« Weekday Events Open Thread »

May 4, 2009

Real Estate Blogs: Double-Edged Swords

The opening sentence of the cover story of this weekend's NY Times Real Estate section sets up the article with a false premise: "As unsold properties proliferate and encounters with the scalpel fail to move them, some New York City sellers are being undermined by an often nameless enemy." See, we'd argue that the sellers aren't being undermined at all (except in the case when actually false information is put forth). Rather, in our view, sites like Curbed, Brownstoner and StreetEasy are just expediting the process of bringing sellers' expectations in line with the market—and calling lazy brokers to task for providing insufficient information and sub-par photographs. Input from thousands of other market-savvy readers can also help to bring much needed transparency and frankness to the process, all of which—hopefully—makes the market more efficient. “People are asking questions they can’t ask their broker, and they’re really interested in the qualitative perspective, in getting opinions of people," said Dawn Doherty, the vice president for strategic development at StreetEasy.com. While there have been instances of brokers and owners identifying themselves and countering criticism successfully on Brownstoner in the past, some brokerages are clear gun-shy, and probably with some reason. “We basically do not allow our agents to post comments without prior approval, because we think it’s a can of worms,” said Diane Ramirez, the president of Halstead Property. “Unless something is egregiously incorrect, it’s almost better to let it die, because if you comment on it, it takes on a life of its own.” Some brokers realize that, more often that not, the benefits of publicity are worth the price of a few online pot-shots.
Snark Attack [NY Times]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9583

Comments

It was an interesting article, although didn't really say much that people familiar with any of the blogs mentioned wouldn't already suspect. By the way, I did a double take when I saw the title. I want full credit for that expression :-)

From Brownstoner's April 21, 2009, "Hard Times In Store for Coney Island?" thread:

quote:
It's just a sad, dilapidated dump.
so is brooklyn heights. what's your point?
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at April 21, 2009 10:40 AM

> "what's your point?"
Coming from you, that's comedy gold.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 21, 2009 10:45 AM

"> "what's your point?"
Coming from you, that's comedy gold."
That is what I call one brilliant Snark attack.
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 21, 2009 10:53 AM

Posted by: Biff Champion at May 4, 2009 9:14 AM

Ha!
I was quoted in that NYtimes article with my snarky remark about that 1.6mil condo in that horrid looking building

Posted by: gemini10 at May 4, 2009 9:19 AM

I read it all the way through [yawn] thinking they would surely quote our very own sniper SnarkSlope!

Posted by: cobblehiller at May 4, 2009 9:19 AM

"Some brokers are smart enough to realize that more often that not, the benefits of publicity are worth the price of a few online pot-shots."

In addition to some brokers, we could apply that to a certain Real Housewives of New York City couple!

Posted by: Biff Champion at May 4, 2009 9:24 AM

Perhaps this piece will also inspire other brokers to step up the photos and floorplan offerings with each listing. They must be tired of hearing us say "what lousy pics" and "where's the damn floorplan" because I know I'm tired of saying it!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at May 4, 2009 9:30 AM

Maybe, maybe, but when we sold our apartment last year, I prayed every day it wouldn't show up on brownstoner. If you guys had seen it, I never would have been able to close the deal at the price we did...

Posted by: Park Place at May 4, 2009 9:32 AM

Geez, you guys on Brownstoner want credit for everything ;-)

What next? Someone is going to come on here and take credit for predicting the Mutant Asset Bubble!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at May 4, 2009 9:34 AM

Who am I? I'm the unsilent majority, bigmouth -Paulie from Rocky IV

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 4, 2009 9:35 AM

Am I the only one who found this part of the article to be disturbing:

"After accepting a job in Philadelphia last fall, Diana Lind asked Mr. Butler to feature her two-bedroom prewar apartment in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, as a Co-op of the Day. (Mr. Butler is partial to prewar homes.) The resulting write-up was among the gentler of the breed, calling attention to the apartment’s “magazine-worthy stylings” and “reasonable” asking price of $525,000.

“I would not have done it if it were not a recession and because I needed to sell the apartment in a now-or-never situation,” said Ms. Lind, 27, the editor in chief of an urban policy magazine, Next American City.".

When I go to Japan, I read an English-language paper that proudly states on its front page: "Reporting the news without fear or favor". I guess the blogoshpere is a whole new world where old journalistic standards no longer apply.

