Menu

Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell

December 13th, 2007

Frank Llosa over at blog.FranklyRealty.com came up the data I’ve been looking for. Frank studied 268 sold listings in the Fairfax, VA area in the $400K to $500k price range since May 2007. He found that homes with no photos sold for 3.8% less, homes with one photo had an average market time average of 70 days and listings with 20 photos had and average market time of 32 days. Go see all the details at Franks’s blog.

Share this

6 Responses to “Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell”

  • Agree, that was a good post.

    Importantly though, Frank only looked at the quanity of the photos. Just simply having “more” photos = better than having “less” photos.

    It’s a valuable post, but for professional photographers, we claim quality is the key to better results. It’s going to be a terrible chore to find a way to consistently judge photo quality, and then run it through a search matrix to come up with hard facts that prove money spent on professional photos equals more money at the closing table.

    Though of course, I think few people disagree that great photos have a seriously positive effect on sales.

  • Yes, judging quality is more difficult. But this is the only data I’ve ever seen that correlated photos to sale price or market time. I’ve always intuitively felt that this relationship existed but never tried to prove it.

  • Thanks for the link. You called me blog.RanklyRealty, vs Frankly, can you tweak that?

    Also guys, I tried to do an analysis based on STAGED photos. But I was only able to find 1 or 2 per hundred! (one was one of my agents’ listings) I was like, “wow, great photos” and it was ours! We require the maximum # of photos, and they are shot with a UltraWide (not as good as the pros).

    I wouldn’t mind going back in and trying to select “premium” or “wide angle” photos, but the problem is data. There isn’t enough data. I’d have to go through 5,000 homes manually to find a sample size.

    Key an eye on my new site that will allow BUYER AGENTS to add photos to photoless listings.
    Frank

  • Just a thought…perhaps the lack of photos was indicative of the condition or quality of the house. “Must not be in very good shape” is the first thing that comes to my mind as a buyer when I don’t see pictures.

    I’m no correlation expert, :o) … but the house itself may be the reason for the difference in sales numbers in this case.

    Eric

  • @Eric,
    I’m sure one could pose arguements with the method and conclusions from this data. On the other hand I have numerous instances of anecdotal data that suggests the same conclusions about market time Frank comes to.

    Frequently we have taken over listings that have been on the market for months with little or no photography and when we add extensive photography on the major RE websites the home sells within a few weeks. The old real estate saying, “If you can’t see it, you can’t sell it” is highly appropriate in the Internet environment.

    I see similar effects with home staging as Frank points out. The conclusion about the lower prices for homes with few or no photos is a natural result of the increased market time. In general the longer a home is on the market the less buyers are willing to offer.

  • […] Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell […]

Trackback URI Comments RSS

Leave a Reply