« Co-op of the Day: 135 Prospect Park West, #44B Streetlevel: Vin Rouge Goes Dark »

February 2, 2009

House of the Day: 1217 Ditmas Avenue

Why do sellers keep using brokers who haven't figured out how to take a decent digital photograph? This was the first thing that popped into our mind as we looked at this new listing at 1217 Ditmas Avenue on the Kestyn website. (We lifted the exterior photo above from PropertyShark.) The second was that this one-family house (with two-car garage) could benefit from some staging. After all, it has some respectable bones but it has a very drab, dated feel to it. Declutter the furniture, take down those drapes, punch it up a bit, and you'd definitely have a better shot at achieving the $999,000 asking price. And get a broker who won't cut corners on the photos. You have to put your best foot forward in this market.
1217 Ditmas Avenue [Kestyn] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8197

Comments

I kind of wonder how important photos are? They make for good real estate porn, but do they sell the property? If it is the right size in the right neighborhood for the right price, you call the agent and take a look at it. Anyone who is seriously looking for a house is looking for code words (TLC, "bring your architect") and specifics. Not pretty pictures.

Posted by: amanda at February 2, 2009 1:30 PM

Amanda I couldn't agree less. You definitely look at the pictures. It's the first impression people have and it gives them that intangible *feel* for the property. To me, I look at this and it reads dreary. So even though the place might be fantastic when people walk in with the dreary feeling they might not be as open to looking at it's assets.

It's a proven fact, staging and good marketing work.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at February 2, 2009 1:37 PM

Besides, this is your home. It's not like you're selling off some old chipped dishes on Ebay. It's one of your greatest assets. Why should you not put it's best foot forward? Why go into the selling process half-heartedly? Shouldn't the seller want to everything possible to get top dollar for it?

I just don't understand the strategy behind not properly showcasing it.

Posted by: TownhouseLady at February 2, 2009 1:42 PM

Whadya mean dated? It's got a nice modern flat panel TV.

Posted by: Bklnite at February 2, 2009 1:48 PM

TownhouseLady, I couldn't agree more. In any business, whether it is selling a house, or a job interview or selling lemonade, you can't loose by putting your best foot forward.

Posted by: JoeBushwick at February 2, 2009 1:49 PM

people are dumb.

Posted by: wine lover at February 2, 2009 2:07 PM

And you'd be at the top of the list, wine lover, with that comment you made on the Bushwick post.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 2, 2009 2:10 PM

THL - completely agree
that place seems packed with old furniture and "Tcotchkes"
it's screaming to be staged or at least have more space so people can view the house and not all the seller's crap!

Posted by: gemini10 at February 2, 2009 2:10 PM

Artfully staged, well-lighted and thoughtfully taken photos on a quality camera go a very long way towards capturing an audience for a given property. It wont make a potential buyer sign the contract or coax an offer in and of itself, but it will get the appropriate audience interested and in the door. The lighting and spatial arrangement of a property during a showing or open house have a similarly critical impact on the all-important first impressions of a property, and the photos will, more often than not, become the lasting visual record to refer after a buyer's first (sometimes only) visit to a particular property.

Posted by: housebywe at February 2, 2009 2:12 PM

"Why do sellers keep using brokers who haven't figured out how to take a decent digital photograph"

I went to see this house. They did use a decent digital camera. The place is as dummpy in real life as it is in the photos.

Posted by: jasetheace at February 2, 2009 2:24 PM

The pictures may be bad MR. B. they must have been good enough for you since you've made this house of the day

Posted by: italiana71 at February 2, 2009 2:25 PM

On the other hand, properties with bad photos, non-existent staging can be real deals. There are so many people out there who cannot imagine pulling up a carpet (that may be covering pristine floors), cleaning out all the crap. There was a unit in my building where the two women who lived there refused to clean the place out (ugly carpeting, cluttered kitchen, stacks of papers - just screamed "old ladies") and it sold for at least $100K less than it should have.

