When you choose to put the most beautiful pictures of a house into an advertisement, the chance is higher that you will have to waste a lot of time dealing with clients who would never buy the house have they known the truer picture of what is being sold from the beginning. So why would someone choose to make such an "unrealistic" advertisement? When should the whole fact be told? Not until the clients see it on their own on site? They would be very disappointed and lose confidence in the agent, wouldn't they?

If you put the ugliest picture of a house into an advertisement you could save yourself lots of time by only working with potential buyers who want an unattractive house.

Would it not be better to put a good picture and let the buyers make their own choice???

Ugly pictures might get someones attention, but is no way to drive the buyers to see the property.
Our marketing responsibility to the seller is, to have as many buyers look at the house as possible.

not as many buyers look at the house as possible, but as many qualified buyers as possible.

Those who just saw the most beautiful side of the house would probably be very disappointed by the ugliest side of the house and the vendor would blame us for not qualifying the clients first

Are you familiar with the concept of marketing?

If not, Real Estate may not be a field you should consider being involved in.

Your duty to your seller is to attract the most potential buyers to the property. Ask your sellers if they would like the fact that you are actually scaring buyers away from viewing the property. The whole point to marketing is attract attention to cause an action. I thought this was just common sense.

And another point of marketing a listing is to attract as many unrepresented buyers to us. I'd use the best picture.

Please tell me your kidding.

We are talking about a photo of a house. How in the world (unless photoshop got involved) could you even vaguely make the claim that an actual photo of the property being offered was "unrealistic"?

Of course your going to use a shot that shows the best features of a home at the best angle. But it does not mean that those features or angle are somehow unrealistic.

R

There are almost 3,000 agents with buyers out there, how am I to make sure they are qualified?

What the original poster of this thread is saying is that we as agents will waste a lot of time with buyers that won't buy that home if we have a nice picture on the advertising. We should all put junk photos of our listings out there in order to weed through the people that want nice homes for people that want junk homes. If we put a photo of the elegant mansion-size master bedroom and not of the 2nd bedroom with Scooby Doo painted on the walls, it means we're deceiving the potential buyers. It is so not right to put good photos of the property on our advertisements. Don't all of you know that? :rolleyes:

So, how to attract the attention of qualified customers instead of attracting too much attention of just curious customers?

Not unrealistic? maybe I have used the wrong word. What I am trying to say is photos not showing the whole pictures of the house.

For instance, for marketing a house with very open sea view but also with a small communal rubbish collection centre at the front, if we just put the photo with the stunning sea view in the advertisement, we surely would drive a lot of clients seeing the house but most of them would likely be very disappointed when they see the rubbish collection centre and surely would not give an offer. Just a wast of time to the clients and to us. However, if we put a photo showing not only the stunning sea view but also the fact that there is such a centre, then those who don't mind it and still value the sea view would see it. That is what I am trying to ask whether it is a good way to qualify clients by advertisement.

let_us_act:

Answer the following questions truthfully:

#1:
Would you wear your worst clothing or your best for a family or professional photo?

#2:
Let's say that someone were to take several photos of you for a personals web site or say, for the newspaper. One of the photos shows you with your eyes closed (you blinked) and the others were non blinking, which would you choose to show?

The point is, photos are chosen to show the positives and/or best side. It's human nature to want others to view your best side, whether it's a house or you personally. Would you want someone to qualify/judge you based on your worst photo?

“For instance, for marketing a house with very open sea view but also with a small communal rubbish collection centre at the front…”
What difference does that make? Buyers make price adjustments for less than that. Let the buyer decide!
I had a house listed once with hideous green carpet opposite of town where my buyer was looking. When I mentioned it to them, they wanted to see it. Guess what, they bought it!
Don’t let your personal feelings about likes and dislikes cloud your judgement when it comes to buyers, they might like the convenience of a close by rubbish collection station.

If I was selling YOUR house, would you want the best picture in the ads, or the picture of the "small communal rubbish collection"?

ummm.... nevermind I can't stop laughing long enough to even reply.

How do you know they're qualified just because the picture is not beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many times people ask me to see houses that I think are hideous. Sometimes they ask me to pre view a house for them. One time I said the house is very dark, had an odor, and the rooms were small.They insisted on seeing it anyway and argued with me that it was a nice house. Go figure. They didn't buy it though.

Maybe the customer would overlook the "rubbish center" because of the ocean view. You know, if someone calls you on a particular house and it turns out NOT to be what they thought, you CAN try to sell them a DIFFERENT house.