# Real Estate Photography - Charge by percent of sale



## TehYoyo (Nov 26, 2013)

I'm thinking of charging for Real Estate Photography by percent of the sale.

I.e. I'll charge 0.1% of the sale price of the house (250,000 = 250; 800,000 = 800; it's 1/1000th).

If I pitch my sales based on value to the realtor, do you think that it's a good pricing model?  I'd certainly get paid more. 

Also, how much do you charge and how?  Flat rate?


----------



## KmH (Nov 26, 2013)

From seeing what others have done over the years, I can tell you that that pricing scheme will not be attractive to those who sell real estate.

Plus, you can't get paid until a property sells.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

KmH said:


> From seeing what others have done over the years, I can tell you that that pricing scheme will not be attractive to those who sell real estate.
> 
> Plus, you can't get paid until a property sells.



Well that and you have to rely on the realtor to tell you when it sells, what it sold for, etc - not a great business model overall.


----------



## TehYoyo (Nov 26, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > From seeing what others have done over the years, I can tell you that that pricing scheme will not be attractive to those who sell real estate.
> ...



That kind of stuff is freely available in the newspaper, no?  In the area I live in, it is.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 26, 2013)

Hourly rate or per square foot.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 26, 2013)

I know people who work in every aspect of the real estate market. Not a one of them would go for that. Why? They don't have to. Your photo is not going to make or break a sale. If a house is going to sell with your picture, it will sell without it. Why would an agent pay you $800.00 when they can keep that if they do the photography themselves?


----------



## vandervalk (Nov 26, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I know people who work in every aspect of the real estate market. Not a one of them would go for that. Why? They don't have to. Your photo is not going to make or break a sale. If a house is going to sell with your picture, it will sell without it. Why would an agent pay you $800.00 when they can keep that if they do the photography themselves?



Good real estate photography won't sell the house. But it will get that house noticed amogst hundreds of others in the market who are shot poorly by agents. That is the whole purpose of real estate photograhy. 

I agree that this idea the OP suggested is poor. Mainly because RE agents are, for the most part, cheap.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 27, 2013)

vandervalk said:


> Good real estate photography won't sell the house. But it will get that house noticed amogst hundreds of others in the market who are shot poorly by agents. That is the whole purpose of real estate photograhy.



Photos don't need to be "wall hanger" quality to get a house noticed, though. Give your average real estate agent a G12 and an hour, and they're going to get usable photos which are, at worst, average. At best, many do pretty well.

Now, if I were an agent selling a multi-million dollar property, I would bring in a pro to shoot it, and I would pay him fairly...



> I agree that this idea the OP suggested is poor. Mainly because RE agents are, for the most part, cheap.



Meh. That can be said of practically any profession...


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price.  I think it's a scam.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 27, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price.  I think it's a scam.



And, yet, it works very, very well...


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

for them, yeah.


----------



## lambertpix (Nov 27, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> vandervalk said:
> 
> 
> > Good real estate photography won't sell the house. But it will get that house noticed amogst hundreds of others in the market who are shot poorly by agents. That is the whole purpose of real estate photograhy.
> ...



You know, I saw this exact same conversation applied to selling cars not too long ago on another forum.  I agree that the root of the problem here is that "decent" is really pretty easy for people to achieve, and the perceived value (not interested in debating *actual value*) of upgrading to "excellent" is very small.  As long as that perception exists, it's a tough sell.  If you can fix the perception problem, you've got a chance.


----------



## Kolia (Nov 27, 2013)

TehYoyo said:


> I'm thinking of charging for Real Estate Photography by percent of the sale.
> 
> I.e. I'll charge 0.1% of the sale price of the house (250,000 = 250; 800,000 = 800; it's 1/1000th).
> 
> ...



If you're ok working for free until the house sells, IF it sells, go for it.

I don't see how you can justify charging more for a given house vs your flat rate competition tho. If you want more money, charge more over all or shot more houses ?

When I bought my house, I didn't care one bit about the quality of the pictures available online. I cared about the location, size, orientation and condition of the property.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

Kolia said:


> When I bought my house, I didn't care one bit about the quality of the pictures available online. I cared about the location, size, orientation and condition of the property.



I remember getting upset when I kept seeing super-wide, distorted shots thatn were heavily tone-mapped so it was impossible to actually get a feel for what the house actually looks like.  To my shock, the houses weren't neon and stretched out inside


----------



## Kolia (Nov 27, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > When I bought my house, I didn't care one bit about the quality of the pictures available online. I cared about the location, size, orientation and condition of the property.
> ...



Aha !

Yeah I'll admit I was critical of many picture's composition. But a serious buyer needs to look beyond that when committing to such a large expense.


