Question from a Photographer

Posted by: Photog

Question from a Photographer - 02/25/19 01:08 PM

Hi, I am a professional real estate photographer. Please help me understand why Realtors are so worried about the cost of quality photography. I have never been a Realtor so I don't know your cost of doing business.

My work has been featured in magazines and my services have been requested by sellers, so please assume I am shooting at a high level of quality.

Last summer I had to raise my rates. This resulted in my top agency dropping me. I expected this and it's ok because this is a side job for me, I do not depend on it.

Recently that agency approached me again saying they wanted me for a high end job, but would I consider giving them a discount. I agreed, and met them in between my old rate and my new rate, which amounted to a $150 discount. My rate is based on the listing price of the property. I photographed the home and provided the pictures. Today I see the listing online complete with my photos and a listing price that is $69,000 more than the agent told me.

This agency charges a 6% commission, which I believe is typical. On this property that is over $40,000. My question is, why is a $150 discount going to make a difference on a $40,000+ commission?

I am very frustrated because frankly, photographs do a ton of work on the Realtor's behalf, in several ways. They get potential buyers in the door; they give the agency and the seller a professional impression; they are critical during the buyer's decision making process when they are narrowing down their choice between a few homes.

I am feeling undervalued and honestly, cheated. What is it about the Real Estate business that I don't understand?
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 02/26/19 05:47 AM

The person paying you only takes home a fraction of the commission.

They are not guaranteed they will make any commission unless they sell the house. So money we spend on a listing might never be recouped.

If they dropped you then you are probably overpriced compared to your replacement.

Around here, a $300k house can be the same size as a $1m house so you charging by the price of the house is wrong. You are doing a fixed job that should be priced by size of house and time involved.

We use professional potogs but someone charging by the price of the home would be a non starter.

Ps. When you get hired to take pictures the pictures no longer belong to you. You perform a service for a price and the end product belongs to the person who hired you.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 02/26/19 09:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
The person paying you only takes home a fraction of the commission.


Interesting, what fraction might that be?

Quote:
They are not guaranteed they will make any commission unless they sell the house. So money we spend on a listing might never be recouped.


Cost of doing business. If you want to sell the house, put your best foot forward with professional photos. Sure, if the house is not worth it, then do your best with your smartphone or your own camera.

Quote:
If they dropped you then you are probably overpriced compared to your replacement.


I am more expensive than my replacement, and the photos show it. The replacement's photos are distorted. This is why they came back to me.

Quote:
Around here, a $300k house can be the same size as a $1m house so you charging by the price of the house is wrong.


1, no it is not "wrong". That implies immoral or unethical, which it obviously is not. I can quote whatever fee I wish, and the realtor can decide for themselves if it's worth it. 2, Then why does a Realtor charge based on the price of the house? $60,000 commission on a $1MM house seems more wrong to me.

Quote:
You are doing a fixed job that should be priced by size of house and time involved.


Not true. The photos act as another sales agent, performing a job equally important to that of a Realtor. The photographer needs to be compensated appropriately. I'm not saying anywhere near as much as the Realtor, but certainly more than the outdated traditional amount you are cozy with. 0.1% of listing price would be more fair and still insignificant compared to your 6%. The photos are working many hours for you long after the photographer has stopped. A photographer is not an hourly laborer who performs a one-time repair or upgrade. You are not only paying for the time it took them to create your photos. You are paying for the hours of work the photos do on your behalf. The photos are selling the house as much as you are, or more. You are also paying for the photographer's expertise accumulated over years of practice. You are paying for them to bring about $5000 worth of equipment, and their knowledge and skill to use it.

Newsflash - home buyers do not want to deal with you, the Realtor, until they absolutely have to, and then for as little time as possible. So what do they do? Examine photos online. For many hours before you even know they exist, and for many hours after you have met them. Your photos are your first impression, and your deal-closer.

Quote:
We use professional potogs but someone charging by the price of the home would be a non starter.


