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.
It just seems foolish to not have pictures of the house if there is any desire to sell. Buyers/tenants have almost the same access to what is available as we do and I've never had anyone say a house with no pictures was intriguing to them. 99/100 times they click delete and move to the next one since there's so much inventory.
Yes the price is left out unintentionally to get people to call. It is a way to get buyer clients. If someone is calling adds in the paper then they may not have a buyers agent working for them yet. If the house in the paper is not a good fit then the agent asks to assist them in finding what they want.
The lack of pictures is for all the reasons everyone before me have already posted.
I think you will find working with an agent you are comfortable with a lot less frustrating than trying to do it yourself.
In this case The Realtor is working against the person who entrusted them to sell their home. Their motivation for this betrayal is new clients. They are leaving out critical information that would help to sell the home. By leaving out the price from an advertisement they cause the majority of potential buyers to bypass this home entirely. And hope to snag the few curious buyers who do call as new clients. These new clients will then mostly be steered on to competing homes.
This practice is far worse than the "Open House" ploy which is universally acknowledged as a fishing expedition for new buyer clients.
With an open house at least the home gets some exposure and there is the remote chance that an open house will produce a buyer.
The No Price scheme actually hurts the seller by reducing the exposure of the home as the majority of buyers will not bother to call on a home with no price.
In this case The Realtor is working against the person who entrusted them to sell their home. Their motivation for this betrayal is new clients. They are leaving out critical information that would help to sell the home. By leaving out the price from an advertisement they cause the majority of potential buyers to bypass this home entirely. And hope to snag the few curious buyers who do call as new clients. These new clients will then mostly be steered on to competing homes.
This practice is far worse than the "Open House" ploy which is universally acknowledged as a fishing expedition for new buyer clients.
With an open house at least the home gets some exposure and there is the remote chance that an open house will produce a buyer.
The No Price scheme actually hurts the seller by reducing the exposure of the home as the majority of buyers will not bother to call on a home with no price.
There is actually a strategy for this. Yes, it does potentially get leads to the agent but it is certainly no betrayal of the sellers trust. The first thing many people see is price, and, if it is not in the range, they don't continue. By getting the call the agent not only gets the lead but also gets to talk about the benefits and features of the property that may get the caller interested even though it is outside the range (although this needs to be slightly). You rarely see price on any signs and they generate calls in the same way. Why is one way a betrayal and the other not? There is no reduction in exposure.
In this case The Realtor is working against the person who entrusted them to sell their home. Their motivation for this betrayal is new clients. They are leaving out critical information that would help to sell the home. By leaving out the price from an advertisement they cause the majority of potential buyers to bypass this home entirely. And hope to snag the few curious buyers who do call as new clients. These new clients will then mostly be steered on to competing homes.
This practice is far worse than the "Open House" ploy which is universally acknowledged as a fishing expedition for new buyer clients.
With an open house at least the home gets some exposure and there is the remote chance that an open house will produce a buyer.
The No Price scheme actually hurts the seller by reducing the exposure of the home as the majority of buyers will not bother to call on a home with no price.
Wow.
My BS meter needle busted clean off the stem when it hit the peg.
Nearly a complete compendium of misunderstanding real estate delivered in a couple of paragraphs.
I hate that I go through the trouble to check out a listing, and see one pic, or none at all, or look in the newspaper at a house, and see no price listed. Is this done intentionally? Does the agent think I will be so enticed that I will call them to get the missing info? I wonder because it has the opposite effect. I get frustrated and move on. I also assume that a lack of pics means the property is too embarrassing to photograph.
I understand your frustration!
Years ago, I remember taking a class in which the person teaching the class recommended we not put prices on the brochures that we place outside the home. This was to "increase" interest. I thought it was BS then and I think it is BS now!
I have had several buyers tell me that "no photos, no price, time to move on to the next home".
In my area, there is so much inventory, that Agents need to do what they can to get a home to sell. If that means photos and information, do it. No point in frustrating a potential buyer.
I have noticed in my MLS, when photos are missing, I look at the days on market. A new listing may take a couple of days for photos but if a listing has been on the market for over a week and there are no photos, no room dimensions, etc., I blame the Agent.
In many instances, I have noticed the listing agent is working for a company that isn't a full service brokerage firm. So, the sellers are paying less and therefore, they are getting less. I often wonder if the sellers understand what they are NOT GETTING.
In many instances, I have noticed the listing agent is working for a company that isn't a full service brokerage firm. So, the sellers are paying less and therefore, they are getting less. I often wonder if the sellers understand what they are NOT GETTING.
Vicki
Yes, we have several discount agents in Houston. The MLS requires a minimum number of pictures - what you will see is the required number of pictures - ALL THE SAME EXTERIOR SHOT - often with the agent's rear view mirror in the shot. They didn't even get out of the car. Another thing they do that is difficult to believe is put combo locks on occupied homes, instead of electronic boxes. But, hey, look at the money saved! EXCEPT, they always turn out to be weak negotiators, so maybe no money was actually saved. Not to mention that the pool of prospective buyers becomes smaller - because a lot of buyers assume there is something wrong with the house, as no good interiors were online.
Had an interesting comment made by a buyer on one of those houses. He said he didn't want to see it, even though it was in his target neighborhood. I explained that the agent was a discount agent, and that was most likely the reason for the lack of interior shots - maybe we should look anyway. His comment was to the effect that, if the seller was too cheap to sell the house right, he was probably too cheap to have kept the house in good shape. Interesting take.
I don't doubt these are true for tigger and many other buyers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigger37708
No BS.
From the perspective of a buyer.
No price equals No call.
No Pictures equals No call.
Period.
The other info in the post that MJ was referring to was actually more along the line of misunderstanding that we operate against -- one does not "steer" clients , nor do real estate 'snag' buyers. The seller is who the listing agent works for, and when a real estate agent has an agreement with a buyer the agent only gets paid when a deal is closed.
The other info in the post that MJ was referring to was actually more along the line of misunderstanding that we operate against -- one does not "steer" clients , nor do real estate 'snag' buyers. The seller is who the listing agent works for, and when a real estate agent has an agreement with a buyer the agent only gets paid when a deal is closed.
Chet,
Thanks for reading for comprehension.
The funny thing is we get criticized if we push our listings too hard and we get criticized if we don't sell the listing to every buyer.
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.
I don't doubt these are true for tigger and many other buyers...