Posted by: BH76 at February 2, 2009 2:27 PM

It's anti-marketing! Draw people in by letting them think they'll get a deal.

Posted by: Susan Elkins at February 2, 2009 2:43 PM

There is something to be said for staging and professional photos, but I agree with Amanda, I think most home buyers are looking at the keywords/stats/neighborhood info/etc.

A smart home buyer will look at the structure, the bones of the property, and be unconcerned with the staging. The majority of home buyers renovate/paint/decorate/etc to their own liking, regardless of how the house was staged.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but staging never mattered to me, the stats of the house were the selling points.

Posted by: christopher at February 2, 2009 2:50 PM

Totally agreed christopher.

Looks like the staging professionals are out in full force today! Serious home buyers (myself included) are on alert for even the lowest-key listings with rinky-dink, no-name brokers. I've never *not* gone to see a house because the photos were crappy. If anything, I'm happy to hear that I'll have less competition in my house search.

Posted by: bk14 at February 2, 2009 2:57 PM

But Christopher and Amanda, why on earth would you only limit yourself to serious buyers looking specifically in that neighborhood and price range? To rule out all the casual lookers who show up attracted by the pretty house photos is a huge mistake. My husband and I were only casually checking out the neighborhood and we ended up buying our present house. You hear those stories all the time. When I bought my house in CA, I was intrigued by the photos and went to see the house even though it was a bit out of my price range and I didn't plan to buy it. Loved it, bought it.

Plus even if the only purpose the casual lookers serve is to fill the house during open houses so the serious buyers make an offer more quickly, that's a great thing. If serious buyers show up at an open house and there's nobody there, it's a ghost town, that does not help you. At all. Those people will know there's no other interest or offers and they'll wait it out to see if the price drops or lowball you. They'll hardly offer asking price if nobody is showing up at the open houses.

Posted by: traditionalmod at February 2, 2009 3:04 PM

traditionalmod, I hear what you're saying...

... I guess my thing is that even when I was a casual looker/buyer I was not swayed by the photos. What got me interested were things that sounded interesting (location, specs, etc).

I looked at tons of houses/condos/co-ops, some staged well, some not, but I was never once sold on a house by either (in fact I've seen amazingly staged homes that I laugh at because the baseboards don't line up and the fridge door can't open because the dishwasher is in the way...).

I suppose it's just a personal thing...
(as a side note, traditionalmod, are you more a lambretta or vespa leaning mod? ;) )

Posted by: christopher at February 2, 2009 3:25 PM

Just my two cents: I think in today's world where everyone is sooo busy with everything else in life, the internet becomes the first layer of house hunting for many. If the pics don't look good, you can potentially exclude a serious number of people. That being said, I would prefer to go after a house that hasn't been staged. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, staged houses go for higher prices. Why not get a little discount (even if only a couple grand) because the seller didn't bother to box up grandma's excessive doll collection. To me, it's the lack of a floor plan that's unforgiveable. Even if you have to draw one out by hand with approximations on the dimensions and scan it into your computer, dammit, put it there!!! When I look at a realtor's site, if the property doesn't have a floor plan listed or the floorplan is unacceptable to me, I don't even bother looking at the interior photos. I have to admit the only reason I looked at the photos for this listing is because I was curious what you all were talking about in terms of being 'dreary' etc.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at February 2, 2009 3:47 PM

There are certainly 2 valid sides to this issue, and I find myself coming down on both sides, depending on whether I am buyer or seller, and price of the property.

Seems to me, if I were selling or a broker, all listings should have many photos and those pictures should showcase clean, uncluttered spaces that shows off the best architectural features of the house. Within that, I don't think you should strip the home of personality. I disagree with HGTV's shows that paint everything beige, and take out all indications that real people inhabit the home. If you can't picture the red wall in some other color, and that decides whether or not you buy it, you don't really want it.

Since taste is certainly subjective, I wouldn't worry about whether your decor is grandma or cutting edge, unless you are selling the furniture with the house. Clean! That's what counts, Clean and uncluttered.