That is only because you are in an area where there is a supply of naive wannabe-professional photographers who are willing to work for non-living wages. As soon as they wise up and either exit the business or raise their rates, you move on to the next one. Also your attitude towards photography is antiquated. The buyer's online experience is now more important than their in-person experience with you or correspondence with you. Case in point, for-sale-by-owner services that rely on online photos and data, without a Realtor at all. The buyer is buying and falling in love with the home and what it looks like, not you or your services. If they love the house, there is not much you can do to spoil that deal other than demand an unfair price, or perhaps physically assault them.

Hey I'm all for free market forces, and if you have a stream of pretend photographers willing to shoot "good enough" photos of houses for $150 and then gift you the ownership of the photos, more power to you. Just know that you are exploiting them.

Quote:
Ps. When you get hired to take pictures the pictures no longer belong to you. You perform a service for a price and the end product belongs to the person who hired you.


I didn't mention anything about this, so I'm not sure why you want to discuss it, but OK. Ownership of the images is determined by the contract between the photographer and their client. No worthwhile photographer would ever give up ownership of their images without a higher fee. They will give you a usage license limited to the one-time sale of the property, and a perpetual use license for the purposes of marketing your business, and that is all you can do with them. Owning the photos means you could then sell them to any 3rd party for whatever purpose and profit from them, or use them multiple times to sell a property multiple times. You do not need or deserve those rights.
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 02/27/19 07:23 AM

Your .1% of the list price is actually closer to 10% of the listing agents portion of the commission, if the house sells for list price and if the house sells. If you want a percentage of the commission you should be willing to wait until the house sells to collect your commission just like we do and take the same risks of not getting paid for your work just like we do.

It would help you understand things better if you had a clue about how our business works.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 02/27/19 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
Your .1% of the list price is actually closer to 10% of the listing agents portion of the commission, if the house sells for list price and if the house sells.


I understand the agency takes a cut of the commission, and the commission may be shared among all agents in the agency. And if the buyer has an agent, there may be further sharing. But the cost of photography should go against the agency, not the agent. It should come out of the total 6% commission, not the agent's cut. In any case, 0.1% is more than fair for architecture magazine quality photos.

Quote:
If you want a percentage of the commission you should be willing to wait until the house sells to collect your commission just like we do and take the same risks of not getting paid for your work just like we do.


That's fair. I may propose that.

Quote:
It would help you understand things better if you had a clue about how our business works.


I've been shooting r/e for over 10 years, so I have some clue. I'm sorry if my above response was tough love for you, but everything I wrote is true. My tone was also affected by being lied to about the listing price of the home I just shot. Your profession is going to go the way of the Travel Agent in the not so distant future. Your forum agrees. Photographs are necessary to sell a home. Realtors are not always. If you want to set yourself apart, pay for the best photography available.
Posted by: Granta Omega

Re: Question from a Photographer - 03/05/19 09:59 AM

The agents aren't getting anything until the home sells, and there is a chance they may go into the listing believing it probably won't sell unless the seller comes to terms with reality, and in that case, if they don't lower their asking price, they are going to take it off the market.

Many of the top agents also lead a team where they have a team photographer, and some teams are set up where they take a certain cut of the team's profits instead of an expensive price for each project.

It's not that they don't want the high quality photography or they don't think you are worth the money you are asking, but sometimes they just can't pay what they don't have and are unsure whether they will get it.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 03/07/19 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Granta Omega
The agents aren't getting anything until the home sells, and there is a chance they may go into the listing believing it probably won't sell unless the seller comes to terms with reality, and in that case, if they don't lower their asking price, they are going to take it off the market.

Many of the top agents also lead a team where they have a team photographer, and some teams are set up where they take a certain cut of the team's profits instead of an expensive price for each project.

It's not that they don't want the high quality photography or they don't think you are worth the money you are asking, but sometimes they just can't pay what they don't have and are unsure whether they will get it.


I appreciate that, Granta. It would be fair for me to wait until the house is sold to collect my fee. I still feel that 0.1% is more than fair though.
Posted by: Long Walk

Re: Question from a Photographer - 03/08/19 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
It would be fair for me to wait until the house is sold to collect my fee. I still feel that 0.1% is more than fair though.
I wonder if you would feel the same about the fee if you were hiring a photographer. Quite often, the views people hold change substantively when their perspective changes. In this case, you are providing the service and have a view of the worth of that service based on your skill and your perception of how real estate is bought and sold.

So, hypothetically and assuming you are not a photographer, would you feel good about paying $1,000 to do photos for a $1,000,000 house you are selling? Or, like most people, would you do the photos yourself or find a cheaper photographer?

How would you feel if the equity in the house (sale price less expenses and mortgage pay-off) was less than $100,000? That would make the photography fee equal to 1% of equity.

What if there was even less equity? In a falling market, what if there was no equity? What if you had to wait two years for the house to sell? What if you took the photos and the house didn't sell during the listing period?

To echo BigToe's comments, I think it would help your pricing if you understood the basics of real estate sales.
Posted by: Z06Fanatic

Re: Question from a Photographer - 03/12/19 05:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Photog
Hi, I am a professional real estate photographer. Please help me understand why Realtors are so worried about the cost of quality photography. I have never been a Realtor so I don't know your cost of doing business.

My work has been featured in magazines and my services have been requested by sellers, so please assume I am shooting at a high level of quality.

Last summer I had to raise my rates. This resulted in my top agency dropping me. I expected this and it's ok because this is a side job for me, I do not depend on it.

Recently that agency approached me again saying they wanted me for a high end job, but would I consider giving them a discount. I agreed, and met them in between my old rate and my new rate, which amounted to a $150 discount. My rate is based on the listing price of the property. I photographed the home and provided the pictures. Today I see the listing online complete with my photos and a listing price that is $69,000 more than the agent told me.

This agency charges a 6% commission, which I believe is typical. On this property that is over $40,000. My question is, why is a $150 discount going to make a difference on a $40,000+ commission?

I am very frustrated because frankly, photographs do a ton of work on the Realtor's behalf, in several ways. They get potential buyers in the door; they give the agency and the seller a professional impression; they are critical during the buyer's decision making process when they are narrowing down their choice between a few homes.

I am feeling undervalued and honestly, cheated. What is it about the Real Estate business that I don't understand?


I think it's funny you raised your rates yet complain that you lost business. So it's ok for you to raise your rates yet you don't get why Agents want to save money on their business expenses? Agents are in business to make money - smart ones will monitor all their expenses and trim the fat where necessary. It doesn't matter how much someone is making - frankly if you feel Agents make all this money you should become one! Show us how easy it is to make the big bucks - you could even shoot your own listings!
Posted by: C4talyst

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/04/19 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Photog

I am feeling undervalued and honestly, cheated. What is it about the Real Estate business that I don't understand?


Focus on working with, and marketing yourself to agents who value and understand the importance of good marketing imagery.
Posted by: C4talyst

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/04/19 10:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe

Ps. When you get hired to take pictures the pictures no longer belong to you. You perform a service for a price and the end product belongs to the person who hired you.


It's amazing how many Realtors think this. Unless copyright is transferred to you, you've acquired nothing but a license/permission to use the images.
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/06/19 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: C4talyst
Originally Posted By: Bigtoe

Ps. When you get hired to take pictures the pictures no longer belong to you. You perform a service for a price and the end product belongs to the person who hired you.


It's amazing how many Realtors think this. Unless copyright is transferred to you, you've acquired nothing but a license/permission to use the images.

If the copyright does not transfer they don't get the job. If you want to be some kind of artist with copyright protections for your work then you should not be taking pictures of bathrooms.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/20/19 07:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Long Walk
Originally Posted By: Photog
It would be fair for me to wait until the house is sold to collect my fee. I still feel that 0.1% is more than fair though.
I wonder if you would feel the same about the fee if you were hiring a photographer.

