How do you improve Housenetworks service?

googler

Two schools of thought to the "27 photos of their house, limit it to around 8 - 10 max".

A lack of photographs might put off potential viewers, as there is no clue as to what's outside the limited set of photos. There's more to be learned from a personal inspection; but that personal inspection may turn out to be a disappointment.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that small numbers of photos and taciturn descriptions might mark out sellers who have something they don't want to tell about their property, with all that may imply in terms of uncompleted work, horrors in the bathroom, etc.

A small photo set may reflect a seller who thinks that 'less is more', but might well produce a reaction in the viewer of "What's wrang wi' the rest o' it, that they dinnae have any photos?"

chickmug

Davesnave wrote: »

Personally, I think they should stop allowing sellers to load about 27 photos of their house and limit it to around 8 - 10 max.

Some people cannot grasp the idea that a wealth of photographs might put off potential viewers, as there is no air of mystery left, nothing left to the imagination and, inferentially, little more to be learned from a personal inspection; about as exciting as a formula novel, if you like.

Yes, I know we are all rational creatures, but the element of surprise, or at least the potential to be surprised, remains important.

Also, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that large numbers of photos and verbose descriptions generally mark out sellers who think their property 'special,' with all that may imply in terms of inflexibility on an already inflated price. Occasionally, it also reflects desperation on the part of the agent, seller, or both.

Thanks I agree with your points.

A difficult one as many sellers feel more photos mean the agent is trying harder. We used to use minimum of 12 an up to 22. But apart from the usual shots we always tried to get in street scenes and local shots which no other agent seems to do???

googler

becs wrote: »

A house is (worth) what someone is prepared to pay for it and sometimes local agents vastly underestimate this because they want quick turnaround and easy sales.

Are you suggesting that the EAs in your area routinely undervalue houses in order to push more sales through?

Or that your one EA merely didn't foresee that your one buyer was prepared to pay extra for the 'special-ness' of your house?

If the latter, it's stretching things a bit to extend this one instance to a generalisation of "vastly underestimate this because they want quick turnaround and easy sales"

chickmug

Interesting points about photos.

The truth is most agents are too arrogant to mend their ways and keep perpetuating the bad practices. They have their template set in stone especially for Sales Details. And especially the National ones. But in the same way every home if different you need a different template to turn to.

Another big problem is many agents can't take a decent picture, or use a crap camera, or it is not wide enough lens, or can' tweak in the software and they again are so arrogant they feel no need to spend time and money on the right equipment or basic training for nayone who uses the cameras.

Davesnave

chickmug wrote: »

Interesting points about photos.
Another big problem is many agents can't take a decent picture, or use a crap camera, or it is not wide enough lens, or can' tweak in the software and they again are so arrogant they feel no need to spend time and money on the right equipment or basic training for nayone who uses the cameras.

Dead right. It's no accident that the 'expensive' agents, like say, Savills, rarely put a foot wrong where photos are concerned. They know where and how to use a 24/28mm lense, because someone properly trained, or hired, does the pictures. Do they use 27 photos, though?

When we sold a property in 2006, the agent fell into the flower bed and broke the camera, which gave me an opportunity to shoot a set for her, rather than have whatever she wanted to give us. Some of that agent's photos were fine, but it seemed to depend on who went out to the house.

When we came to sell another house, the agent we first wanted refused to allow us to do a picture, even though the sun was only on the face of the house late in the afternoon. We went with another who was prepared to work with us. I did the main shot, and Photoshopped it too. No agent is going to spend 30 minutes getting one picture right.

Becs, I'm sure your house was worth every penny, and the new one is worth even more.;)

googler

chickmug wrote: »

....apart from the usual shots we always tried to get in street scenes and local shots which no other agent seems to do???

Down my way, I see agents listing houses that are internally like showhouses, with not a hair out of place, but externally, the area's a bombsite. If it were me, I wouldn't show an external photo - let the viewers do a drive-by first......

googler

Davesnave wrote: »

Dead right. It's no accident that the 'expensive' agents, like say, Savills, rarely put a foot wrong where photos are concerned. They know where and how to use a 24/28mm lense, because someone properly trained, or hired, does the pictures. Do they use 27 photos, though?

I did the main shot, and Photoshopped it too. No agent is going to spend 30 minutes getting one picture right.

Got to pay the photographer's fees somehow, nobody works for free, and if that winds up being 'expensive', then so be it....

Savills typically have around 8 or 10 photos on their downloadable schedules. Frankly, I think they could do with changing this aspect of their online offering, but....

Question for Chickmug; does photoshopping as described above qualify as a property misdescription?

chickmug

googler wrote: »

Question for Chickmug; does photoshopping as described above qualify as a property misdescription?

Depends what you do in Photoshop.

Sharpening, saturating, brightening and such is OK. Cloning out temporary objects is OK such as rusty old car, temporary traffic lights. But cloning out permanent objects is not OK such as telegraph poles, pylons etc. Also need to make sure the angle of the shot is not taken to deliberately hide an 'ugly' object.

Also 28 mm wide is Ok but 20mm is not although no set point at which it changes. 'Anything an EA does to make the consumer take an action they wouldn't of otherwise taken if the information had been more accurate is wrong' - to me sums up the essence of the legislations.

Davesnave

chickmug wrote: »

Also need to make sure the angle of the shot is not taken to deliberately hide an 'ugly' object.

I was so tempted to do a MIL joke here, but resisted.... Anyway, she's far from temporary.:rolleyes:

I waited till you'd answered, but all I did was crop and adjust levels. No cloning. At the time, the neighbour did have a rusty 'bay window' VW Caravette on their drive, but I was able to avoid it, and sun flare, by standing inside the rear of my bright yellow Transit.

Naturally, now I have sold, both of us have more tasteful transportation.:rotfl:

not_loaded

chickmug wrote: »

…But apart from the usual shots we always tried to get in street scenes and local shots which no other agent seems to do???

I think that’s an excellent idea. I agree though that obviously if the area’s not up to it, you shouldn’t.

googler wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the EAs in your area routinely undervalue houses in order to push more sales through?…

When considering selling, two out of the six we had in seemed to routinely undervalue. They also sell properties quickly. The other four seemed to have a better grip on what the seller might actually want out of the deal. Of course if you want a quick sale that’s how it will work.

Davesnave wrote: »

…there is no air of mystery left, nothing left to the imagination and, inferentially, little more to be learned from a personal inspection; about as exciting as a formula novel, if you like.
Yes, I know we are all rational creatures, but the element of surprise, or at least the potential to be surprised, remains important…

My surprise is in the cellar. I can’t show a photo, as it doesn’t like bright lights… :cool: