Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the added building was as close to truth as was possible. It was an accurate rendering of the approved building for the site. It was a far worse view than the one present...which was a very nice panoramic view of the mountains. But it was a better view than the one that popped into the minds of buyers when contemplating what would go there. So is it correct to use the best information to show how something may look?
There are numerous examples in Las Vegas where the truth was clearly a lie. The people in one hill side community who paid large premiums for the mountain views that they believed were permanent...and which turned out to be other tracts built on the hill above them. Or another group who bought the northern edge of a community just before a boulevard and a high tension electric line went in.
Take a repo who has had the water off killing all the vegetation. Must I show the dead palm trees and bushes...or can I use a prior picture with them thriving? Or can I paintshop them back to a restored condition?
Again one clearly can paint the pig. We do it all the time in the text. We talk about how places could be with a "few cosmetic repairs".
But doing the same thing by an image is wrong?
The bright line between marketing windage and falsehood is not different for pictures than for words. Using a description or a picture of a different home is over the line. But putting forth the homes potential? Showing the home in the best light? I don't think so.
So using the above logic I could list a car for sale, use a picture of a new one (since this is what it could be or was when it was taken care of) but when they come see it is is dented and rusted out with fading paint? Is this what is considered the right thing to do?
If the house is a repo or the people have not taken care of the outside I'd think the buyers should see that since it will affect the mindset when it comes to a possible offer not to mention let's them know from the gate what they're in for and if they're up to it instead of showing them a painted pig and when they go see it they find just an old sow.
Not only is it a type of bait and switch IMO it could be a waste of everyones time if the buyer's not interested in fixing it.
I could be wrong (and if you ask my wife I generally am) but I think it's an agents job to present what is honestly and then discuss what could be instead of presenting what could be as fact and then upon seeing it finding out reality.
So using the above logic I could list a car for sale, use a picture of a new one (since this is what it could be or was when it was taken care of) but when they come see it is is dented and rusted out with fading paint? Is this what is considered the right thing to do?
If the house is a repo or the people have not taken care of the outside I'd think the buyers should see that since it will affect the mindset when it comes to a possible offer not to mention let's them know from the gate what they're in for and if they're up to it instead of showing them a painted pig and when they go see it they find just an old sow.
Not only is it a type of bait and switch IMO it could be a waste of everyones time if the buyer's not interested in fixing it.
I could be wrong (and if you ask my wife I generally am) but I think it's an agents job to present what is honestly and then discuss what could be instead of presenting what could be as fact and then upon seeing it finding out reality.
Never heard a car described as "immaculate" or "like new"? Go to see it and it is not?
i am inclined to agree it can lead to a waste of time if carried to an extreme. But I disagree that there is something wrong with fixing the shrubs. The buyer gets to see the real thing...and the pictures help understood how it mighty look if restored to a normal standard.
Real Estate Agents are marketing the property. That contains no requirement for a "balanced" presentation. They work one side not both. Can't resort to falsehood...but can paint the pig.
Thanks for contributing your thoughts, JimJ, but could you please provide your thoughts about brochures and depictions provided by builders?
Should they be forbidden from providing photos of a model that has been furnished by a designer? The builder is clearly aware that the home they are offering to the public is completely vacant.
Are they unethical when the depiction they provide shows a home with no other home nearby, even if the property they are offering to the public will have three other houses within twelve feet?
Is it a lie or a misrepresentation if the home on the cover of their brochure is fully landscaped, even if the homes they are selling are always delivered on a parcel of dirt?
In your opinion, do most consumers find exaggerated depictions from builders less offensive than a significantly retouched photo of a resale home being offered? And, if so, can you please explain why the builder's exaggerations are more acceptable than similar exaggerations made by the seller of an existing home?
Please understand that, when I am not wearing my realtor hat, I am a consumer just like everyone else and my initial reaction is the same as yours.
But as I begin thinking through this, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to justify in my own mind why I consider the blatant exaggerations made by one class of sellers to be "acceptable marketing practices" but the same exaggerations made by another class of sellers are "blatant misrepresentations."
If the product is the same (a house) and the purpose of the depiction is the same (to generate traffic) and the exaggeration in the imagery is the same (let's say landscaping that doesn't exist, but feel free to insert your own here), can anyone really provide an intellectually supportable explanation for why a billion-dollar corporation is permitted more latitude than Mrs. Johnson down the block?
Is it really a matter of ethics or is it that we’ve just come to expect it?
Thanks for contributing your thoughts, JimJ, but could you please provide your thoughts about brochures and depictions provided by builders?
<snip>
Is it a lie or a misrepresentation if the home on the cover of their brochure is fully landscaped, even if the homes they are selling are always delivered on a parcel of dirt?
In your opinion, do most consumers find exaggerated depictions from builders less offensive than a significantly retouched photo of a resale home being offered? And, if so, can you please explain why the builder's exaggerations are more acceptable than similar exaggerations made by the seller of an existing home?
If the product is the same (a house) and the purpose of the depiction is the same (to generate traffic) and the exaggeration in the imagery is the same (let's say landscaping that doesn't exist, but feel free to insert your own here), can anyone really provide an intellectually supportable explanation for why a billion-dollar corporation is permitted more latitude than Mrs. Johnson down the block?
Is it really a matter of ethics or is it that we’ve just come to expect it?
GreatDay? SheSellsNJ? Bill? WallidM?
In most of the examples I can find, new home builders brochures, websites, pamphlets and other advertising usually attach footnotes to their photos & renderings with some sort of disclaimer, to let consumers know that this is what's intended or expected, but perhaps might not become the actuality. Disclaimers such as "Artists Rendering", "Photo of same model home built at another address", and "Landscape rendering as planned, actual landscaping subject to change." And consumers do expect & understand that, because the property isn't actually built yet, and circumstances may change. On a resale, the property is there. The power line isn't going to be taken down next week. It will be there for the forseeable future. The water tower 12 feet of the side line of the property isn't going to be taken away before the house get's sold, so removing it from the photo to show the 4 acres of expansive meadow is not painting a true picture of what is available to the buyer. Buyers see the photo and say,"Oh, this is perfect, it's got lots of open space tehre and nothing too close to the house. I'll go see it." When they get there, they are very confused about how a water tower appears to be standing in what was, when the picture of this place was taken, an empty field. You either take the photo & let the tower be seen, or you change angles or crop the photo, which eliminates both the tower & the empty field in which it sits. The buyer may ask, before going out to see it, "Hmmm, what's over there on the side of the house, that the listing agent didn't want me to see?" They may come to find out, or they may not. But they haven't been lied to.
In my opinion, the test should be whether the image presented is one that the buyer can reasonably expect to be available when she buys this house. Either because it's that way now or because it's expected that it will be that way. Not that it's theoretically possible to make it that way if you can pay some unknown amount of money for someone to come out & do the work after you manage to obtain the approval of three neighbors and the EPA, permits from two different county governmental departments and one town enforcement official.
In my opinion, the test should be whether the image presented is one that the buyer can reasonably expect to be available when she buys this house. Either because it's that way now or because it's expected that it will be that way. Not that it's theoretically possible to make it that way if you can pay some unknown amount of money for someone to come out & do the work after you manage to obtain the approval of three neighbors and the EPA, permits from two different county governmental departments and one town enforcement official.
Humm..I just pulled a half dozen new builder brochures from my file. Only one has significant disclaimers on their pictures.
But your view is that it is OK as long as we add a disclosure?
But the house is empty or has the wrong furniture when we show it to the buyer. That is certainly not the way it will look when he/she moves in. Do you hold that a virtual tour of an exceptionally well decorated house is misleading? That the actual house should have a disclaimer that says it may not look this nice when your own furniture and accessories are in it?
Your last is overblown. I know of nowhere that planting new bushes requires permits or even HOA permission.
Humm..I just pulled a half dozen new builder brochures from my file. Only one has significant disclaimers on their pictures.
But your view is that it is OK as long as we add a disclosure?
But the house is empty or has the wrong furniture when we show it to the buyer. That is certainly not the way it will look when he/she moves in. Do you hold that a virtual tour of an exceptionally well decorated house is misleading? That the actual house should have a disclaimer that says it may not look this nice when your own furniture and accessories are in it?
Your last is overblown. I know of nowhere that planting new bushes requires permits or even HOA permission.