So, hypothetically and assuming you are not a photographer, would you feel good about paying $1,000 to do photos for a $1,000,000 house you are selling? Or, like most people, would you do the photos yourself or find a cheaper photographer?


That depends on whether the seller or realtor is capable of taking decent photos that will do the property justice. For a $1MM house the likelihood of that is not high. If I was not confident in my photography I would not want to make myself look like a fool by putting poor photos on my listing. It would be like wearing jeans to a job interview. I would feel good about paying for quality. You get what you pay for.

If I were the seller, I would feel even less inclined and even more bitter to hand over $60,000 to a realtor for their 6% commission. I would seriously explore for-sale-by-owner first.

Quote:
How would you feel if the equity in the house (sale price less expenses and mortgage pay-off) was less than $100,000? That would make the photography fee equal to 1% of equity.


So what? That would make the realtor's commission 60% of equity. Are you telling me realtors adjust their commission based on equity?

Quote:
What if you had to wait two years for the house to sell? What if you took the photos and the house didn't sell during the listing period?


As I said above, because I consider the photos to be doing the job of a second agent, that's a risk I'm willing to take. Because I still own the photos (only a hack photographer would give up ownership of their images), I can charge the next realtor to use them.

Quote:
To echo BigToe's comments, I think it would help your pricing if you understood the basics of real estate sales.


Well, that's why I'm asking. It has been helpful to realize that the realtor has a significant risk of losing the sale, which is why I have adjusted my business model accordingly. Since then I have proposed this new model to 3 different agencies and none of them have batted an eye at the 0.1%. In fact they have been quite relieved that I am willing to wait until the house sells, and that I won't charge them if they don't sell the house.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/20/19 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Z06Fanatic
I think it's funny you raised your rates yet complain that you lost business.


No that's not what I said. I said I fully expected to lose that business and that I'm ok with that.

Quote:
So it's ok for you to raise your rates yet you don't get why Agents want to save money on their business expenses?


What I said was I didn't understand how my price increase of $150 amounts to a hill of beans next to a $40,000 commission.

Quote:
frankly if you feel Agents make all this money you should become one! Show us how easy it is to make the big bucks - you could even shoot your own listings!


I may do that someday as a 2nd act type thing. I think I'd be good at it.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/20/19 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
If the copyright does not transfer they don't get the job. If you want to be some kind of artist with copyright protections for your work then you should not be taking pictures of bathrooms.


Funny you say that, I don't shoot bathrooms unless they're a showpiece.

I am an artist and I take architecture magazine quality photos. If you don't need that level of quality that's fine. It's obvious you don't value photography.
Posted by: Long Walk

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/21/19 07:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
I've been shooting r/e for over 10 years, so I have some clue. I'm sorry if my above response was tough love for you, but everything I wrote is true. My tone was also affected by being lied to about the listing price of the home I just shot...

...Photographs are necessary to sell a home. Realtors are not always.
Photog - I snipped parts of one of your earlier posts and put them in this quote.

There is something in your tone that makes me think that you really don't understand real estate brokerage. Price, not photographs, sell properties. If a listing is over-priced, no amount of high-quality photos will help. Price is everything. Like most of the agents on this board, I have sold property without photos or with very poor-quality photos. And that means with sellers and with buyers. Your premise is wrong and that has skewed your view of the marketplace for your services.

To that point, you appear to have missed the value question at the heart of your sale. There is a price for every good or service in every market at all times, so long as there is demand for it. When I first started into residential brokerage, I thought agents had a total monopoly on sales in the market...until I encountered FSBO's. Your FSBO is the ability of the agent to take their own photos. So, your second premise is wrong: you are not essential for the sale of real estate.

I may have mis-read your posts, but I think not. My suggestion would be to study your market and find a photography service opportunity that is under-served and/or that you can earn acceptable fees in. It would also help you to take some sales training. By the time someone considers that their customers are not intelligent enough to understand their offering, that person is on their way into another line of work.

