’s marketplace strategy, on the other hand, is not predicated on having all of the available real estate listings. At least for the foreseeable future, the listings available will be those uploaded by its advertising clients. So while the consumer experience on Facebook will target and match listings  directly to visitors, it won’t represent the entire market of possible houses for sale.

This leaves a competitive opening for real estate portals. As long as the portals have a greater inventory than Facebook (which we believe will be true in the medium-term), their benefit to consumers is clear. Do you want access to all of the market or only some of the market?

Strategic Options For Real Estate Portals

Facebook represents a clear and present danger for real estate portals around the world. It’s here, it’s growing, and it’s coming to eat your lunch.

Competitive Advantages: Facebook vs. Real Estate Portals

Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 11.27.25 AM.png

We believe a response strategy should center around the following:

  • Focus on providing value to agents. Deliver utility throughout the value chain and offer a more complete solution. Agents who get red-carpet treatment, free call center service, and unique online products will be less likely to defect. Ultimately the game is about delivering ROI, so push hard to deliver more value to your customers.
  • Act local and leverage your sales team. Real estate is national. Real estate portals have the local knowledge, relationships, and brand that are necessary to thrive in the market. By building your local indispensability to the market you compete in an area where Facebook cannot.
  • Sell Facebook’s ad product. Adopting Zillow’s strategy is controversial. Consider that Facebook already has an ad product for real estate agents, it already demonstrates good ROI, and agents are already spending money on the platform. In five years, will that still be the case, or will Facebook simply go away? We’re betting that it’s here to stay, and it will only get bigger, with or without the cooperation of real estate portals. So get on board while you can and leverage your local muscle to sell Facebook’s offering to your customers.
  • Explore "match." If and when the buyer experience moves toward a matching experience, have a product that matches buyers with homes. Don’t be left flat-footed if consumer preferences change.
  • Don’t compete on social. If you’re considering how to compete with Facebook through social products, you’re naively barking up the wrong tree. The absolute last thing you should do is compete with Facebook where it is strongest.

Concluding Thoughts

Facebook’s deeper move into real estate—both in rentals and for sale listings—represents an opportunity for agents and brokerages and a strategic threat to a range of existing businesses. For real estate portals in particular, the first battleground is agent premium spend. Facebook is giving agents a new, powerful choice for where to spend money on leads.

This situation poses a dilemma for real estate portals. Do they cooperate with Facebook as “frenemies,” as Zillow has done, or do they work to stifle Facebook’s momentum at all costs?

It is our belief that Facebook is here to stay in real estate, and will continue providing a positive ROI to agents looking for leads. In the near term, real estate portals need to take action to cement their position as the best place to advertise properties for sale and for agents to generate leads. The good news, for portals, is that they have a fighting chance.

This article was written by Mike DelPrete and Sib Mahapatra. Mike DelPrete is a strategic adviser and global expert in real estate tech. Connect with him on LinkedIn. Sib Mahapatra is an entrepreneur and real estate tech enthusiast based in New York City. You can reach him on LinkedIn.

The Opendoor Machine: 4 numbers you need to know


Opendoor, the real estate startup that purchases homes directly from sellers, leads the pack of a new breed of real estate tech companies. It continues to innovate and improve the experience of buying a selling a home, and as the analysis below shows, is making significant improvements to its business model as it continues to grow.

150 percent

I believe Opendoor’s ultimate metric of success is how many homes it sells. More than just buying homes (which anyone can do with enough money), the successful completion of Opendoor’s business model requires it to re-list and sell the homes it buys.

So it should come as no surprise that the first key number -- 150 percent -- is the growth in homes Opendoor has sold in 2017 compared to the same period last year. This is in its two biggest markets, Phoenix and Dallas.


The year-on-year growth is driven by Dallas, which came online in September of 2016. Entry into new markets will drive Opendoor’s overall growth. Over the same time period, Phoenix experienced a 55 percent increase in home sales.


The more recent growth in home sales has been driven by the Phoenix market, where Opendoor is selling a median average of 130 homes per month over the past three months, compared to 90 homes per month for the preceding three months.