I find things to be weird on Brownstoner lately. I'm not used to journals where the publisher complains about his regulars, delights in the mis-fortune of folks opposed to his way of thinking, and (apparently) can be approached about the use of his blog to help sell an apartment.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter if we all have our 15 minutes of fame - our snark published in the NYT!

Carry on....

Posted by: benson at May 4, 2009 9:48 AM

i thought it was a very tired piece. was it written in 1998?

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 4, 2009 9:52 AM

oh yeah and another thing. what is UP with them only posting the ages for people for whom it will seem uber great that they are that young and buying and selling? like blah blah, 27, sold and bought a gazillion dollar apartment. yet people who are like 40 they dont print their age. lol! baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf. i hated everyone mentioned in that article. toolbag city. im moving to detroit baby!

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 4, 2009 9:57 AM

brownstoner really isn't that bad compared to curbed. people on curbed just completely make stuff up. there are ridiculous assumptions and flat out lies. people constantly comment on properties or areas that they no nothing about. given that many buyers are really not always that shrewd, i do think that negative press from anonymous idiots is kinda scary when your financial future is on the line.

Posted by: wine lover at May 4, 2009 10:07 AM

'What next? Someone is going to come on here and take credit for predicting the Mutant Asset Bubble!"

Why do I have to take credit for something that everyone acknowledged?

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at May 4, 2009 10:23 AM

that is very true wine lover, but at the same time when an apartment is fuglily decorated with stuffed animals and granny wallpaper and super overpriced and you choose to advertise on-line, you have to expect ridicule. duh. but yeah curbed is the worst. it's one site where i just read the actual posts and not the replies cuz well the replies fall into the same three replies.. ALWAYS

1.) buy now or be forever priced out forever

2.) douchebag (cant stand that idiotic overused work)

3.) blah blah blah blah nothing

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 4, 2009 10:26 AM

Hello again everyone! I was quite surprised, after my return to NY from a nice overseas sojourn, to see my "medieval layout" comment as the first quote in the NYT piece about snippy comments on RE blogs.
That apartment, in Brooklyn Heights as I recall, had a strange and not very comfortable floorplan, it reminded me of medieval houses in Scotland and Spain that I have visited. I suppose, in retro, that it was a pretty snarky comment. I could have just said it was "impractical" but I guess I have a way with words.
I wonder if it has sold?

Posted by: sam at May 4, 2009 10:27 AM

I don't see why Jon writing about the apartment was a problem. Brownstoner is a blog, not a news journal. Blogs are personal viewpoints and interests, and we shouldn't confuse them with news journalism. Benson- you need to stop looking for things to pick on jon about. You're a regular here too. What does that say?

all in all, an interesting article, i have to say. My feeling is that before the economy tanked, there was a certain feeling on the part of brokers and sellers that they could squeeze every least dollar out of their property with the least amount of work. I've been to open houses where they wanted 1 mil+ and the place was filled with garbage, there was major structural damage and the bathrooms and kitchens looked like someone decorated with a hand grenade. There was the idea that if it was real estate, it could command any price.

Blogs are good for feedback-maybe its a little snarky at times, but it seems to me its a good thing to get a buyer's point of view if you want to sell and get your price.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 10:30 AM

"given that many buyers are really not always that shrewd, i do think that negative press from anonymous idiots is kinda scary when your financial future is on the line."

The lack of shrewdness on the part of buyers cuts both ways, of course.

They can be scared off by moronic posters on the web, and they can be duped into overpaying by unscrupulous realtors.

Every time a realtor dupes a buyer into over paying everyone else who wants to buy suffers, and this creates some unhappiness.

Realtors have so viciously adopted a "buyer beware, if I fool you, that's your fault" attitude for so many years that no one who understands expects anything else of them, and I think a lot of the online venom is a type of retaliation for that attitude.

I think it is better for buyers to have more information and then take responsibility for sifting through it themselves.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 4, 2009 10:32 AM

Not to be snarky, but... didn't they publish almost exactly this same article a few months ago?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 4, 2009 10:34 AM

yeah SS, this is turning into a real circle-jerk,the mainstream media write about the blogs, then the blogs feature the article an the blogs...

Posted by: denton at May 4, 2009 10:43 AM

I could have sworn the NYT wrote an article about the changing (snarkier) tone of real estate blogs within the past several weeks.

Perhaps I dreamt it.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 4, 2009 10:51 AM

"Blogs are personal viewpoints and interests";

Bxgrl;

I can understand opinion pieces. However, be it an opinion piece or news journalism, is there not an ethical requirement of full disclosure? If Mr. B. has an "interest" in an article, should he not reveal it?

