Real Estate Blog - Ugly Photos are Better than No Photos

Home : Blogs : Margaret Woda, Maryland Real Estate : Maryland Real Estate

Ugly Photos are Better than No Photos

You can count on me to play "Devil's Advocate" whenever someone posts on Activerain about how irresponsible it is to provide only one photo with a listing. I'm always quick to comment that sometimes no photos could be the right choice if the listed home shows poorly. But...

Messy Bedroom

No, make that "BUT..."

Two weeks ago, I was working with a buyer whose priorities were the following:

A relatively private setting, given the limitations of a townhome
As new as possible within their price range
A location convenient for both parties' commute

As we dug through the huge inventory of homes available on MLS, we often eliminated those with one picture because we couldn't see the setting of the property - their #1 priority.

Then it hit home for me... Any listing agent who doesn't post photos of the home's messy interior or poorly landscaped back yard could lose some buyers for whom property condition is not one of their top three priorities.

A few days after this, I found myself posting a dozen photos on the MLS that would not have met my high standards in the past. There have been a number of showings, two luke-warm buyer prospects, and even a half-dozen views of my YouTube video for the property. Apparently ugly photos haven't hurt this property, and maybe they've even helpd!

I guess it's true, after all... Ugly photos ARE better than no photos.

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

IMAGE: MWoda

_____________________________________________________

Margaret Woda's blog footnote Margaret Woda is a licensed Associate Broker in Crofton Maryland. She specializes in serving the real estate needs of home owners and home buyers in Anne Arundel, Howard and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, including Fort Meade, Andrews AFB, and the U.S. Naval Academy. If you enjoyed reading this post, check out Focus On Crofton and Your Online Relocation Package for Anne Arundel County. You can contact her online or by phone at the Crofton office of Long & Foster REALTORS (410) 451-6245

Posted by Margaret Woda, Maryland Real Estate on 06/28/2009 04:32 PM

Comments (71)

Listing Photos in the ActiveRain Channel

listing photos

Post is included in group: "Whacked"!!!
Post is included in group: RE/MAX Active Rain Bloggers
Post is included in group: Realtors®
Post is included in group: Long & Foster Agent Lounge
Post is included in group: Dedicated Bloggers

71 Comments on Ugly Photos are Better than No Photos

JUN

Margaret - that was a bad photo. I hate looking for properties and no photos in the MLS. Often my buyers won't even bother with the home. I often wonder if the seller know what a dis-service it is to their property not to have decent photos.

I have been known to go with the photographer just to straighten up a bit before - afterall if I take the listing it is because I want it to sell.

Margaret - I've often wondered about putting in photos of listings that aren't in the most favorabel condition. Buyers and agents do tend to pass over listings with only one or no photos. Best to just put them all out there and let the buyers decide.

An image of eighteen cars in front of a home blocking full view, with dirty snowbanks and a bright sun behind the home causing a major blur, intense aurora around the place when it is June is not better than nothing. If you can not get a good image due to time of year, focus on inside fireplace, zero in on something good, eye candy tastey. Or draw/scan and doctor a map showing hospital is over here, schools two blocks over here. You can always find something to make a good first impression. The two seasons out of season images make me thing lazy or that this treatment makes the right way look even better when contrasting agents/broker firms. Sometimes the dirty but nice for empty home or Stephen King could have made a movie here but low low cost if the honest, straight to the point way to present.

Ugly photos might be better than no photos, but they're definitely not prefered!

I don't think bad, cluttered, dirty photos are better than none. I will take numerous outside pictures and wait for a clean up!

I am a firm believer in photos sell a house.....OR not.. taking great photos, is what brings buyers to a home... or makes them stay away.. :)

Margaret.... taking pictures that are true to the house - not hiding anything - is the way to go. Otherwise you are attracting people that are not likely to appreciate what they see! I agree.. great post. This picture is a good example of keeping away a buyer that wouldn't have been interested in the first place. Of course it would be ideal to have clients that are not lazy, care about their home, and are willing to do what it takes to sell fast and for a great price.

Margaret, I have had some pretty nasty looking listings lately. I also have a few I have never been in. This is all related to dealing with preforeclosures. Some have tenants living in them and some are vacation rentals.

BUT...I still get as many pictures as I can of the exterior, neighhood, floor plan, aerial view etc.....

So I think pictures are a good thing.

Hi Margaret...

I'm still torn on this one...but in fairness ... an ugly photo just MIGHT inspire the seller to tidy up a bit!

mabye when dealing with pics that do not really do a home well, should be emailed to the seller 'asking their approval to use these photos in the listing' Hopefully seeing them will get them to tell you to come back in a couple hours/days for better pics.

And like many here, most clients I have had over my short 5 years as a Realtor are not really interested in wasting time going to a house without enough pictures. Although it is not always a waste of time

I pay no attention to photos whatsoever. I can read descriptions and know the area. I probably know the builder and might know the floorplan.

Granted that for IDX, photos are important, but for me, they absolutely no effect on what I show. Price and location are what matter.

Further, I've noticed that most homes look a lot better in photos than actually touring the property.

If a home has no photos, there will be less competition for it because buyers look for photos and many agents let buyers select homes to view. Gives me an edge.

I love edges.

Wow. Was the you tube video of the same place in the picture?

@Margaret.... I'm still skeptical of using the ugly photos of the interior. I guess this is amost like posting the price on the yard sign of a over priced listing. Let the neighbors tell them what they think.

I don't know... I listed one last week that is hideous inside. Junk all over the place, messy rooms, not an inch free on the kitchen countertop. I cannot bring myself to post those photos. I posted one only, exterior.

I'm not so sure bad photos are a good thing! When there is so much inventory to choose from, if the listing is not showing itself well online, one can only imagine it in real-life.

I preview everything I show, so I know what to expect when I am with my Buyer, so even if the good photos make the listing, I already know about the parts of the house that DID NOT make the cut!

A picture is worth a thousand words, whatever they may be, right?

The condition of the home isn't reflective with a messy room, sloopy housekeeping skills . . . although condition MIGHT be if the owners are just outright lazy, and let the home deteriorate. I always tell my clients to LOOK PASSED THE PHOTOS! If the home "reads" well, and has most, if not all, of the criteria (location, price, etc.) -- let's TOUR!!

We will NOT load our listings into the MLS until all documents and PHOTOs are ready to be added !

We want everything available when it is sent out to all the Buyers receiving NEW listings nightly!

Photos are better than no photos. Darn right there! Even if it's the big yard or large living area....some want to see something.

You are right some photos are better than none. I always know the house is a dive if there is no photos other than the front of the house.

I think photos should paint a realistic picture - if the property looks bad, have the owners clean it up and keep it that way while it is being shown. Admittedly, some AREAS of a home simply photograph better than others - I have had pics make a property look better or worse than it's actual state. My goal is to have it show as close to accurate as possible.

I even take photos of homes under construction to show the progress, and mix it up with floorplans and renderings of a completed home. If a property is a fixer upper, show it to me, it might bring THE RIGHT buyer.

I read a blog about a man who was marketing his own property in Colorado somewhere. It said that 3 months of the year you could not get in or out at all because of weather, and most of the time you'd need a 4 wheel drive. The location was remote and secluded.

Some silly again might call that private. Let's say what it is - people will figure it out when they get there. Why make us all invest unnecessary time?

And, when there are no photos, I often assume the worse. It may not be as bad I as I imagine.

I hate looking at pictures like that in MLS but can see the argument that one picture is worse. I always give my client suggestions for staging and set a picture day for several days later; hopefully right before it goes on the MLS.

I have to agree that the messy photos don't help. However, if there is a big yard, or some special feature in a room, then maybe it will get put in the MLS.

This is a great topic and I love seeing what everyone's opinion is. I give my clients a "to do list" prior to even taking the listing. If the home is not up to my standards when it's picture time I will pick things up and/or move things if need be. However I've been very fortunate and have never had a "pack rat" client. Picking up toys and clearing the countertops is usually the extent of what I have to do.

Margaret..There is always a way to get around the mess.. and if it is a mess..you can t get around it ..They will find out sooner or later..may as well be tweet this sooner..why waste everyones time..POST IT ! Thank you

HelpfulHannah

Evening Margaret, Some MLS"s won't activate a listing until it has photos. My greater concern is the quality of the existing photos.

I think you may be right, Margaret. At least with ugly photos, potential buyers can get some idea of what a property looks like. With none, it's too easy to dismiss a property outright. Good point. I still think straightening up a bit would be preferred over messy rooms both in person and in photos

Margaret, makes you wonder... makes me wonder anyway, I remind my clients that pictures will bring the buyers, and they don't want to look at your stuff... but if that is all you can get, guess you should post something anyway. More than one...

Sometimes the rooms are too small for photos, I do the best I can.

Hi Margaret ~ I remain of the mind that unless the photo says "Buy me!" it shouldn't be included. Buyers are looking for reasons to exclude properties since they can only see a fraction of them. Why give them a reason to pass on the house? I do include photos but only a few if only a few are good. So in your example above I would include photos of the yard if it was decent. And I urge buyers not to pass on houses because there aren't enough photos (our MLS requires at least one).

Liz

Margaret, I vote "NO" to UGLY photos. Ugly photos are unnecessary. Other people's stuff do not sell houses. If some offending junk ends up accidentlally in your photo, crop the photo before putting it in the MLS. Capture what the buyer will gain by buying the house, for example the authentic hardwood floors, the blooming bush in the backyard, the ample off street parking for example.

In some cases...a house is what a house is...and omitting ugly photos just annoys buyers who want to know what the house looks like, good, bad or otherwise! I am one of those agents who rants about others who do not post photos or post few photos. Bottom line...I have worked with way too many buyers who totally passed on homes that didn't show the pics. Thanks for your post! It's always good to think about stuff!

Haha... I love a good debate. And this is the first time I've ever been on this side of it.

Unfortunately, not every home we list is a showplace. Some of them are downright average. And others...

Yes, this photo is in the MLS, but I tried to minimize the negativity on the video by showing one neat bedroom (labeling it "two bedrooms upstairs") and an empty bedroom (labeling it "four bedrooms downstairs").

The property is a licensed rental in a college town, and the seller has no "cleaning" option available except for the week or two between tenants. However, most prospective buyers will be landlords themselves and their priority is cash flow and structural/mechanical/appliance/plumbing condition - not cosmetics or tidiness. They know that a few weeks after they settle and their own tenants move in, this is probably what it will look like until the week or two between tenants next year.

Again - back to that story about the young couple with the priorities I outlined, there could have been a gem they ruled out for lack of photos, when a view of trees or open space behind the house might have been the hook to attract them, and a messy photo might have given them a hint as to why it was bargain priced.

Margaret, you are right, I learned that photos (or lack thereof) are used to ELIMINATE listings from Buyers' "to view" list. So the more photos, THE BETTER!!! Without a photo, most people assume that it's a bad listing, too awful for photos.

I think multiple photos are necessary. When I see only 1 photo, I don't know whethere the house was the reason why or a lazy agent. Either way, I need more information than that. Especially people who are visually oriented, give it to me, I can deal with it.

Well maybe....I like to have photos on the listings for sure. With that said, I think I'd be more curious without photos and want to move forward to see the house than see terrible photos of the inside that would turn me off up front.

Patricia Aulson

It's unbelievable how many homes I come across in the upper price range that has only an exterior photo.

Almost every buyer discounts the homes with few photos unless the price is so low they think they are going to e able to steal it. I agree great photos are preferred but take what you can get.

I completely agree with you. When I run into a home with only one photo, I don't assume that the property's a mess and the Realtor choose not to show their mess, but that it's completely and totally torn up. That the house is missing important parts, like cabinets, bannisters, decks, etc.

Margaret - tough call. Guess the folks who can really answer that question are the buyers themselves. What we think they want and THEY want may be differnet. We know that many won't look at listings without photos, at least that's what they say. Will ANY photo, even if ugly, at least get them to look at the listing?

I always tell my buyers to NOT let the lack of a photo keep them from considering a property - they could be missing out on a good deal for them.

Jeff

A house without photos isn't really for sale today in my market place. There are too many other properties on the market. Buyers won't even look at properties that don't have photographs of every room.

There is no sense in photographing the sellers mess, however. I let my seller's see the kind of photo spread that I am going to provide so the will be very motivated to be ready for the photo shoot. Some things will still need to be rearranged, because the camera can be very unforgiving of small details which the eye/brain will easily overlook.

Margaret, I show everything regardless of pictures - I know the market, floorplans, prices. Sometimes you see beautiful pics and when you get there it is messy anyway. I am with Lenn - I use what I got to the buyers' best advantage.

