Similarly companies like Pave also do data collection and sharing to create “benchmarks” around salary and report out salary ranges for comparable companies and locations. I was wondering where the line is drawn between something like this and Realpage? Or even if you do some detailed survey about compensation and distribute it, at what point does this become anticompetitive? All of this does seem to rapidly be becoming the norm with regards to how companies set compensation levels. Curious if anyone with more expertise knows the answer.
Don't forget FunnelLeasing.com which funnels its victims into Finicity.com which is "consent based" financial surveillance where landlords can monitor the cash, credit and asset accounts of their customers using a pretty dashboard and receive alerts in advance of upcoming trouble (such as layoff by Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. that facilitated the consumer mindset to "consent" to such madness). It allows the landlords to eject tenants before they default by proving that the tenants are already insolvent according to industry norms.
I think one of the biggest differences between comp benchmarking providers and RealPage is that two companies given access to the same benchmarks often make very different compensation decisions.
Some companies decide to pay at the 90th percentile of the market and some decide to pay at the 50th.
RealPage was much more proscriptive which is part of what tips the balance over into collusion vs just providing market statistics.
Zillow provides a zestimate for rents, which serves a similar market summary purpose but without the mechanism to enforce compliance and therefore is totally fine.
