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.
Just some feedback. This poll is seriously flawed.
1. The question is asked in a leading and sneaky way. The 'or have privacy when showing a property' is unnecessary and leads the respondent. Most people would generally consider having privacy as a positive thing so only one option has mention of a positive effect while the other does not. I suggest that you simply remove that part of the question and just ask if people think buyers should meet sellers at showing. Simple as that and not leading.
2. You're assuming that the buyers will have privacy as long as the seller is not there? Strange assumption to make considering that the sellers agent and the buyer's own agent might be there. Another reason why reference to privacy is a bad survey design. By the way, 'having privacy when viewing a property' only covers the buying side when I think your question is trying to cover both from a consumer perspective. So rather untidy and could be confusing to the respondent.
3. You're referencing 'principals' in the consumer choices. Not very consumer friendly as that's how the industry talks, not normal people. It also doesn't indicate the role. Maybe you want to consider both buyers and sellers together so a better choice might be "If I'm buying or selling a house, I prefer to meet the seller or buyer at the showing". That makes it more specific rather than expecting consumers to have some preference about what should happen at hypothetical showings. Most consumers don't really care what happens at theoretical showings involving other people so the question should be more specific.
4. Strangely the last option uses 'like it' when the other choices use 'prefer'. 'Like it' is stronger than 'prefer' so it's a higher bar to go over before you can pick that one, leading some people away from that choice. For example, you can prefer one thing over another but it doesn't necessarily mean you 'like it'.
5. There is no option for 'no preference'. Many buyers might just not really care. If they are there, they are there. I would imagine that most agents would have a preference as it's their business but all respondents should be given that choice.
6. It also assumes the traditional, old school agency model and ignores FSBO. Not sure how you can deal with that - perhaps just to generally clarify that the scope of the survey is only for transactions done in the traditional agency model, if that's what you are trying to survey.
Just like in writing real estate contracts, tight language in surveys is essential. Sloppiness makes for a poor and unreliable outcome.
Last edited by just_because; 08-05-2017 at 08:23 AM..
Oh my... if the sellers had been at their home I viewed last weekend, they'd be very unhappy. Their LA knew very little about the house, the HOA access to the waterfront - nothing. All she raved about were the overabundance of closets which ate up too much square footage at the expense of room size.
Guess she should have read the narrative the owners wrote about the house and the waterfront access. One would think after having the listing for 5 months, she could have spent 5 minutes to read the narrative.
Just some feedback. This poll is seriously flawed.
1. The question is asked in a leading and sneaky way. The 'or have privacy when showing a property' is unnecessary and leads the respondent. Most people would generally consider having privacy as a positive thing so only one option has mention of a positive effect while the other does not. I suggest that you simply remove that part of the question and just ask if people think buyers should meet sellers at showing. Simple as that and not leading.
2. You're assuming that the buyers will have privacy as long as the seller is not there? Strange assumption to make considering that the sellers agent and the buyer's own agent might be there. Another reason why reference to privacy is a bad survey design. By the way, 'having privacy when viewing a property' only covers the buying side when I think your question is trying to cover both from a consumer perspective. So rather untidy and could be confusing to the respondent.
3. You're referencing 'principals' in the consumer choices. Not very consumer friendly as that's how the industry talks, not normal people. It also doesn't indicate the role. Maybe you want to consider both buyers and sellers together so a better choice might be "If I'm buying or selling a house, I prefer to meet the seller or buyer at the showing". That makes it more specific rather than expecting consumers to have some preference about what should happen at hypothetical showings. Most consumers don't really care what happens at theoretical showings involving other people so the question should be more specific.
4. Strangely the last option uses 'like it' when the other choices use 'prefer'. 'Like it' is stronger than 'prefer' so it's a higher bar to go over before you can pick that one, leading some people away from that choice. For example, you can prefer one thing over another but it doesn't necessarily mean you 'like it'.
5. There is no option for 'no preference'. Many buyers might just not really care. If they are there, they are there. I would imagine that most agents would have a preference as it's their business but all respondents should be given that choice.
6. It also assumes the traditional, old school agency model and ignores FSBO. Not sure how you can deal with that - perhaps just to generally clarify that the scope of the survey is only for transactions done in the traditional agency model, if that's what you are trying to survey.
Just like in writing real estate contracts, tight language in surveys is essential. Sloppiness makes for a poor and unreliable outcome.
A poster with any intellectual integrity would just post a better poll, rather than flick boogers from the cheap seats and the comfort of anonymity.
There's nothing wrong with the poll; it asks one simple question.
For me - no. Another black mark against the FSBO for me, although the lady we bought this FSBO from told me everything that was wrong with the house
For me, even if they aren't doing anything wrong. The house we owned in NY, when we went to see it the owners were there and I felt like I had to rush. WE made an offer but they already had an accepted offer. Dael fell through and we got a call a few weeks later about making another go at it; said we wanted to see it again ALONE. I don't want them lurking around and I don't want to be distracted by their chit-chat. You have to be free to talk about the house, the good and the bad, without the owners listening and getting excited (they like it! we aren't coming off list price!) or feeling insulted (they're changing out the paint colors? Over my dead body!).
and I couldn't find anything more pleasant. WHen you go to buy an investment you ultimately should KNOW the entity that is selling it. This isn't pin the tale on the donkey by blind folding both sides.
My husband and I were home when we sold our house. We remained quiet and answered honestly to the simple questions. We met each and every prospect. They were free to share their opinions and feedback. we didn't mind. THe sellers were actually glad to get to know of our efforts at the restorations and the warranties we had for the roof and the windows. That seemed to ease their minds. But I can see how saying the wrong thing can make or break a deal or potential offer.
If someone investing has negative feedback and can't share it with the owners then maybe they aren't the right person to work thru the deal.
I voted for no sellers. That said, I think there are instances where it would be beneficial to have the sellers available, at least for a second showing. For example when we purchased our land, about 33 acres, it was extremely useful that the seller was available to walk us through the property, show us the trails he built, the general property lines, etc. When the time comes to sell I suspect a buyer will want a similar tour of the property.
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.