Just my $0.02. Take it for what it may be worth to you.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/21/19 08:18 PM

Absolutely the price has to be right. I understand that. However in this day and age, a home for sale without an online listing is at a serious disadvantage, unless of course the house sells itself and then both of us may be unneeded. An online listing with poor photos is at a serious disadvantage unless it has no peers or comps. Usually, poor photos make the realtor and sellers look lazy, sloppy, even incompetent. I didn't mean to imply that good photos are essential. Sometimes good enough is good enough, especially for lower and middle class homes. However the fact that homes can be sold by owner implies that the realtor is even less essential. Bet you a steak dinner that most FSBOs have photos.

I guess another thing I don't understand is why realtors are so concerned with self-image in every other regard, but when it comes to the photos that represent their sale and themselves, many just shrug and say "good enough".
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/22/19 05:20 AM

My first website went live in 1995. I now have 20+ real estate niche websites. I have made a ton of money off the internet. Not 1 single buyer that came from the web bought a house they found online. Evey single buyer shows up with a price range and a list of features they want in the house. Then we physically go look at all of the houses that fit those requirements without even looking at the pictures. This goes for low end buyers as well as high end buyers.

Pictures do not sell houses. We use professional photographers and professional drone pictures to win over sellers who believe that pictures sell houses.

So the quality of the pictures in no way affects the sellability of a home. This is just another real estate myth like the myth about open houses selling homes.
Posted by: STEW

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/22/19 08:38 AM

I use a good professional photographer on all my listings, even REO's.
Why? because they bring leads.
Some photographers are quite good some are very average. Much like realtors.
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/23/19 05:27 AM

@stew
Would you be willing to explain to us how good pictures get you leads and what kind of leads they are? Thanks!
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/24/19 08:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
Not 1 single buyer that came from the web bought a house they found online.


This is laughably unbelievable.
Posted by: Long Walk

Re: Question from a Photographer - 04/24/19 10:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
Not 1 single buyer that came from the web bought a house they found online.


This is laughably unbelievable.

Unbelievable to you with no brokerage experience? This is my point about your posts: you don't understand brokerage and consequently say things like this.

Prospects calling in from signs are very different and will often buy the house they call on. Inquiries from print or web media sources are interested in the interior of the house and are highly unlikely to buy it once they see it in person.

It would help your cause to adopt a more professional tone in your posts. You can do as you feel is right, but, to me, you sound angry that agents don't value your services the way that you do.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/03/19 09:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Long Walk
Unbelievable to you with no brokerage experience?


One does not need to be a broker to know that is simply incredible. For one example, we found both our home and our vacation home online. This is not uncommon. The brokers were merely formalities and wasted expenses for the sellers. Too bad they didn't just use craigslist.

Quote:
This is my point about your posts: you don't understand brokerage and consequently say things like this.


That is exactly what I said in my first post - I don't understand brokers. From this thread, I have gained enough of an understanding to change my business model accordingly. Mission accomplished.

Quote:
Prospects calling in from signs are very different and will often buy the house they call on. Inquiries from print or web media sources are interested in the interior of the house and are highly unlikely to buy it once they see it in person.


You would need to provide data for any reasonable person to take that claim seriously.

Quote:
It would help your cause to adopt a more professional tone in your posts. You can do as you feel is right, but, to me, you sound angry that agents don't value your services the way that you do.


I came into this thread angry that I had been lied to by a realtor who said the listing price was $69,000 less than the truth, in order to get a lower price out of me for photos. Additionally, they wanted a $150 discount off that price, which I gave them out of good will. Bigtoe came into this thread with some helpful information, but also taking that realtor's side, and espousing a frankly ridiculous attitude towards photography that had nothing to do with my original question, so you'll just have to forgive me if I have a less than "professional" attitude towards people like this. Others here have been helpful.