What does he mean by "Co-op of the Day"? Is there a criteria for highlighting a particular apartment? Or is it a way for Mr. B to help out his friends or sponsors? Frankly, I am suspicious of anyone who would publicly celebrate the drop in the value of a person's property, simply because that person happened to disagree with him about the merits of a landmarking case.

I do not go around looking for ways to criticize Mr. B. All of the recent actions I describe above are his, and I did nothing to prompt them.

Posted by: benson at May 4, 2009 10:53 AM

Found it:

- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/realestate/25cov.html

"In the past four years, sites like Curbed.com, Brownstoner.com, UrbanDigs.com, TrueGotham.com and The Matrix have been scrutinizing the housing boom with pithy observation and, in some cases, snide commentary."

Snide. Snark. Six of one...

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 4, 2009 11:03 AM

I dunno, "SnarkSlope" has a much better ring to it than "SnideSlope"

;-)

Posted by: benson at May 4, 2009 11:05 AM

benson- what interest would Jon have in the apartment? Was he getting paid? No. was he getting a kick back? I highly doubt it. Co-op if the Day is simply his choice- I odn't see why it is a big deal.

I think you are misconstruing the point of blogs- this is his playground, he sets the rules. that's what blogs are- it never purports to be the NY Times or Reuters or-heven forfend!- the NY Post (which is a perfect example of no journalistic ethics). I never saw Jon reacting with "glee" as you call it. As a person firmly on the side of landmarking, he has a right to celebrate winning that battle- and to be honest, there is absolutely no proof that property owner lost money. It was all in the realm of speculation, not reality.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 11:06 AM

Agreed, benson- snark or snide- it's a slippery slope indeed.:-)

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 11:11 AM

http://instantrimshot.com/

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 4, 2009 11:14 AM

Bxgrl;

Aw come on!!!!!! The article in question is only a few weeks old, but if you need your memory refreshed, here it is:

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2009/04/what_was_eugene.php#comments

He does NOT celebrate the victory in the landmark case. Rather, he invites all to "cop some schadenfreude" at the twentyfive percent cut in the asking price of the opponent's property.

If you think that asking for full disclosure is "miscontruing the rules", well, we'll just have to disagree, and leave it at that.

Posted by: benson at May 4, 2009 11:19 AM

Jon has had the HOTD for years, and the COTD for slightly less time. I always felt that he was highlighting interesting properties because they were either 1)Indicative of changes/trends in the marketplace, both good and bad 2)Fine examples of period architecture in whatever neighborhood the house/apt was in 3)Way cool, different and/or interesting in their own right, and worthy of attention.

The house porn aspect of it appeals to me - I will never get into a fraction of interesting houses through friendship, business or tours, real estate photos let me see period detail, layout and decor in a variety of places. It's harmless, and fun. Some people use the HOTD and COTD to get an idea of comps, and some people have actually gone out and bought these houses from seeing them on Brownstoner.

Throughout this process everyone who cares to has put in their $.02. Sometimes snarky, sometimes downright cruel, sometimes complimentary. Some very interesting discussions have come out of the House of the Day, sometimes pure drivel, sometimes hardly any comments at all. This is a real estate site. It's good to actually look at real estate. I don't see it being any more complicated, or sinister, than that.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at May 4, 2009 11:23 AM

"I'm not used to journals where the publisher complains about his regulars, delights in the mis-fortune of folks opposed to his way of thinking, and (apparently) can be approached about the use of his blog to help sell an apartment."

The blogosphere is NOT journalism. This is the Wild West of communications.

"there are ridiculous assumptions and flat out lies."

Yeah...that never happens here.

"benson- what interest would Jon have in the apartment?"

At the least, (presumably) he was helping out a friend. I guess that has all sorts of potential benefits and implications.

Posted by: East New York at May 4, 2009 11:23 AM

i have no problem with mr. b featuring a property on request, whether it's for a friend or random person. that's his prerogative.

but that's not all that happened. according to the article, once the ft. greene co-op seller got her home listed on the site as a co-op of the day, she praised the property anonymously without disclosing that she was the seller. all in all, a little sketchy.

here's the thread (the seller is apparently "dianabanana"):

http://snipurl.com/hc6kb

Posted by: z at May 4, 2009 11:24 AM

benson- I remember it very well- I also know some of the people involved and must reiterate, there is a lot of background, and the homeowner involved is partially responsible for the entire situation. When they say what goes around, comes around, this is the guy they have in mind.

