How important are the pictures?

Pictures are SO important.  I hate it when an agent has 4 pictures and they are all of the same thing, usually of the front with the photographer moving 5 feet to either side.

By the way, why the dog picture for the real estate agent photo???

I think it is having the right balance of photos-

not too many where it would make the buyers feel they have seen enough without viewing it and not having any interior photos makes the buyers wonder what is wrong with them home. I think it is the right balance of photos.

I do still believe that my job as a listing agent is to get the property shown and sold.  I do tell the buyers and the agents who call that the reason I did not put the pic in the MLS is that there is so much "clutter"...or that there is so much work to do etc.  But, we have become so dependent on pictures that we may be leading the buyer to only look superficially.  What is a better buy?  The best house in a great neighborhood or the worse house in a great neighborhood.  ..... What good is a great buy if we do not get the people in to see it.  This is a "do not judge a book by its cover" moment.  I may eliminate some lookers by not having the picture in, but I am getting the buyers who can see beyond the usual.  Dumps have buyers, too.  And the ones who bought the dumps at reasonable prices these last few years, and did not refi are looking pretty good right now.  My not putting pictures in is a marketing decision for some properties.

That being defended, I will say that it upsets me that the agents go in and take a pic and put it up NO MATTER HOW GROSS.  I do not like junk on the refrig...the counter top, .....the bedroom floor.....etc, etc. etc.  Something is not better than nothing if the something shows the property in a bad light.   If you are going to be adament about pics in the MLS or wherever at least have the seller clean up the house. 

I am on the MLS committee for our board.  This came up in the discussion to require pictures.  I was against it because it is the listing agents decision how best to market his or her listings.  And I still say it is.  If you want to use the lack of a picture to get the listing when it expires....do so.  My sellers know why I have no picture.  Most times, the agent is making no decision, just being lazy. 

Lazy will not get the property sold.  Ruth

Not showing a number of photographs is misrepresentation and trickery - I would absolutely fire an agent if this is how they 'chose' to market my home, whether it was a dump or not.  It's no different than putting out an advertisement on a house without a price - it's TRICKERY.  For me, it screams "this is a dump - that's why I'm hiding it from you!".  CLICK!

Today, marketing real estate online is about transparency - people want to see everything - warts and all - BEFORE they waste their valuable time (and yours!)

If a seller hires a professional and then chooses NOT to follow their suggestions on cleanup, etc. that's now the problem of the SELLER.  

But, it's also a free market!  If I was hiring an agent to list/ market my house, and I was looking at their listings and saw only a few photos (and especially NO photo),I would choose ANOTHER agent.  And if my agent did not put photos on my listing ..... lots of them.. and good ones... I WOULD FIRE THEM for not doing their job.

There's no excuse or rationale for lack of photos considering buyers are ELIMINATING properties solely based on what they see online.  With gas prices approaching $4 a gallon and a record number of properties out there - they're NOT going to waste their time on a lark..   if you don't believe that statement, you will most likely be holding down a second job at the mall sooner rather than later....   It's 2007.  Buyers are smarter and have access to more information than ever. 

FRED LIGHT, you said this so well.  If it costs $4 per gallon of gas to go see something that could be portrayed by photo, it is truly trickery.  I can hear some agent bragging about how nice this property is and hoping to use sales techniques, I assume, to sell it to me once I got there.  Or perhaps bait and switch methods? 

Mister Light.  Did you read my last post at all?  There are many ways to get noticed in the real estate world and one way is to be different than everything else out there.  I do not think that the pictures of the real estate equate to the real thing.  I would like people to see the real thing.  I do not make my money taking pictures or posting them on the internet.  I make my living selling property.  And, I have done it very well for years.  And, I knew I was going to be lambasted when I posted my response.  Bandwagons, conventional thinking and instant agreement without thought being what it is in the real estate community. 

I am not lazy.  Am very knowledgeable and offer my sellers the right to fire me any time and rarely am (if I am it is usually mutual---I can only think of twice in 24 years).  Noting what you do, I am not surprised that you have never thought of the possiblity of not including a picture. 

Not putting in a picture is neither illegal nor unethical.  It is a marketing decision the listing agent can make.  I do have a problem if it is just laziness....but, the listing agent and the seller may decide to market in any way they wish.  I am not "tricking" anyone.  They can call and I will tell them why there is not picture.  And, I will show them the house if they are not working with another agent.  Ruth

PS....Most of my listings get the max pictures and the virtual tours....even on the lower priced listings.  Some just need a way to get noticed above what they are capable of producing.