Capt, my last comment alluded to the proccess one might have to endure in order to remove my hypothetical water tower in order to acheive the view presented in the photo from which it was removed. But for the record, many HOA here in NJ require the you gain approval before planting bushes, which of course must be chosen from an approved list.
As to the furniture, no one expects furniture to be part of the house. Yes, that sofa and entertainment center might take up a huge part of the room, but it's not staying, and no buyer expects it to stay. So taking a photo of the room with the furniture in it is not a lie of any sort.
Is your point that listing agents should be able to put into, or take out of, the photos of thier listed properties anything they like, in order to attract more potential buyers? Does this, in actuality, benefit anyone? I mean, if your buyer looked at a photo of a house, liked what they saw, and therefore went with you to actually see the property, which was different from the photo to the extent that there were power lines crossing the rear yard at a height of 20 feet, when the photos showed a lovely unobstructed view of the mountain range in the distance, would those clients be happy? Would they be inclined at that moment toward good thought & feelings about this property as they toured the house, or would they more likely be muttering the entire time about the damned power lines and the nerve of the seller or their agent to misrepresent the property that way?
Capt, my last comment alluded to the proccess one might have to endure in order to remove my hypothetical water tower in order to acheive the view presented in the photo from which it was removed. But for the record, many HOA here in NJ require the you gain approval before planting bushes, which of course must be chosen from an approved list.
As to the furniture, no one expects furniture to be part of the house. Yes, that sofa and entertainment center might take up a huge part of the room, but it's not staying, and no buyer expects it to stay. So taking a photo of the room with the furniture in it is not a lie of any sort.
Is your point that listing agents should be able to put into, or take out of, the photos of thier listed properties anything they like, in order to attract more potential buyers? Does this, in actuality, benefit anyone? I mean, if your buyer looked at a photo of a house, liked what they saw, and therefore went with you to actually see the property, which was different from the photo to the extent that there were power lines crossing the rear yard at a height of 20 feet, when the photos showed a lovely unobstructed view of the mountain range in the distance, would those clients be happy? Would they be inclined at that moment toward good thought & feelings about this property as they toured the house, or would they more likely be muttering the entire time about the damned power lines and the nerve of the seller or their agent to misrepresent the property that way?
Nahh Bill. Practically I would likely do the same thing you or any other Realtor would likely do...I would not use a picture of the backyard.
My hope is that the other advantages of the house would overcome the problem created by the power line.
But I certainly would not feature the power line in either pictures or words...
Property Remarks "Property features an ugly and intrusive power tower at the rear corner with the lines running across the backyard at a height that places it in the middle of the mountain views".
Property Remarks "Property features an ugly and intrusive power tower at the rear corner with the lines running across the backyard at a height that places it in the middle of the mountain views".
Yeah...sure you would...
Yes, I'm laughing.
Of course I wouldn't. I'd skip any photo or description that showed the power lines. But there are some people, I know because I've seen them, who would digitally remove the power lines so they could showcase the view. In my opinion, that's more then exaggeration or puffery, and is downright lying. It's unethical, and ought to be illegal.
Come on...you guys are marketers, right? Why not come up with a new term and way to market these properties with eyesores?!
Realtor: Ohhhh! This next property we are going to see features a great Eye-D!! Potential Buyer: ID? Realtor: Yes, an Eye-D. An Eye-D is great opportunity for value shoppers!! It stands for eye-*mumble* Discount. We have investors and smart buyers calling our office just looking for Eye-D properties! They know it's an excellent way to get more value for their money in a great neighborhood! Potential Buyer: Eye...what? A Discount? *smiles* Realtor: Yes, Discount!!! Eye-D's can save you thousands! Now you'll have more money for that vacation you always wanted to take! Potential Buyer: Well, Hello, powerlines! Aruba, here I come!! --------------------------------
Realtor: Hi there Potential Seller, you have a great Eye-D property!! Potential Seller: I, what?! Realtor: Oh, it's an Eye-D. The best one I've seen all day!! "Eye-D" is today's buzz word for great value. People in today's market are on the lookout for properties to maximize their quality of life while preserving their buying power. This Eye-D property should sell fast if we accentuate what a great value it is!!! Potential Seller: Great! I hope it sells fast. I can't wait to find a house without a big ugly water tower in the backyard!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
