Photos of Trashed Listings. Is This a Good Idea?

Ken, I think it's a double-edged sword. Many buyers won't even consider looking at a property if there are no photos online. On the other hand, there is a growing number of buyers who claim to want only foreclosures. You would think that those buyers would know what they are getting into and therefore 'trashy' photos wouldn't be a problem.

If the price is in harmony with the photos, why not post the photos?

The home should be in presentable and safe condition to sell.  If not, then advise in agent notes.  But, I wouldn't add the photos that detract.  If it's a bank-owned, they normally have it "trashed-out".  If it's a short-sale, then get the owner to take care of the issues or take them on yourself at your own expense, but be advised that the bank likely won't reimburse you even if you present a bill for the expense.  Don't place photos of disrepair, damage, etc. unless you don't want a sale, IMHO. 

This is a great question. In many ways, its a "Glass half full, half empty" perspective.

Half Empty: Negative outlook towards the home and neighborhood where people will click right off because they don't want to deal with such a property in disrepair.

Half Full: You are being realistic with the actual condition of the property and not wasting your time or other prospects time showing it to people who are not prepared for the condition.

After thinking about it, i tend to come down on the "Show The Pictures" You are being real, and looking for buyers who want this type of deal. Great question that will need more thought...but thats my simple take for now.

Hi Ken ~ I think I would opt for a description and an exterior shot.  We're not in the business of shock and awe / titillation IMO - and that's what I think of when I think about showing the photos of the destruction - they become more of a conversation piece than a sales tool.

Liz

My vote: pictures, of course!  And, if you are working with REO, be sure to update the pictures after the property is trashed out. Buyers and their agents need to know what they are walking into when they tour.

On another note, I hate it when listing agents use pictures from earlier listings. That's false advertising in my book.

Homes in disrepair and messy usually bring less than a repaired home that has been staged. 

I think that you should have the photos.  Some people are looking for that kind of property and some are not.  By showing what the interior looks like, you'll weed out the people who were hoping that the home looked better than it actually does.  And you'll set up your seller for realistic showings and feedback. 

Feedback I get from people is that if there no pictures or not enough they drop the site immediately. So ... any picture is better than no picture.

This is a tough one.  I think probably show the pictures, especially if the condition of the house has been explained in the remarks.  I would probably try to show the best of the worst pictures though and not necessarily every gory detail.

I'd rather see a photo with holes in the wall with none at all.  Let's face many agents attempt to put "lipstick on a pig" when they describe a home.  Then you get there and find it will not be suitable for your clients.  It is a waste of time for buyers agents and buyers. 

When I was actively selling Real Estate I found it personally of great help and often would not show properties that didnt have pictures. You see, I always previewed homes before I showed them to my clients and, as only I know what my clients want and don't want (ie fixer upper vs. fine finished), pictures saved me days of time of sorting through what may work for my buyer. So please, even if they are bad, post pics.

Hi Ken,

Wow... this is a really good question.  And like many good questions, there probably isn't just one "right answer".

On a "plain vanilla" listing, I really only like photos that add to the enticement of trying to get feet through the front door.  Attractive photos only.  Keep shooting until I get a nice handful of attractive photos.  No "documentary film making".  I am not Ken Burns.

If the home is a fixer upper there is no hiding it. Being up front is good not to waste time. If the place gets cleaned up and the junk is removed just update the pictures. You can't hide the fact that there are holes in the wall. I showed a home with no heater. The bank was up front that they weren't putting one in but they didn't want to come down either.  They made it clear from the beginning so my clients didn't waste too much time.

Buyers will lowball the price anyway. If the house is vacant, though, I would pay somebody to come clear it out and get it broom-clean. If not, I would get a few photos of the best rooms and cover the condition thoroughly in the remarks. It's not right to waste buyers' (and agents') time by having them schedule a showing of a house just to see what it's like inside.

I have a multi-family property listed for sale with this same issue.

Cheers,

Robin

Be carefull about those slippery sidewalks etc. You don't want to leave any liability issues open.

What bugs me and buyers is when the agent doesn't bother with a new MLS exterior photo at all and uses the old MLS photo from 2005 or 2006 (when the house looked great).  At least a current exterior photo would help!  How hard is it to take a photo of the front and the back as it looks now?

I probably would skip interior photos if the place looked as bad as that, most foreclosure listings don't have interior pictures - Buyers are looking only because of the low price and should expect less than good condition. 
BTW, That's not a body with pajamas and pink fluffy bedroom slippers on (on the floor in front of the smaller couch) is it ?????