I had a client buy several investment properties with no photos... He liked them because they got no play...

The best possible photos of a house whether ugly or not are probably better than one or none. As long as they are telling an accurate story.

An ugly photo of a pretty house is probably not so good though. Rather see just one or none with a good description.

Margaret, I see your point that you may have been using photos or the lack of photos to screen "out" rather than screen "in" listings. It brings to mind the saying "you can't judge a book by it's cover". However (and of course you new this was coming from a Stager!), stats show that 87% of buyers begin their search on the internet. Coupled with our current "Buyers" market, Realtors and Buyers will probably not take the time to make an appointment to see a listing with only an exterior picture or of one that does not show the house in its best light. And, the pictures better look good! Right or wrong, we're all human and we do judge our books by their covers.

With just some "editing" (otherwise known as decluttering) and Staging, pictures can at least whet the appetite of a potential buyer.

Margaret, this is such an important post for many reasons. WE think we know what every buyer wants and is looking for....we don't! There is a buyer for every, repeat, every house. Unfortunately bad photos will eliminate many buyers and ultimately may mean a lower bottom line for the seller, but it's their choice.

Hey, folks... I agree completely that a staged home sells more quickly and good photos taken with a wide-angle lens and good lighting are the icing on the cake. BUT..

There's that word again...

Let's face it. Sometimes that's just not an option. In the past, I would not have posted photos of dimly lit cluttered rooms. BUT, after my epiphany earlier this month, I will because doing so is no worse than no photos - and some buyers are willing to consider homes that need only cosmetics. At least, that's true in the Baltimore-Washington area.

Great thought-provoking post Margaret. The other dilemma is when a listing agent is also a good photographer and creative and sets a false expectation for a buyer, that can be a showstopper as well as they feel lied to.

JUN

Well, I can't say that I 100% agree about having ugly photos versus none at all or just one. What chaps my hide is the fact you can purchase a camera for around $100 that is good enough to take photos that will look just fine. I am way too picky when it comes to photos and I usually take 40-50 per listing and delete at least 1/2 of them.

I don't know, the jury is still out about this. Is it me or do you hate it when they leave the toilet seat up and snap the photo?

Let's face it , some sellers simply are not going to clear up the clutter or do any of the many things that might make a home show better -- so in cases like this it seems any photo is better than none. Our 2 cents.

To me, there is absolutely no excuse to not have a few good looking photos with your listing. I have had clients where I have paid a cleaning lady to come in and clean things up in order to take good photos. In addition, with the avent of Adobe Photoshop and other similar programs available, there is no longer an excuse to post under exposed or lousy looking photos anymore.

With the increase in inventories, photos are also an effective way to prescreen those properties that I want to take the time to prescreen and visit for my clients. There is just no way we have the time to visit every property that may meet our clients search criteria, so if you do not do a good job of posting effective photos on listings, you are just losing potential buyers.

This post is very revealing of the preponderance and mindset of the average agent. The mindset of the industry is, and probably will always be, that of the listing agent.

Margaret, unlike many agents, understands that agents are no photographers or stagers. Further, she understands that we are not the owners of the property for sale, just the persons responsible for trying to sell it, whatever it is.

Photographs, whether good or bad, help to provide information about the property (and sometimes the agent).

What food for thought, Margaret! I'm listing one place that is sooo cluttered and dirty that I'm awaiting the owners move before doing interior shots. In this case, it is a condo and there are 30 others with interior pictures (and higher prices). Have had a lot of activity but perhaps I should rethink "exterior only" shots.

Lenn, as usual, is the wisest of all... In case you missed her recent comment, she points out that many of the other commenters to this post do not represent the perspective of buyers and buyers' agents... They forgot to take off their listing hat. That actually describes me, until (literally) days ago.

Now I realize that my obligation to sellers of less-than-perfect homes is no less than to others. AND some buyers may not be turned off by a less-than-perfect listing. Judging by the activity on this property (represented in the above image), that's a fact.

Michelle, on the other hand, just doesn't get it. Stiaging, while desirable, just isn't possible sometimes. And I've sold many, many, many homes over 40+ years that defy all the hype about staging. A commission earned by selling a home without staging works just fine in my bank account, thank you very much.