I'm not disagreeing with you re full disclosure, for those issues and situations where it is proper. But why do you feel Jon owes it to anyone because this is a blog, not a newspaper. Blogs are personal websites- that's a basic premise. I'm not trying to have a confrontation with you- I like debating with you, and you personally. But because I do respect your opinion (even when I'm not agreeing with it :) ) I'm really interested in knowing why there is such animus.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 11:29 AM

Maybe it was for a "Friend With Benefits." That would be an example of a snarky comment.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 4, 2009 11:29 AM

I don't expect Brownstoner or any other blog to live up to the standards of the NY Times. But I do expect full disclosure if the blogger is featuring a property that he was "invited" to feature by a friend, realtor, or anyone. Brownstoner has in the past indicated that an advertiser invited him to view a property. The same disclosure was required in this case.

Posted by: shillstoner at May 4, 2009 11:36 AM

z- i think she pointed out its assets- It's good for potential buyers to hear all sides - good and bad. But having engaged in the Wild west of Brownstoner, I probably would have posted anonymously too about the place. Or risk getting shot down in flames for my own self interest- by other anonymous bloggers with no investment in the property other than their opinion. It does cut both ways- but I don't see where Jon acted unethically, nor really, did the apartment owner. Were she misrepresenting the place or lying about it- that's a different story. But in any case, a buyer would see that if they went to see the place. And then post about it too.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 11:37 AM

The comments on Curbed are mostly idiotic... I can barely click on the "comments" section, because it's the same tired crap.

Streeteasy posters will have you believe it's Armageddon. And, half the posts degenerate into personal attacks that veer so far away from the original subject, that you forget why you clicked on the thread. That also gets tiresome.

I find Brownstoner to be like a bit of fresh air, because most folks seem like fairly rational people. Plus, The What's posts are easy to ignore.

Posted by: broadwayron at May 4, 2009 11:39 AM

"Blogs are personal websites- that's a basic premise. "

Yes, but some blogs--like this one--put themselves forth as a source of relaible and independent information. Brownstoner is not chating about what he did this weekend and the funny things the wee stoners did or the fab find mrs brownstoner got at the flee yada yada yada. He has created a cut-and-dy straight information blog--and by doing so he has created an expectation of some basic journalistic integrity.

Posted by: shillstoner at May 4, 2009 11:41 AM

"I don't expect Brownstoner or any other blog to live up to the standards of the NY Times. But I do expect full disclosure if the blogger is featuring a property that he was "invited" to feature by a friend, realtor, or anyone."

I agree 100% with that.

Posted by: Biff Champion at May 4, 2009 11:42 AM

"nce the ft. greene co-op seller got her home listed on the site as a co-op of the day, she praised the property anonymously without disclosing that she was the seller."

In the Wild West, it's sometimes hard to tell the lawmen from the desperados.

Posted by: East New York at May 4, 2009 11:47 AM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I had always assumed that the HOTD and COTD were drawn from suggestions by others, be they realtors, sellers, potential buyers or regular readers of this blog. I'm not sure Mr. B. has anything to gain by agreeing to highlight the properties (if this is indeed the case) because as we all know, it can get pretty ugly on those threads when it comes to ripping apart decor and layout.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at May 4, 2009 11:49 AM

"I don't expect Brownstoner or any other blog to live up to the standards of the NY Times."

I haven't expected the NY Times to live up to the standards of the NY Times for years...

nor have I been disappointed in my expectations.

Posted by: northsloperenter at May 4, 2009 11:55 AM

I'm all for journalistic integrity but i think the expectations of what this blog- or any other is supposed to be is not what I expect from a real newspaper or journal. I don't think Jon has ever claimed to be a cut and dry information blog, he didn't misrepresent the co-op, the HOTD and COTD are places in his opinion we might be interested in. I don't see where he has to justify his choice or say more than that. He's not a broker so he's not making money off the sale. If this were a broker's blog- then i would expect full disclosure.

This is what the about me says: "Brownstoner.com is a site about Brooklyn real estate and renovation, and all the tangential topics that impact life inside and outside the home in Brooklyn." He doesn't claim to be a reporter or anything else. He is simply presenting topics he thinks people will like reading and commenting on.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 11:59 AM

When we were selling, I emailed brownstoner our FSBO site and he featured it. He liked it, pointed out some positives including a reasonable price. I've never met Jon, and he never emailed me back to say he would or would not list it. (BTW, this was back in the kinder and gentler brownstoner era -- not sure I'd email him today).

