Pennsylvania real estate photographer Joanna Michl was lamenting that:
"The problem with agents is they just don’t get it. Most are still taking their own “lousy” photos and hoping it gets the job done. Maybe they just don’t care enough to shell out a few bucks to get professional photos and maybe they don’t think it matters. They all seem to recognize that their photography sucks but they continue doing it themselves anyway. As photographers we need to convince agents of the importance of having professional photos accompany their listings."
Yes, I would say Joanna's statement is pretty accurate. Joanna was looking for a convincing argument to help her convince agents in her area that investing in professional professional photography is worth the investment.
As I told Joanna, I think the strongest, most compelling argument real estate photographers can present in their marketing is the 2010 Redfin study. At the time it came out I covered it on PFRE and linked to the WSJ report of the study (which will probably carry more weight when talking to some people). The great thing about this study is it isn't just about the benefit photos, it proves that listing photos shot with DSLRs (which implies they were done by professional photographers or agents that have professional equipment) sold from any were from $935 more for the low end to $16,076 at the high-end ($1,000,000 or more list price).
Redfin apparently did this study to promote the fact that they use professional photography for all their listings but professional real estate photographers can use it in their marketing prove to potential clients that professional real estate photography has a significant, measurable return on investment.