Either situation is a poor one. Why not just the best job possible?

Margaret - As a recent buyer myself, I can assure you that your conclusion is correct. Neither my wife nor I were overly concerned about the appearance of the house. In fact, we were looking for something we could get a little better price on and do the work ourselves. Further, we we had a pretty wide range and were fairly open on location. All of that being said, there were certain features that we absolutely wanted. If a house only had one picture, we couldn't tell if those features existed AND WE SKIPPED OVER IT.

bad publicity is better than no publicity sometimes...and it may just get the owner to tidy up a bit after some negative feedback

Margaret, that is a strategy that could work well at lowering the buyers' expectations, especially if the agent played up the slob tenant aspect in the MLS information. Hmmmm. Could work!

The ones I don't like are the ones that are so dark you can't see anything. So many programs have an auto-fix to brighten and sharpen.

Margaret - I too have had this dillema. I have a listing in which I have had to take pictures down because it detered some people from showing it. So it can go either way.. I always say the more pictures the better but sometimes it can bite you back...

Ahhhh.... the words of a home buyer, Erik, in a comment above. That's what I observed with my clients, Erik, and the reason I changed my strategy to include a realistic look at every home's interior. In the case of some owner's, they may be embarrassed into improving the property condition by seeing all their dirty laundry exposed to their neighbors and co-workers. In other situations, such as a rental property for sale, some things are just beyond their control and they have to live with it, like it or not.

Don't forget that these photos are in MLS for a very long time and are (hopefully) utilized by appraisers as well as buyers. Showing photos of below average properties will support condition adjustments for appraisers - an appraiser will feel far more comfortable applying a positive condition adjustment to a property that sells in poor condition at a below-market price if there is ample evidence that the adjustment is warranted.

I have read comments from many agents regarding appraisers utilizing comparables in poor condition for appraisals of average or above average condition properties. By disclosing the true condition of the properties that you list, you will be helping to eliminate this vexing problem.

Here is a phot in al listing that I saw today. The agent couldn't even take the time to clear the counter????

I agree that the more photos the better. A lack of photos makes the Realtor look bad. Ugly photos makes the seller look less than motivated. I want to keep my reputation in tact.

Here's my thought - if a seller isn't willing to get their house in show condition (meaning uncluttered, tidy, etc) then how motivated are they to selling???

Coldwell Banker requires it's agents to post at least 6 pictures with each listing. So we have no choice...

I think it is good to give the buyer the choice by posting the photos - they know they aren't buying the furniture so whether the rooms are neat and picked up don't seem that important - at least they can see the layout and the location etc. We are hearing that you should put up 30 photos....

Ditto what Karen posted above. We are required to post a minimum of six pictures for each listing. That is our basics. We can post up to 12 pics into the MLS. More for our proprietary websites.

I find myself taking lots of pictures so that I can pick the best ones to upload.

JUN

I'd have to say less is more. Only post good photos. Leave the rest to the buyer's imagination, and get a visit.

I love the many comments, and every point of view... The interesting thing about them is that they're all "right" - What we do as listing agents for one property may not be possible for another.

For example, I don't hesitate to provide staging guidance to my typical owner-occupant home sellers or personally move small appliances off the counter-top for photos or a chair out of a room to make it look bigger - and they're always eager to participate. Yet in other circumstances - rental properties, for example - I'm lucky to gain access for photos and showings - I don't touch the tenants' stuff EVEN if that means a messy house and "ugly photos".

While some agents are sticking up their noses and shunning listings with rooms that don't photograph well (like the one in my post), I'll be laughing all the way to the bank with my $10,000+ commission. And then I'll list some more just like it, if I can... maybe continue the discussion in another post. LOL.

JUL

Margaret - after reading your post, I think ugly photos would be prefered over none. You can generally get an idea about the house if they are no interior photos and only photos of the surrounding area.

Margaret, I have to agree with you. ANY photo is better than no photos at all. What is one man's trash is another's treasure. Many sellers are lucky to be able to put food on their table at this point, let alone spend their money on a professional stager. I'm sure we all wish our listings had the opportunity to be staged by a professional, but we have to deal with the reality of our clients budget.

I do at least "hide" the clutter and take as many photos as I can. I do feel it is the least I can do, to make sure I get a few "decent" photos.

This blog does not allow anonymous comments