Think this is the kind of "relationship" the seller in this article is describing.

Posted by: Ringo at May 4, 2009 12:06 PM

Bxgrl and Ringo;

Please note that the person quoted in the NYT article is the editor-in-chief of an "urban policy" magazine. I would think that providing a favor to such a person IS in Mr. B.'s career interests. Not only monetary transactions require a full disclosure.

As someone put it above, Mr. B has, in the past, mentioned when a sponsor or reader sent something to him for posting. The same should have been done here.

I find that there is a contradiction in Mr. B.'s approach that East NY touches upon. If he wants a free-for-all blog, well, that's fine. If the result is a "Wild West" atmosphere, then don't complain about the results (as he has done). If he wants to aim higher (as he has also proclaimed),then it's up to him to put in place the appropriate standards.

Posted by: benson at May 4, 2009 12:20 PM

I'm in media too -- Brownstoner didn't know that when I emailed him. (and really, urban policy magazine?)

Posted by: Ringo at May 4, 2009 12:34 PM

benson- let's not put this all on Mr. B. If there is anyone to blame for the wild west atmosphere its us posters. On the one hand we bitch about any perceived censorship, on the other hand, we get out of hand on a regular basis.

The point being, none of us is here without wanting to be, and its thanks to Jon we can be. So where's our responsibility? And I find some of the comments directed at Jon are a case of biting the hand that feeds you.

I don't come here to do research and I certainly wouldn't depend on brownstoner to make any important decisions. I come here to talk about topics that interest me, to hear what other people have to say or share, and to have fun with online personas I like, and some of whom I've met offline and like even more. More than that I don't expect from brownstoner and if I don't like his blog I can pick up my toys and go home. But some of the attitude directed at him is way off base.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 4, 2009 12:48 PM

From northsloperenter: "I haven't expected the NY Times to live up to the standards of the NY Times for years..."

Best line today.

Posted by: Nomi at May 4, 2009 1:03 PM

If you value journalistic ethics and disclosure, for goodness sake go out and buy a newspaper. Whether a tip on a HOTD/COTD is coming from a disinterested party or from an owner, I don't see what difference it makes, unless the owner has bought a big ad on the site. Otherwise, I don't see why Brownstoner would be under any pressure to feature the house or consider it on anything but its own merits.
Indie music blogs, and before that, indie zines get their review material from the source and always have, and it doesn't affect the tone of the coverage (unless the record label bought a big ad, but even then, the sell-out ratio is lower than you'd think).
Free media, whether it's Wikipedia, TMZ or an opinionated real-estate blog, operates by different standards and should not be confused with print or online pubs with an actual editorial board and reporting procedures and guidelines. Frills like that cost money.

Posted by: petunia at May 4, 2009 1:19 PM

I once tried to get Brownstoner to post a property I was selling on his weekly openhouse list and was rejected.

I wasn't upset about it. It's up to Brownstoner to post what he wants to. It's his site afterall.

Posted by: IronBalls at May 4, 2009 2:57 PM

It's also crazy that the NY Times article states:

"The best insurance against online mudslinging is also the costliest: Price your place in bear territory — somewhere between 2004 and 2006 prices."

Rents have fallen to 2000/2001 levels and it makes logical sense that sales prices should be around that level too. 2004 prices are WAY TO HIGH.

In 2011, when the Super Depression begins after the hundreds of billions that Bush/Obama wasted to "stabilize" the economy has all been stolen and wasted, NYC housing prices will fall back to 1994 levels, maybe even lower.

Posted by: IronBalls at May 4, 2009 3:08 PM

I really haven't found rents to be 2000/2001 levels. Still seem about 2004/2005 levels to me.

The Jr 1 bed that I rented for 1600 on E. 6th in the East Village in 2004 is going for 1900 today.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 4, 2009 3:43 PM

Benson, you really seem to be picking on Brownstoner. He discloses advertising relationships. He is as objective and transparent as anyone could ask for.

Last year it became a media fad to write about how snarky Gawker was. Now Gawker isn't snarky any more. I certainly hope that doesn't happen on Brownstoner.

NYT is right, the conversations here and the info you can get from Brownstoner and other real estate sites, not to mention Google, is a big phenomenon and worthy of mention. It certainly has become an obsession for me.

Posted by: mopar at May 4, 2009 6:31 PM

« Weekday Events Open Thread »

May 4, 2009

Real Estate Blogs: Double-Edged Swords

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions