I keep meaning to come back to Barry Bevis and his discussion about what to do about “stale” listings, but I’ve got too much on my plate right now. In the mean time, let’s talk about this house:
Killer, huh? I mean, it’s a totally breathtaking expression of what modern architecture can be. Here it is looking back the other way:
The view is Camelback Mountain. It’s not just an incredible house, it sits on almost an acre of some of the priciest land in Phoenix.
A house to die for, not? Well, not to die for, but certainly to live for, to scrimp and save for, to dream that, one day, you might be able to own this home.
But look closely at those photos… They seem a little… schmutzy… Don’t they?
The listing for this home expired yesterday. There were a total of six photos for the listing — I’m not making this up. And all six of the photos were like the three I’m showing here.
That’s not quite true: The other three were worse.
What’s wrong with them? They’re scans… At some time or another, some magazine wrote up this home — easy to understand why. And then the listing agent made the photos for this listing by scanning from the magazine. That’s why they’re schmutzy — it’s dust on the scanner surface or perhaps damage to the paper on which the images were printed. That’s why there are moires in the images, as well. It’s the scanner’s grid of pixels creating an interference pattern with the half-tone dots of the printed images.
But wait. There’s more. This is the descriptive copy from the listing — on my honor absolutely sic:
Remarks: cHECK OUT THIS AWESOME CONTEMORARY LOCATED IN THE HEART OF ARCADIA WITH THE MOST UNBELIEVABLE VIEWS OF CAMELBACK MOUNTAIN. THIS SUPER CONTEMPORARY WITH SURLY IMPRESS YOUR CLIENTS. VERY FEW HOMES LIKE THIS ARE AROUND, AND WITH LOCATION, VIEWS, AND FINISHES. GATED COMMUNITY AND GATED FRONT DRIVE WILL ENSURE YOUR CLIENTS PRIVACY REAR DRIVE OFFERS ACCESS TO GARAGE AND MULTI-CAR PARKING. AWESOME KITCHEN, KILLER MASTER SUITE, AND 3 ADDITIONAL SUITES THAT OFFER BATH AND PRIVATE COURTYARD ACCESS.
List price? A buck short of $2,000,000.
Time on market: 366 days.
Richard Riccelli laughs at me because the NAR’s Code of Ethics forbids me from knocking on doors and saying, “Not to make a nuisance of myself, but here’s why your house is not selling.” But think what a service it would have been to the hapless owner of this amazing structure if someone had shown him what was passing for marketing for his two million dollar home.
Here’s my take: I would not actually kill to list this home for sale, but if it were mine to sell, I might inadvertently knock you down if you came between me and something I wanted done. I can’t think of a better opportunity than this property for Realtors to answer the question every consumer should be asking, especially in light of marketing efforts like this one: What do I need you for?
If we don’t market homes for sale — getting the best price on the best terms in the best time frame — then sellers don’t need us. If all we are is clerks, if all we do is put listings in the MLS and then beg for price reductions — then sellers don’t need us. There is nothing the seller of this home got, in exchange for the promise of a huge paycheck, that he could not have had for $199 from Help-U-Fail.com.
If you’re not actually going to sell the house — what the hell do sellers need you for…?
You sure as hell better have an answer for that question. Because on top of everything else I’m doing, I’m sure as hell going to teach sellers to ask it…
Karen Highland says:
Whenever I saw poor efforts like this, I used to think “Lack of training.” Lately, I’m not thinking that so much. The training and tips that an agent can get on the internet, for FREE, mind you, make this kind of sloppy effort just plain wrong.
and…DON’T YOU HATE IT WHEN AGENTS YELL THEIR REMARKS!
April 9, 2009 — 11:30 am
Ronan Doyle says:
The marketing of this home was blatant malpractice. End of discussion.
April 9, 2009 — 11:39 am
Grog says:
Wow…is there someone pompous enough to live in that Mausoleum?
April 9, 2009 — 12:26 pm
Ashlee says:
WOW! Talk about a major mis-service to a client. And to think that the client had no idea why his house wasnt selling!
April 9, 2009 — 12:51 pm
Travis Bohling says:
The agent must not have needed that $60,000 commission check.
April 9, 2009 — 1:35 pm
Joshua Hanoud says:
At $2Mil – is the home priced right?
Not that the marketing efforts in the MLS weren’t deplorable, because they were – but if the home is worth $1.5Mil and the seller won’t list it for less than $2Mil – I’d turn down the listing….but many other agents would take it at the $2Mil and then do as little as possible to market the virtually unsellable product for an unrealistic seller.
Not that it’s not worth $2Mil – I just don’t know the market in Phoenix.
If it IS worth $2Mil all day long, then shame on the agent for doing such a shoddy job, and shame on the seller for not doing the most basic checking up on how their $2Mil investment is being handled.
It’s crazy…many people put more time/effort into getting a haircut than in working with their agent to sell their most expensive of investments…
Blame goes all the way around on this one…
April 9, 2009 — 2:06 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
I hope these owners discover you. This house deserves the very best.
April 9, 2009 — 3:17 pm
Cameron Keegan says:
I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I see this kind of thing in my MLS. No descriptive text whatsoever, just a comma-delimited list of features in the remarks. Then again, sometimes there is descriptive text completely lacking of any proper grammar, and God forbid they use spell check. My favorites though, Acreage: 0.00 or Year Built: ____. Oh, so this single-family home floats in mid-air, and was never built!
April 9, 2009 — 8:10 pm
Simon says:
Too bad that house isnt for sale. I would certainly dream of having it one day.
Hope that no one paid 2,000,000$ for a scanned paper 🙂
April 10, 2009 — 4:11 am
CJ Brasiel says:
Greg, I like the points you bring up. Although the service you imply this agent is lacking may very well be real there, can also be explanations. What if the owners are so proud of the article they “demanded” the agent use these specific photos? You really never know. I agree that it is probably not the case but sellers can be quite demanding and some agents are ineffective in changing their minds. That may be the agent’s true fatal flaw not necessarily their poor marketing techniques. Good points in your post.
April 10, 2009 — 7:42 am
Mark Brian says:
I think it is a shame I have homes that are listed for much less that have more pictures. But I see it all the time, a listing expires after 6 months or a year and no pictures were ever uploaded.
April 10, 2009 — 8:22 am
Greenville SC Real Estate says:
Or the pictures taken are of the oddest things. I remember showing a house about 6 months ago. Nice 2,900sf house, great condition, but only 5 pictures, and one was zoomed in on a transom. That’s it, just a transom.
April 10, 2009 — 9:12 am
teresa boardman says:
Since when did you follow the COE? It is against the code to trash anyone who is a Realtor. You don’t even get to call them evil.
April 11, 2009 — 7:49 am
Greg Swann says:
> Since when did you follow the COE? It is against the code to trash anyone who is a Realtor. You don’t even get to call them evil.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, but I have not violated the NAR’s Code of “Ethics”:
The Code of “Ethics” exists to protect and enshrine mediocrity at the consumer’s expense, but there is nothing even close to a violation of it in this post.
April 11, 2009 — 8:04 am
Brian Brady says:
“It is against the code to trash anyone who is a Realtor.”
I never understood the anti-competition clause in the “code”. It’s hard for me, as lender, who plays in the world where a deal is not a deal until the check clears, to grasp why the “code” forbids competing for business.
Can anyone answer how non-solicitation benefits anyone else other than the REALTOR?
April 11, 2009 — 8:19 am