If you care to see where I am coming from, here is a listing (not mine) that I just stumbled upon.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/20-Bradlee-Rd-Marblehead-MA-01945/56942277_zpid/

This is similar to the level of photography I provide. Actually I think I could have shot this property a little better, but whatever. For a listing like this I don't think it's reasonable or professional for a realtor to cop the attitude that the photos don't really matter that much, and are not doing significant work on your behalf.

This property is also similar to the ones I have been hired to shoot by the agency in question. So you can see I am not just another ham-and-egger shooting $295K raised ranches for $150 a pop. So yeah it was maddening and bewildering to me why they would lie about the price and want a discount. I understand now that they have significant risk of not selling the property and getting fired by the seller if the home doesn't move in the desired timeframe. I have adjusted my business model to accommodate that risk, and the realtors I have proposed that to are happy with it.
Posted by: Long Walk

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/04/19 09:03 AM

Photog -

This is a fact-based discussion of business practices and principles. Your tone is still shrill and angry. What is it about this discussion that provokes such a visceral response in you?

No, you don't understand brokers or brokerage. You give all appearance of elevating two experiences you report having to the level of market norms. If your experience happened as you described, then you are a statistical anomaly, an outlier. Here is a 2017 report from the NAR on how people buy homes. It does not square with your experience, but it does square with mine.

To help you understand, there were 6.1MM sales in 2017 of new and existing homes. According to the NAR report for the same year, 88% of sales were handled by brokers. That means 5.3MM buyers bought through a broker. And they looked at an average of 10 homes each, according to the NAR.

Your experience is not the same as 5.3MM buyer in 2017. So, no, you don't understand brokers or brokerage. And your attitude is totally unprofessional. I would have no way to know beyond your unsupported statements what your photography skills are like, but, if they are comparable to your sales skills, I would respectfully suggest you find a career that better fits your personality and aptitudes.

As regards your behavior in this forum, you would do well to show a little respect to women and men who feed their families through their ability to go find business and get it closed in a professional way, year in and year out.
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/05/19 06:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
For one example, we found both our home and our vacation home online.


and i am sure you did not bother to look at other similar houses because the pictures of the houses you purchased were so awesome that it did not matter what the conditions, locations or floorplans were like, plus the other houses must have been crappy houses because their pictures were so poorly done and we all know only the best houses have the bestest pictures.

Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/06/19 10:47 AM

I think we're done here. I've been nothing but civil. Photographer and Realtor are two professions that can be successfully done as a fallback for people like liberal arts majors and stay-at-home-moms re-entering the workforce after 20 years. We're not curing cancer here, so get off your high horse.
Posted by: Long Walk

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/06/19 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
I think we're done here. I've been nothing but civil. Photographer and Realtor are two professions that can be successfully done as a fallback for people like liberal arts majors and stay-at-home-moms re-entering the workforce after 20 years. We're not curing cancer here, so get off your high horse.

Photog -- We were done when you entered our forum emotionally out-of-control to tell how us all how replaceable we are as brokers and how inestimably vital photographers are. If that passes for civil in your world, then your skills are even weaker than I had thought. Very graciously, we tried to help you come to a better understanding of your place in a real estate transaction. Your position has consistently suggested that you believe yourself to be the smartest person in the room. Your arrogance and conceit totally defeated our efforts.

Incidentally, you never posted a link to your work to prove to us that you are not a 'ham and egger'. Lacking that proof, we conclude that you are exactly that.

Good day to you and I wish you well finding a new forum in which to have emotion-driven, self-centered temper tantrums.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/06/19 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Long Walk
Photog -- We were done when you entered our forum emotionally out-of-control to tell how us all how replaceable we are as brokers and how inestimably vital photographers are.


No, if you go back and read the OP, you'll see I came in with an honest question. I only counter-attacked after I was attacked in an off-topic manner.

Quote:
If that passes for civil in your world, then your skills are even weaker than I had thought.