That said, as a buyer, the dumpier, the better for me. I've seen houses that looked like the Collyear brothers lived there, with peeling paint, nasty rugs on the floor and fly paper hanging from the ceiling. Some buyers at this open house literally ran from the building in horror. I loved it. Under all that crap were great period details, good sized rooms, and a fine, undervalued house. An inspection would be the final determination, not the stacks of magazines growing in the corner. Less competition, and a weeding out of those with no vision. Also some major re-negotiation for junk. That's my kind of house.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at February 2, 2009 4:08 PM

Christopher, I wish I were brave enough to drive either scooter! But I'm a chicken mod.

Posted by: traditionalmod at February 2, 2009 4:31 PM

Frankly, a seller should ALWAYS try to put forth the best image possible. Of course, do it within financial reason and understand that you cannot sell a pig by putting on the lipstick - at least not in this market. To me a floorplan is crucial - usually more important than pictures. But brokers should know that savvy buyers can easily weed out the losers, can see the diamond in the rough, and arent swayed by nice staging. Seriously, if I see another 12 by 15 living area that seems huge because the broker staged with a nice 48-inch love seat (instead of sofa) and a two-person drop leaf table and photoed with a wide angle lens i will kill myself. Talk about wasting my time.

Posted by: saminthehood at February 2, 2009 6:14 PM

We saw this house a few times and considered making an offer about 5 months back. It was not cluttered and the kitchens and baths are renovated (not my taste, but new/clean). Overall the family has kept the house in good condition. I don't know how much staging you can do with teenage kids around. I am surprised that no one has bought it. We decided it was just too long of a commute. Under 1mil it is a nice home especially if you have a big family. Pictures aside, I wonder if there is something else wrong with it. It was one of the better kept houses we saw.

Posted by: bqe1970 at February 2, 2009 7:53 PM

Interesting to read all these comments. I'm definitely of the masses who needs good photos and some degree of good staging to make me want to look at a place. Though, in this case the photos are not nearly as poor as many I've seen. And, though the decor is an impediment, I am able to see through it at least well enough to recognize a beautiful old house.

I'm not looking for real, but one of my frequent insomnia activities is looking through the online listings, often for hours at a time. I am incredulous at how poor most of the photos are. Many are even taken at night! Even a mediocre photograph taken with natural light coming in the window would be an improvement. The couple of people here who are able to project past these impressions are in a distinct minority. (Good for them!) For the rest of us boobs, it's well-known that these first impressions, whether through photos or when you walk in the door, are crucial.

Posted by: Nomi at February 2, 2009 9:03 PM

Here's the problem -- how do you tell a seller that he/she has poor taste? I have dealt with sellers who wouldn't change anything, no matter what. I have even spent my own money to fix up other peoples' houses to sell them only to have them destroy what I'd done. I'm sorry, someone willing to pay good money for a house may not want to see your decor and your clutter, not to mention your crappy floors and peeling paint. Houses don't sell themselves anymore. I feel sorry for this broker, who probably tried to convince the seller to make changes only to be refused. I keep telling people, once you put your house on the market you can't live there for real anymore. It has to be pristine at all times, and totally de-cluttered. Some people aren't willing to go there, and that will cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

Posted by: babs at February 2, 2009 10:00 PM

Yes, babs, good point from an agent's side of things. I can think of numerous people I know who simply would not be willing to do the things normally necessary to sell a house within a reasonable amount of time. AND, I'd bet many of those same people would be stubborn about bringing the price down to compensate.

Posted by: Nomi at February 2, 2009 11:35 PM

My first screening is internet screening. There are plenty of houses, if the they look crap in the photos I'm unlikely to pursue them further. I'm like a bored HR manager trying to find a way to eliminate half the resumes.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 8:22 AM

« Co-op of the Day: 135 Prospect Park West, #44B Streetlevel: Vin Rouge Goes Dark »

February 2, 2009

House of the Day: 1217 Ditmas Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions