Plans for a team that knows its own city

The cheapest lifetime tier sits below the one above it, and the gap between them is the first thing to read. Neither is a monthly plan with a national database attached, so there is no list of owners to inherit at either level. What you get is a working session where you set the task and the assistant teaches as it goes.

For your team, the price buys sessions rather than records. You sit down with a short brief on one city, name the owners and developers you want to approach, and ask for options while you work. Four modes can be switched mid-session, so a teaching run can turn into a doing run without starting again.

The brief you build carries options and live prices, which means you can see what a change costs before you take it. The source for any figure is the short brief we hold for you, never the page itself. Read both tiers against the same live prices so the comparison stays honest and you are not guessing.

Because sessions are recorded with replay, the price list is easier to judge after a trial than before it. Your team can watch a run back and see where time went. That is a more useful measure for a city-focused team than any description of tiers, and it keeps the decision tied to your own work.

Which tier fits depends on how often you expect to lean on taught runs. A team making a handful of owner approaches a month needs little more than a place to practise the brief and review the replay. A team that wants the same teaching held over many sessions has a reason to look at the tier above.

For one city, the practical test is repetition. If the same steps come back with each developer call, a session that replays and a finished run saved as a lesson does most of the work. You then reuse the lesson across the team instead of rebuilding the approach for every owner on your shortlist.

Switchable modes matter here. A newer colleague can stay in a teaching mode for a local market briefing, then move into the task itself once the brief is clear. Nothing about that depends on a national list, which is the point for a team whose value is knowing its own streets.

The tier you pick should match how your team actually works: how many sessions, how much replay, how many saved lessons you expect to reuse. Read both published tiers with that shape in mind, rather than picking on price alone. Real estate teams that contact the same local owners repeatedly get more from the saved-run habit than from a bigger tier.

A reasonable worry is that any assistant will hand back generic market material. Nothing in the product promises a local owner list, so the local detail has to come from your brief and your own knowledge of the city. Plan to supply that detail yourself and check what comes back against what you already know.

There is also a working risk. The assistant runs inside accounts you sign in to, and it does not enter card or identity details at any point. Your team handles those steps. That keeps sensitive actions with people, but it also means a session cannot quietly complete a payment or a filing on your behalf.

Finally, treat output as a draft. Completion is not guaranteed for any run, so read each brief and each saved lesson before anyone acts on it with an owner or developer. The replay helps here, because you can see exactly what the session produced and where it stopped before your team puts it to use.

None of these risks is unusual for a tool that works from your own accounts. They do, however, decide how you should sequence a trial: start with one small brief, one local contact, and one review of the replay before you widen the work to the whole team.

Put the two lifetime tiers side by side and the comparison narrows to how much you want from the assistant in a working week. One tier asks you to accept the smaller scope and prove the habit first. The other asks you to commit at a level you should only take once the habit already exists.

A fair test for either is a single outreach sequence. Build a brief for one developer in your city, run it, replay it, and save the finished run as a lesson. If that sequence feels natural for your team, the step up has some evidence behind it; if it does not, the lower tier has told you something useful.

For a property team, the larger tier makes sense when several colleagues reuse the same lessons and the replay gets watched by more than one person. It makes less sense when one person carries all the local knowledge and the rest of the team rarely opens a session. Match the tier to that pattern.

Whichever you choose, keep the decision to yourself and your own accounts. Neither tier replaces local research on owners and developers in your city. The assistant teaches and runs tasks inside sessions you hold; the local judgement stays with your team, and that is what keeps the choice grounded.