Good photos sell houses. I've convinced of that, but I've recently become convinced of something else. Good photos cause houses not to sell. Does that sound like I might be contradicting myself? Absolutely. Are both statements true? Absolutely. How could that be?
Recently, I've been showing a lot of houses. Normally, a high percentage of my buyers find a house online, call me, we look at it and I write a contract. I like that pattern, but once in a while I have to revert to the old days where I actually research houses, set up appointments and drive around showing them.
I've shown 50 plus houses in the past week. During those showings I noticed a trend. The listing on the MLS had amazing photographs. The listings looked like a magazine spread. I could hardly wait to get to the houses to show them. I was sure my buyers would scoop one up lickety-split. It didn't happen.
Why didn't they buy right away? The houses didn't live up to their photographs. The photos were amazing, and the houses were so-so. Some were lower than so-so. My buyers commented on everyone one that didn't meet its photo-spread. They said, "The houses didn't live up to their photographs."
I appreciate a good photo layout in the MLS, but I do want the house I'm impressed with to look like the house in the photographs. Good photographs sell houses, but good photographs can cause houses not to sell too.
Good photos sell houses. Good photos cause houses not to sell.
Comments(59)