After a big bump in Q1 of 2017, home sales in Phoenix are tracking in-line with last year.


However, there is a notable uptick in the number of homes purchased by Opendoor in recent months. Given that, we can expect a corresponding uptick in sales for the rest of the year and into early 2018.



This is the median average number of “prep days” between when Opendoor buys a home and subsequently lists it for sale. This is based on 50 recent transactions in Phoenix and Atlanta (where Opendoor recently launched).

Opendoor Prep Days


Impressively, this number is down from a median average of 20 days when I last did an analysis in December of 2016. That’s a 35 percent improvement! To quote that earlier analysis, “...given that Opendoor generally borrows 90 percent of the purchase price and is servicing that debt, time is money!”

That earlier analysis also predicted that a “battle-tested and efficient flip process” was one of three sources of competitive advantage for Opendoor. This improvement reflects strides made in Opendoor’s operational efficiency. It is clearly standardizing its operations and learning from past success and failures on big and small levels, to truly become a home flipping machine.

And it’s not just in Phoenix, Opendoor’s first market. It’s newest market, Atlanta, is on track just as impressively. Looking at 20 transactions shows a median average of 11 prep days. That’s a great start.

Most importantly, this shows that Opendoor’s growing operational efficiency is a transferable competitive advantage between markets. This is a critical ingredient for national expansion.


This is the median average number of prep days for Opendoor’s top competitor in the Phoenix market, OfferPad. This is based on a selection of transactions in July, August, and September.

It clearly shows that OfferPad is holding homes longer than its competitor -- over three times as long!

OfferPad Prep Days


In a world where time is money, this represents a significant business model and financial disadvantage for OfferPad. The longer it holds homes, the higher its holding costs.

It’s not clear what’s driving this number. Could OfferPad be spending more time and money fixing up houses before flipping them?

Regardless of the answer, the comparison of prep times between Opendoor and OfferPad illustrates stark differences in their respective business models. Opendoor aims to flip houses as quickly as possible with a super efficient process. OfferPad either has a different model, or is still working on optimizing its operations.

7.4 percent

All businesses need to make money, and Opendoor is no exception. Outside of charging homeowners a fee for its services, the second way Opendoor makes money is the difference between what it buys and sells a home for. This difference is the gross margin, and in Q3 of 2017, Opendoor’s gross margin in Phoenix was 7.4 percent.


Gross margin is a top line number (hence “gross” and not “net”), meaning it does not include the numerous costs associated with holding, repairing, and reselling a house.

What’s notable about this number is that it’s up considerably over the past year. My previous analysis in December 2016 showed a gross margin of 5.5 percent, and a comparison to Q3 2016 shows a gross margin of 5.6 percent.

This data is based on all publicly recorded transactions, so it’s not just a selection or a sample.

So Opendoor has managed to increase its gross profit on each home it sells by about 30 percent. We can speculate that this is in line with its recent strategy of lowering the fees it charges to homeowners. If it can make a bit more on each home and charge homeowners a bit less, it all evens out in the end.

Final thoughts

Working through this analysis highlighted a few key takeaways.

First off, Atlanta is off to a good start. The average number of prep days is strong and the gross margin is in-line with the more mature Phoenix market. It’s still early days, but this shows that Opendoor is able to transfer its honed operational efficiency to new markets, which is a requirement if it’s going national.

Secondly, Opendoor won’t achieve its goal of being in 10 markets by the end of 2017. Expansion is slower than originally thought. With over 100 employees in Phoenix alone, perhaps the Opendoor model is more time consuming and resource intensive than originally thought?

Lastly, and I believe most importantly, Opendoor continues to grow. The customer proposition is resonating with consumers in increasing numbers. The business model is being refined. And Opendoor is learning as it expands into new markets.

This new model of buying and selling homes is not going away. The entire industry can learn from the likes of Opendoor and the growing number of competitors that are popping up. Consumers are being increasingly drawn to new models that improve the customer experience of buying and selling a home.