----------



## lambertpix (Nov 27, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I remember getting upset when I kept seeing super-wide, distorted shots thatn were heavily tone-mapped so it was impossible to actually get a feel for what the house actually looks like.  To my shock, the houses weren't neon and stretched out inside



Wait -- you mean you saw a really crummy picture online and you **still** went to see the house???

Guess the photo worked.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 27, 2013)

Not really, had cell phone pictures been taken...

But I have seen great pictures lead us to go look at a house and then very thoroughly disappointed 

what sold the house was: great bones, awesome updates (new roof, windows, kitchen, bathroom furnace), awesome location, great price.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Nov 27, 2013)

Hi, 
as a former Realtor, I would say charging by price range would not sit well.  Are you giving my house $800 quality, but the $250 house, is getting less quality from you?
i do believe in having the best photo of the home and that could be worth something to some Realtors. With every home having multiple photos, it can stand out if the photo shows quality. (And that you cleaned off counters, moved trash cans out of photo, etc. there are some horrendous photos of homes!)
Nancy


----------



## ronlane (Nov 27, 2013)

NancyMoranG said:


> Hi,
> as a former Realtor, I would say charging by price range would not sit well.  Are you giving my house $800 quality, but the $250 house, is getting less quality from you?
> i do believe in having the best photo of the home and that could be worth something to some Realtors. With every home having multiple photos, it can stand out if the photo shows quality. (And that you cleaned off counters, moved trash cans out of photo, etc. there are some horrendous photos of homes!)
> Nancy



While it does depend on the side of the fence you are standing on looking at this. As a photographer, should I accept the same $200 for house listed at $150K vs one listed at $1mil? Typically there is more to shoot in the $1mil house than a $150K house. Just because I charge less, doesn't mean one is of lesser quality, it just takes longer to shoot a bigger house.


----------



## Kolia (Nov 27, 2013)

ronlane said:


> While it does depend on the side of the fence you are standing on looking at this. As a photographer, should I accept the same $200 for house listed at $150K vs one listed at $1mil? Typically there is more to shoot in the $1mil house than a $150K house. Just because I charge less, doesn't mean one is of lesser quality, it just takes longer to shoot a bigger house.



There are some pretty small houses going for 1 million + in some area...

I guess it's all market based and anything can work.  A % of the final price does seem strange tho.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 27, 2013)

Kolia said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > While it does depend on the side of the fence you are standing on looking at this. As a photographer, should I accept the same $200 for house listed at $150K vs one listed at $1mil? Typically there is more to shoot in the $1mil house than a $150K house. Just because I charge less, doesn't mean one is of lesser quality, it just takes longer to shoot a bigger house.
> ...



You are correct, but you can make the point with the price point from the area. By price is strange, but I could totally understand a price by square footage or even a flat rate up to a certain square feet and then $x.xx for each 100 square feet above that.


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

Worst idea ever. Flat rate. Sliding scales only works for...well scales.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 27, 2013)

runnah said:


> Worst idea ever. Flat rate. Sliding scales only works for...well scales.




So runnah, you'd charge say $200 flat rate to shoot a house. Whether it was 1,000 sf or 4,000 sf? What about shooting a huge mansion like Michael Jordan's former place in Chicago or something like that?


----------



## runnah (Nov 27, 2013)

ronlane said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Worst idea ever. Flat rate. Sliding scales only works for...well scales.
> ...



Flat HOURLY rate.  I ain't crazy.


----------



## TehYoyo (Nov 27, 2013)

Square footage sounds like a good idea.

If I do charge hourly, does that include post-processing?


----------



## Parker219 (Nov 27, 2013)

Depends on how busy you want to be, how much your time is worth to you, and how much competition you have in your area.

As a current Realtor in Florida, I can tell you that my team just listed a $550,000 house that is 4,000 square feet. 

We paid a professional photographer $99.99 for 25 photos,  which is the maximum allowed on my MLS. 

The pro used on Canon T3i and I think the photos were great! He obviously went back and edited the photos, but tastefully, because I was impressed with the quality. 

We actually gave him a $20 tip, so we paid him $120.

I still don't see how he makes much money,  and I would maybe start asking a flat $199.99 and see how busy you are. 

Personally, I would pay $200, but I don't think any more unless it was a really big/high priced listing. 

You can always adjust your price up or down.  Maybe you can get in tight with some high end successful listing agents in your area and they can keep you pretty active. 

If you know a Realtor in your area, and if they are willing to do 30 minutes of research for you,  they can look through your local MLS and find the agents with the most / high end listings and get their phone number / office address. 

Then you should have a portfolio that you can email them that shows sample photos that you have taken.

Good luck!


----------



## manaheim (Nov 27, 2013)

If you could pull this off, KUDOS TO YOU.

