Comments on: Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/ Helping Real Estate Photographers Be Successful Fri, 25 May 2012 01:11:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Welcome to Photography For Real Estate | ibrbroker.com http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-49602 Welcome to Photography For Real Estate | ibrbroker.com Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:14:15 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-49602 [...] Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell [...] [...] Photo-less Listings Sell for Less And take Over Twice As Long To Sell [...]

]]> By: larry http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-1559 larry Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:11:04 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-1559 @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. @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.

]]> By: Eric Rudd http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-1556 Eric Rudd Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:12:44 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-1556 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 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

]]> By: Frank http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-1545 Frank Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:39:04 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-1545 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 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

]]> By: larry http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-1539 larry Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:19:14 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-1539 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. 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.

]]> By: Athol Kay http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/comment-page-1/#comment-1537 Athol Kay Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:53:59 +0000 http://photographyforrealestate.net/2007/12/13/photo-less-listings-sell-for-less-and-take-over-twice-as-long-to-sell/#comment-1537 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. 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.

]]>