A note on data: this analysis is based on MLS records, listings from Opendoor’s web site, the Maricopa City Assessor’s public property records, public records sourced from Redfin, and The Cromford Report, a specialist web-site monitoring the Greater Phoenix housing market. If you’re researching Opendoor and on the hunt for data, check out the iBuyer Analysis Pack.

Built Not to Last

I want to build a business that won’t last.

In the world around us, many things come to a natural conclusion and end. Then why do we expect businesses—and all of their component parts—to last forever?

Imagine a business founded with an end date. After two years, the stakeholders come together, ask what the company would look like if they founded it today, and then form that company. The new business retains the good elements, sheds the bad, and moves forward with a fully-committed team.

By introducing an end to its constructs and practices, a business forces itself to evolve to the best possible design. It meets customer needs with a proactive, forward-looking operating structure, and not one rooted in the past. 

The problem of inertia

Research shows that most companies allocate the same resources to the same business units year after year. A review of over 1,600 U.S. companies between 1990 and 2005 found that inertia was the norm, with one-third of the businesses allocating capital almost exactly the same as in previous years.[1]

Studies have shown that anchoring—a form of cognitive bias where previous information influences decision making—contributes significantly to organizational inertia.[2] But the problem extends beyond budgets and resource allocation. Business leaders are also anchored to last year’s business practices, org charts, marketing messages, role definitions, technology initiatives and sales practices. That anchoring leads to incremental thinking year after year.

In their 2008 book Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein discuss the idea that choice architecture, or the design of environments in order to influence decisions, leads to both good and bad outcomes. Defaults are the building blocks of this architecture.[3] A default option is the option the chooser will obtain if he or she does nothing.

The push to evolve often goes against the grain of corporate culture, where the default path is maintaining the status quo. Change is uncertain, uncomfortable, and many times unprofitable. As Larry E. Greiner states in “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” management problems and principles are rooted in time. Attitudes become more rigid, more outdated, and more difficult to change. While business leaders must be prepared to dismantle inefficient structures, evolution does not occur effortlessly.

More often than not, a businesses default path—the one taken if no decision to the contrary is made—is to continue without change. But what if the default path forced an ending?

The evolutionary concept

Evolution is the process of heritable change over time, whereby advantageous traits are preserved and bad ones rejected.[4] This process occurs over multiple generations—which is key. In nature, this means organisms need to have an end. When applied to the business world, it means business practices and constructs also need to have an end to evolve.

This intense feedback cycle creates an efficient system of improvement over time, which produces the best possible design for the current environmental conditions.

When a new product is launched, business unit created, or team started, it is designed with a start in mind, but rarely an end. By default, it’s assumed that it will carry on forever (or until specific but unspecified action is taken to modify or end it). 

Evolution is a powerful concept that results in improvement over time. Bringing this concept to work in practice requires two key principles:

  • Define an end date up front. Whether it’s a business, business unit, product, marketing plan, sales plan, or a staff position, create an end date at inception and only bring people along who are comfortable with the journey. Something can’t evolve when it continues on indefinitely.
  • Change the default. On the specified date, the default action becomes an ending. It’s not a review, discussion, or theoretical exercise. It ends, and if it’s decided to continue on, a new structure is born. A rebirth occurs with a forced ending, and with this we keep the good, ditch the bad, and end up with the best design possible.

4 ways businesses can put evolution into practice

1. Reinvent the business

The fundamental, key concept in this process is asking the following question: “If we were to start a company that does [whatever the company does] today, how would we do it?” Then start that company. (In the unlikely event that the answer is “exactly how we’re doing it now,” you’re not trying hard enough!)

By definition, the new business will be the one that is best designed and best positioned to succeed in the market at that time. Old practices that don’t work need to be killed, quickly and completely.

SpaceX started as an answer to the question, “If we were to launch a space flight program today, how would we do it?” In a classic illustration of the Innovator’s Dilemma, it led to significantly improved designs, processes, goals, and systems that the incumbents weren’t capable of undertaking—at a significantly lower cost.

2. Hire employees for fixed periods of time

Sports teams hire athletes for a fixed period of time. They do this because an athlete’s skills and the team’s needs vary over time. What works today might not work in three or five years. Are the needs of a business so different? 

