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.

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.

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.

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.

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.