I was just wondering if the numbers of pictures included in flyers, websites, etc. have any correlation to people calling for a showing?

How many is too many, or is there no such thing? How many is too few?

I like to be able to see a good portion of the rooms in pictures to get an idea if it would be a place I'm interested in. But a place with tons of pictures, is it easy to assume you've got the whole picture (pardon the pun) and just move on, potentially not getting the true feel for a house but not seeing it in person? I know I worry that there might be issues with a home when there are too few pictures or pictures of odd areas. A comp house I was researching took pictures of the water heater in a closet, the garage, but not of any of the bathrooms or other bedroom.

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but any input would be interesting to know.

It depends on the buyer, and few pictures is not necessarily a "red flag," either.

I didn't care how many pics a place had. It was nice if they did have pictures, but if the MLS fit our criteria, we scheduled a showing. Even lots of good pics won't show "hidden" problems like structural issues, the messy neighbor, or a leaky basement/crawlspace.

However, a good friend of mine wouldn't even consider a listing that didn't have at least 10 pictures. I never did understand that logic - she missed out on some good houses!

When we listed our house, we only had 4 pictures. The agent was supposed to return the next day and take more pictures but never did. (I wasn't happy, but the house sold in less than two months, so no harm done I guess). We had nothing to hide. The house was in great shape, new windows, new roof, fresh paint, clean, etc. (no, not a flip, we just took good care of it and spruced it up during the time we lived there).

No inside shots = red flag.

Peculiar shots, like say, a close-up of the shower tile, but no wide shot of the bathroom, or a shot of the front door and no picture of the front of the house, also = red flag.

Otherwise, I like lots of pictures.

I agree with Daisy -- no inside pics is a red flag for me. I like to see multiple pictures, but seriously don't need to see pictures of the broom closet or pantry or laundry room unless it's spectacular. Must haves for me -- picture of exterior front, kitchen, living room, master bedroom, master bath, back yard.

To me the kitchen pic is the most important. If the kitchen is not large enough for me, I'll pass on the house even if the rest of it is magnificent.

Timely Topic!
Just took a seminar and on the subject of photos, the "expert" says 'less is more'.
His take is if you show too much then buyers feel they don't have to "see" it.
Then they miss that all important "feel factor".

So - YIKES!
I hear folks on the board say "I need lots and lots of photos. Then the expert (?) says "leave something for a surprise"...

Well shucks....whats a girl too do?

Pictures are key. Front distance, front closer up with side space. Front entry, LR or great room, dining room, master, at least one of other BRS, pool area, distant back of home including yard facing home, back of home closer with side space. If waterfront, should be first picture.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: real estate lady,

quote:

His take is if you show too much then buyers feel they don't have to "see" it.
Then they miss that all important "feel factor".

In general, I think that is a good idea. My realtor friend does not include pictures on the flyers left in the front lawn tube, for the reasons cited above.

However, on the MLS listing and on her website , the same realtor friend -- who also happens to be an excellent photographer -- will post several high quality shots of the most compelling aspects of the interior and exterior -- not lots of lousy little shots that don't show much.

If the house is particularly handsome, she will pay a videographer to do a 360 degree video tour which she posts online.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boricua,

There were too many houses when we were looking to not narrow it down considerably. That meant automatically discarding any with one or no photo. (It is not possible to stand out in our price range with a single outside photo.)

While I don't need photos of every single room, 'being mysterious' just irritates me. I think a lot of marketing people don't understand how the Internet has changed how people shop...

Our last home just sold again. There were 25 photos on realtor.com. There was only one ad, early on, in our weekend Real Estate magazine. There were no open houses. The house was on the market for several months and just sold, very close to list price.

A picture is worth a thousand words. In some cases (like showing a hot water heater as one of several pictures) it can be a thousand negative words!

Here's one blogger who thinks (and presents some data that) more photos help the house sell faster:

http://activerain.com/blogsview/281326/Buyers-Photoless-Listings-15

I think the more photographs the better BUT they need to be quality ones. One or two of the front exterior, one or two of the backyard or rear exterior, minimum one each of every bath and bedroom, several each of kitchen area, dining area and family/living room(s).

Forget areas like pantry, laundry room, closets and such... Buyers can see those while looking but they won't even come to look with just four or five pictures in this market!

Sorry to disagree with your "expert" about this idea of using only a few pictures as a carrot to get more rabbits to come see the whole garden but, in this market, I think he or she is flat out wrong!

Did you pay for this seminar? Seriously? Or was it one put on by a real estate company in hopes of getting your listing with a built-in lesser expections/acceptance of cheaper advertising?

Edited to add: Just re-read the posts and saw it was Trueheart who attended that seminar and not the OP. So, Trueheart, what do you think? Who put on the seminar - complimentary or for fee? Is it possible they were hoping for some listings that wouldn't expect much advertising and/or costs for posting photgraphs?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Idaho Resident,

Lots are better, but if your are pasting them in your own website, make sure they are sized appopriately, both pixel size and file size, so you are not forcing users to download a dozen one megabyte photos. Make photos 60kb or less.

If a house has good curb appeal/location/neighborhood and few pics, but high quality pics and meet my specs, I would definately go inside. New listings that do not have pics posted yet, but meet my specs, interest me too, I always wait for the pics and go back and check listing.
No inside or yard shots is RED FLAG to me.

I use to not like the 360 tours...most are terrible, music bad, lighting bad, but when I have seen the REALLLY high quality ones, it makes the listing so much better.
It seems some realtors are listing 4 pics and then a GREAT "TOUR". I like that setup, especially if you are shopping for out of town property.
I love when the realtor posts the floor plan as a picture.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: delta blues,

Idaho -
Oh yes - I Paid!
He had good points in other areas of marketing , however I just couldn't wrap my brain around what was being 'taught' and what you folks here say.

(see you guys make me a better Realtor )
Don't worry about paying - I needed the credits to keep my license. That doesn't mean I have to follow the advice!