I have been interested over the past few weeks to see how the local newspaper and specialist property magazines have endeavoured to find a means by which to profile the current stock of mortgagee properties for sale.
Whilst the web provides the simplest way to filter types of properties the printed medium struggles as all properties are grouped around the company profile – that is why recently the adoption of black and white images have become the de-facto “brand” presentation of such mortgagee property listings.
This form of presentation though does beg the question – do black and white photo do justice to the presentation and therefore the appearance of a property for sale?
Thankfully the same approach has not been adopted online, something I am extremely grateful of; for in my mind this would completely destroy the value of a listing.
After all I would have thought that an agent would want to use all facilities within their capability to promote a listing in the best interests of a vendor. Even if the vendor is the lending institution as the mortgagor facilitating a mortgagee sale. Black and white printed images no longer cost less than colour but they certainly don’t look half as good, and I would judge are more likely to limit the attraction to the interests of bargain hunters as opposed to more regular buyers.
IS IT ALL ABOUT BEING CHEAP
However cheap may bite you and the bank back. It is clearly established that in a mortgagee sale by the mortgagor (bank or other lending institution) that mortgagor must be seen to do the best they can to market the property and therefore get the best sale value possible for the mortagor’s client the unfortunate owner being sold up.
It will only take one disgruntled bank client with the funds available (might even get legal aid) to take to task a bank around poor marketing and therfore poor sale value and the muck will hit the fan. The bank might then look to the agent for compensation.
Many mortgagee sale properties are purchased “blind” with no opportunity to visit the interior of the property and often no interior photos available at all. So difficult to look to the agent for compensation in cases where the access has been difficult and opportunity to market adequately has been limited.
Could this case http://www.lawlinkgroup.co.nz/articles.php?articleid=54 provide some pointers as to what is seen to be adequate marketing?
In that case a judge ruled that the sellers did not try hard enough to sell their home and an award of $300,000 was made against them.
Ross
Your comments are particularly relevant and whilst I make no legal opinion on that case; I would say that in this situation I am not making any judgment on the degree of marketing being undertaken by agents choosing to use B&W photos for mortgagee sales.
It could in fact more correctly be stated that the print advertising is nowadays less relevant as the online adverts (for which these one are listed on our site) are clear and accurate representations of the property and therefore the selling agents are using the best medium to advertise the properties.
I think Greig’s point is valid though – “it’s all about being (looking) cheap” – as this perception may impact the selling price and thereby the liability for the mortgagee.
Our Hutt office has a few on the web in black and white see http://www.desperate.co.nz//Lower+Hutt/properties/index.htm
Although they do change to colour when hovered over!
Funnily enough “I don’t believe mortgagee = cheap” – I think it means this property will sell in a timely manner.
I believe our role as marketers of mortgagee properties is to highlight properties as favourably as we can for motivated vendors and avoid pitching them as bargains/cheap – that is CHEAP NASTY marketing (in my humble opinion).
Saying that I recognise that borrowers who do not allow agents to tour/photograph properties cheapen the sale price by creating uncertainty in buyers’ eyes.
Who ever posted the view that Black and White ads for Mortgagee sale properties is poor marketing in this colour world has obviously never tried it.
Marketing is about getting attention and making the phone ring.
We have promoted mortgagee sales using this B&W method with run away successes. As we say,”drop your lines, let em bite and then reel em in”. The thing is, last year it was more important than ever to to make your bait more attractive than all the other choices in what was a market flooded with listings.
The B&W ads stood out, they got a whole lot more enquiry than all the others, the buyers got hooked thinking they would get a bargain, we put them in our auction room and many times over we sold above expectation, even surprising ourselves.
I suspect the writer sells coloured ink and is serving his own self interest.
John
I think you have a view that these posts may be written anonymously – all of the posts on Unconditional are written by me – openly and with care and attention to the content and the discussions that follow.
This article was clearly written to make the point regarding (as the title says) the difference between online marketing and offline marketing. This could be construed as self serving – yes, I run a website, I believe that this website can best serve the public through the most comprehensive source of listings, that in turn serves the needs of the industry – an powerful, cost effective medium for advertising – self serving – guilty as charged.
As to your contention that the success of B&W photo being the reason for the “run away” success of these mortgagee properties? – were these properties exclusively marketed in black and white ads to the exclusion of the web and other marketing tools? – if so you could rightly charge that that marketing alone drove demand.
As to your success of selling above expectations – you clearly demonstrate the value of a professional competent real estate company one that is hugely successful and I salute your achievements – your vendors will have been happy and will endorse you – that is great for long term value.