It’s unrealistic to think that a business’s needs are going to remain constant for several years. It’s equally unrealistic to think that an employee’s skills, abilities, and desires will also remain constant.

As much as possible within the local labor laws, a business should only hire employees for fixed periods of time. At the end of that term, the business should reevaluate the position and the candidate to ensure the best possible fit.

A manager should ask the following key questions:

  • Is the job that needs to be done exactly the same as it was 12 or 24 months ago?
  • Is this position still needed?
  • Is the person the right fit for what we need today? 

3. Rotate senior managers

The CEO—and the entire leadership team in general—sets the tone and pace of the organization. Their leadership will impact the company more than anything else. That’s why they should be replaced on a regular basis (think of it as term limits rather than being fired).

In practice, this means signing all senior managers and executives to fixed-term contracts. At the end of that term—just like a fixed-term employee—the business should reevaluate exactly what’s needed in the position and then conduct interviews to make sure it ends up with the best possible candidate for the job.

A less extreme version of this, especially if a business has great talent it doesn’t want to lose, is to rotate senior managers between different business units. Large companies like GE use this system to force evolutionary thinking while keeping great talent inside a business. The concept also works with employee rotation as a form of retention and renewal. (For more on senior manager rotation, see “Rotate the Core” on the Harvard Business Review web site.)

Huawei, the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world, has a rotating CEO system. Three deputy chairmen act as the rotating CEO for a tenure of six months each, while sitting on a board of seven with four standing committee members. The system, inspired by U.S. presidential elections, is a great example of evolutionary thinking principles in practice.[5]

4. Implement zero-based budgeting

Zero-based budgeting is a process that allocates funding based on opportunity and necessity rather than history. As opposed to traditional budgeting, no item is automatically included in the next year’s budget by default. It’s a powerful concept that, when properly implemented, can liberate a business from inertia and entrenched thinking.[6]

It is the mindset shift, and not necessarily the methodology, that makes zero-based budgeting an effective tool. It resets the discussion in favor of actively thinking about ways to make things better (forward-looking) rather than asking why it is the way it is (backward-looking).[7] Compared to other cost-cutting measures, the focus is squarely on what activities and resources are needed in the current environment.

Zero-based budgeting is a process that can work in any sized company, at any stage of growth. While it may be challenging to implement, when done correctly it successfully reduces organizational inertia and incremental thinking through a more accurate expenditure of resources. (For more on implementing zero-based budgeting in your organization, see “Five myths (and realities) about zero-based budgeting” on the McKinsey & Company web site.)

Concluding thoughts

New Zealand’s national museum, Te Papa, is ranked as one of the world’s best. It is currently undertaking a renewal program of all of its major exhibitions. It’s not simply an update with incremental change, but a total reimagination where leadership effectively asks, “If we were to have an exhibit about [whatever the current exhibit is] today, how would we do it?” By specifically ending the current exhibits, museum staff are forcing an evolution that is not anchored to the status quo.

The way businesses think about strategic planning leads to incremental thinking and incremental results. Instead of being a passive observer to change and evolving by incrementing, businesses should adopt a more proactive posture and force endings. There are many changes that any sized business can make to effectively force evolution and stay relevant in a changing, fast-paced world. It all starts with defining an end.



[1] See Stephen Hall, Dan Lovallo, and Reinier Musters, ”How to put your money where your strategy is,” March 2012.

[2] See Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony, “Re-Anchor Your Next Budget Meeting,” March 2012.

[3] See Daniel G. Goldstein, Eric J. Johnson, Andreas Herrmann, and Mark Heitmann, ”Nudge Your Customers Toward Better Choices,” December 2008.

[4] See Ker Than, “What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?,” May 2015.

[5] See David De Cremer and Tian Tao, “Leadership Innovation: Huawei’s rotating CEO system,” November 2015.

[6] See Zero-Based Budgeting: Zero or Hero?, Deloitte 2015.

[7] See Matt Fitzpatrick and Kyle Hawke, “The return of zero-base budgeting,” August 2015.