Transparency has moved from a “nice-to-have” to a defining expectation in today’s rental market. According to the 2025 SatisFacts Biennial Online Renter Study, renters are not just comparing prices or amenities—they are actively evaluating how open, honest, and trustworthy a housing provider appears throughout the search and leasing process.
For public and affordable housing providers, this shift presents both challenges and opportunities. While these organizations often operate with mission-driven goals and regulatory requirements, renters increasingly expect clarity and consistency at every touchpoint, from fees and policies to communication and online reputation.
Renters are actively looking for clear, upfront information
One of the strongest signals in the SatisFacts study is the importance renters place on financial transparency. Across all generations, the highest-rated piece of information renters want when shopping for housing is mandatory fees beyond the advertised rent, scoring 4.64 out of 5 in importance. This outpaced even rent specials, floor plans, and photos.
This finding is particularly relevant for affordable and public housing providers, where additional fees, utility billing structures, and eligibility requirements can be complex and challenging to navigate. The study also shows that 83.3% of renters believe property management companies should be more transparent about mandatory fees, reinforcing that renters want clarity before they apply—not after.
In practice, this means renters are less tolerant of surprises. When information is unclear or discovered late in the process, it can erode trust quickly, even when the fees themselves are reasonable or required by policy.
The table below highlights the topics renters feel property management companies should be more transparent about in 2025 compared to 2023.
|
|
2025 |
2023 |
|
Mandatory fees in addition to the rent |
83.3% |
81.2% |
|
How rent prices are determined |
70.7% |
71.3% |
|
Utility billing practices and usage charges |
64.8% |
N/A |
|
The application process (requirements for approval) |
56.6% |
71.5% |
|
Internet service provider agreements and associated fees |
44.1% |
N/A |
|
Involuntary rent reporting to credit bureaus and associated fees |
36.0% |
N/A |
|
The online reviews of the apartment communities they manage |
35.0% |
47.4% |
Transparency is closely tied to online reputation
The study makes it clear that renters do not take information at face value. Instead, they seek validation through reviews and peer feedback. In 2025, 71.9% of renters reported that they actively filter for negative reviews when researching communities, and 45.9% use online ratings and reviews as a key information source during their search.
What is more telling is why renters write negative reviews. The top reason cited was unexpected fees or price increases that were not communicated clearly (56.4%), followed closely by poor customer service. For housing providers, this reinforces a critical point: transparency gaps often become apparent publicly through reviews, where prospects are actively seeking red flags.
For public and affordable housing organizations—where trust, fairness, and accountability are central to the mission—this highlights the importance of clear communication not just internally, but externally, where perceptions are formed.
Renters trust authenticity over polished messaging
Another key finding from the study is that renters are highly confident in their ability to detect inauthentic content. 62.6% say they can recognize a fake review, and 76.9% are confident in identifying canned or automated responses from management.
At the same time, 84.5% of renters read company responses to reviews, and they rate personalized, specific responses far more positively than templated ones. This matters for housing providers who may be managing limited resources, because it shows that how you communicate can be just as important as what you communicate.
The study reinforces that renters heavily rely on online reviews and peer feedback, even when choosing mission-driven or subsidized housing. Many renters actively seek out negative reviews to understand potential risks and monitor how organizations respond.
Affordable and public housing providers can use this insight to:
- Monitor online reviews as an early warning system for recurring issues.
- Treat feedback as operational data, not just public relations concerns.
- Respond to concerns in a timely, human, and transparent way.
Brand perception is shaped by what renters don’t know
The SatisFacts study also uncovered a critical insight about brand perception. While only a small percentage of renters choose a community because of a management company’s brand name, 35.4% said they have actively decided not to rent at a community because of the company’s brand.
This negative brand impact is often tied to perceptions of fairness, communication, and ethics—all areas where transparency plays a central role. For public and affordable housing providers, this underscores the importance of aligning external messaging with internal practices. When renters perceive inconsistency or lack of clarity, trust can erode quickly, regardless of the organization’s mission or intent.
Transparency as a trust-building advantage
Perhaps most importantly, the study shows that renters care deeply about ethical behavior—even if they don’t use industry terminology. While only 31.8% of renters are familiar with the term “ESG,” more than 91% say they would stop doing business with a company they believe treats people or communities poorly. Showing that even if renters don’t know what “ESG” is, renters care about the outcome of proper environmental, social, and governance practices.
For public and affordable housing providers, this presents a clear opportunity. By communicating policies, processes, and decisions in plain language—while proactively explaining fees, utilities, eligibility requirements, and resident rights—housing organizations can reinforce trust and reduce confusion before it becomes dissatisfaction.
The table below highlights the ESG categories renters say have the greatest impact on their apartment community decisions in each region of the United States.
|
|
Environmental (e.g., energy-efficient appliances, recycling programs, green building certifications, water conservation) |
Social (e.g., fair treatment of employees, community engagement, resident programs, diversity and inclusion practices) |
Governance (e.g., ethical business practices, transparent fee disclosures, resident data security) |
|
East North Central |
56.8% |
66.1% |
76.8% |
|
East South Central |
57.6% |
70.0% |
70.5% |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
64.4% |
72.6% |
79.4% |
|
Mountain |
68.6% |
75.6% |
79.0% |
|
New England |
70.3% |
68.6% |
66.9% |
|
Pacific |
71.8% |
73.3% |
78.4% |
|
South Atlantic |
60.5% |
73.3% |
75.9% |
|
West North Central |
70.5% |
74.2% |
78.6% |
|
West South Central |
59.1% |
71.2% |
75.5% |
Moving forward
The SatisFacts Biennial Online Renter Study makes one thing clear: renters are no longer passive recipients of information. They are informed, skeptical, and actively searching for transparency as a signal of trustworthiness.
By using the study as a reference point, housing organizations can:
- Demonstrate commitment to openness and accountability.
- Build trust with residents, applicants, and the broader community.
- Reduce reputational risk in an increasingly digital and review-driven environment.
For public and affordable housing providers, embracing transparency is not just about meeting expectations—it’s about reinforcing credibility, supporting long-term resident satisfaction, and protecting their organization’s reputation in an increasingly digital and review-driven environment.
Read the full SatisFacts Biennial Online Renter Study
Dive deeper into the data and insights shaping renter expectations today.
Stay connected
Sign up for updates from our blog to stay ahead of emerging trends in insurance, risk management, online training, and affordable housing research, and gain access to the latest resources and tools.
This article is for general information only. HAI Group® makes no representation or warranty about the accuracy or applicability of this information for any particular use or circumstance. Your use of this information is at your own discretion and risk. HAI Group® and any author or contributor identified herein assume no responsibility for your use of this information. You should consult with your attorney or subject matter advisor before adopting any risk management strategy or policy.
HAI Group® is a marketing name used to refer to insurers, a producer, and related service providers affiliated through a common mission, management, and governance. Property-casualty insurance and related services are written or provided by Housing Authority Property Insurance, A Mutual Company; Housing Enterprise Insurance Company, Inc.; Housing Specialty Insurance Company, Inc.; Housing Investment Group, Inc.; and Housing Insurance Services (DBA Housing Insurance Agency Services in NY and MI).