I made no ad-hominem remarks. What I said was true, realtors are not always necessary. This is a fact proven by the existence of FSBO. If facts hurt your feelings that's not my problem. I also said photos are not always necessary, and that professional photos are not always necessary.

Quote:
Very graciously, we tried to help you come to a better understanding of your place in a real estate transaction.


Oh, so graciously.

Quote:
Your position has consistently suggested that you believe yourself to be the smartest person in the room.


That is actually quite possible, considering the intellect of several of the realtors I've dealt with, and your demonstrated reading comprehension skills.

Quote:
Incidentally, you never posted a link to your work to prove to us that you are not a 'ham and egger'. Lacking that proof, we conclude that you are exactly that.


Obviously I can't do that in case any of my clients are reading this.

Quote:
Good day to you and I wish you well finding a new forum in which to have emotion-driven, self-centered temper tantrums.


Seems I hit a nerve. Win. You are not an admin or moderator; I think I'll stick around.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/15/19 12:54 PM

This article and lawsuit backs up everything I'm saying. The job of Realtor is going the way of the Travel Agent. Buyers can and do do most of their own research online before ever contacting a seller or agent. Therefore, listing photos are extremely important - arguably as important as the realtor if not more.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/economy/real-estate-commissions/index.html

From the 2019 NAR report linked in the above article:
"As a result of an internet home search, buyers most often walked through the home that they viewed online. All generations saw the exterior of homes because of searching online for properties. The most important website feature was photos for nine in 10 buyers under the age of 63. Real estate agent contact information was most important to buyers aged 73 years and older"

https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/fi...-04-03-2019.pdf
Posted by: Alam Khan

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/16/19 01:32 AM

When we are searching for property to buy then we can checks lot of option through internet searching and make a list of best properties in region. There are many property listing websites that are very helpful for search property and before final the property once checked the real physical location & property condition.

If you are looking luxury villas in Lebanon then visit here and found luxurious property.
Posted by: Bigtoe

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/16/19 05:43 AM

@ Photog

If real estate agents go away, who is going to pay crazy prices for professional pictures? Look on fsbo dot com and compare how many owners take their own cell phone pictures vs hiring a pro. We are in the same boat.
Posted by: Photog

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/16/19 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
@ Photog

If real estate agents go away, who is going to pay crazy prices for professional pictures? Look on fsbo dot com and compare how many owners take their own cell phone pictures vs hiring a pro. We are in the same boat.


A fair point, average sellers will probably DIY but that's not really what I'm concerned about. Higher end homes will still need quality photos. Those are the jobs I'm interested in.

But I never said realtors were going to go away. Travel agents still exist, just not in the droves they used to. The same downsizing needs to happen in this market too. The article points out that realtors' typical commission rates were conceived pre-internet and based on the amount of work realtors used to have to do back then. The internet now saves realtors a ton of work, but their rates have not come down accordingly.
Posted by: Z06Fanatic

Re: Question from a Photographer - 05/23/19 07:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Photog
Originally Posted By: Bigtoe
@ Photog

If real estate agents go away, who is going to pay crazy prices for professional pictures? Look on fsbo dot com and compare how many owners take their own cell phone pictures vs hiring a pro. We are in the same boat.


A fair point, average sellers will probably DIY but that's not really what I'm concerned about. Higher end homes will still need quality photos. Those are the jobs I'm interested in.

But I never said realtors were going to go away. Travel agents still exist, just not in the droves they used to. The same downsizing needs to happen in this market too. The article points out that realtors' typical commission rates were conceived pre-internet and based on the amount of work realtors used to have to do back then. The internet now saves realtors a ton of work, but their rates have not come down accordingly.


Travel Agents and Realtors have zero relation - the 5-6% Realtor model will never die because there's too much negotiation work that needs to be done the right way. There's a reason why flat fee services come and go and big box brokers still charge 5-6% - if this wasn't valued then they would be obsolete. I think flat fees might work in hot low inventory markets, but in slow demand markets the traditional broker will never dissapear