In an industry rife with people charging $75 to do what I wouldn't do for a PENNY less than $400... and even that is heavily discounted... you're going to be hard-pressed to find people to take you up on it.

High end residential real estate, maybe... but that also depends on what that vertical tends to do for pricing. You're likely going to have to model after whatever they do, and I'll bet you money it's a flat fee- possibly based on number of rooms in the house.

It's a DIFFICULT market to penetrate in any meaningful way.


----------



## TehYoyo (Nov 27, 2013)

Parker219 said:


> [......]


Thanks, Parker.  Could you link me to the site where the photos are posted?  Also, is an MLS a ______ Listing Site?

The area I live in is very affluent.  I'm blessed to have grown up around here.  I'd say most homes are priced at 700,000 plus.  That's sort of how I got the idea of pricing by percent - realtors make a lot of money on one sale, so anything they can do to make that sale should, theoretically, be appealing.

I'm OK with working for free - I'm in high school student so this is all supplementary income.  Also, since I'm new, I'm willing to do anything I need to to establish a client base.  And for all of you assuming that me being in high school means I'm not very good at photography: I'm realistic about the quality of work and won't try to get into an oversaturated market just because I have a dSLR.

$99 seems _really_ low, though...


----------



## NancyMoranG (Nov 27, 2013)

NancyMoranG said:


> Hi,
> as a former Realtor, I would say charging by price range would not sit well.  Are you giving my house $800 quality, but the $250 house, is getting less quality from you?
> i do believe in having the best photo of the home and that could be worth something to some Realtors. With every home having multiple photos, it can stand out if the photo shows quality. (And that you cleaned off counters, moved trash cans out of photo, etc. there are some horrendous photos of homes!)
> Nancy



To clarify, can't just do it based on price. There has to be an agreement as to what you are providing, ie: 25 photos, etc. or time involved rate. There are properties listed for $1 mil that will be a knock down for land value, and all that is needed are some shots of the land/ water view etc.  Obviously, listing price cannot be your only gauge.
Nancy


----------



## Parker219 (Nov 27, 2013)

If you are "ok with working for free", just charge $100 so you can get your feet wet / make some contacts.

At least that is a price, no one should say no to, IMO. Especially if its a $500,000 plus listings.

We moved some of the pics for some reason off the dropbox, but here are some of them:


https://www.dropbox.com/lightbox/home/Laurel%20Oaks


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2013)

Actually this model can work.  I'm reminded of quick sales in my area at around 1 million, where for marketing a medium format hasselblad was used and along with virtual tour software.   The real estate agent benefited from ONLY SERIOUS showings, since tours were possible on the Internet.   Panoramas were also used to indicate views from balconies or decks.  Wide spread Internet exposure using virtual tours and panoramas reached a larger market and brought about faster sales, so the real estate agent benefited.


----------



## TehYoyo (Nov 27, 2013)

Parker219 said:


> If you are "ok with working for free", just charge $100 so you can get your feet wet / make some contacts.
> 
> At least that is a price, no one should say no to, IMO. Especially if its a $500,000 plus listings.
> 
> ...



That link isn't a public folder, so I can't see it.



skieur said:


> Actually this model can work.  I'm reminded of quick sales in my area at around 1 million, where for marketing a medium format hasselblad was used and along with virtual tour software.   The real estate agent benefited from ONLY SERIOUS showings, since tours were possible on the Internet.   Panoramas were also used to indicate views from balconies or decks.  Wide spread Internet exposure using virtual tours and panoramas reached a larger market and brought about faster sales, so the real estate agent benefited.


Interesting.  That seems like something to suggest when I'm more thoroughly ensconced.


----------



## bairnrasik (Dec 5, 2013)

TehYoyo said:


> I'm thinking of charging for Real Estate Photography by percent of the sale.
> 
> I.e. I'll charge 0.1% of the sale price of the house (250,000 = 250; 800,000 = 800; it's 1/1000th).
> 
> ...



See, the pricing would actually depend upon exactly where that flat or the house is,, I mean to say the area,,,
 whether its city side or outside the city then whether that flat is of 2BHK, 3BHK, or more like wise in the same manner the pricing would deffer.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 5, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price.  I think it's a scam.



Thinking back on this, why?

If we could look at other professions, we consider: Why are there photographers out there who get paid mountains of money for what they produce? After all, the actual value of the paper and the ink to print a picture or a book is pretty minimal compared to what they're paid. "X" amount per hour? Why?

It's really an easy answer. You pay for what can be provided. You pay for experience. You pay for expertise. In the case of the real estate market, you also pay for access. Not everyone is going to be shown a multi-million dollar home. Some agents actually require a prospective buy pre-qualify before they'll even show a particular property. Some agents aren't even able to gain access to high-end properties. So, in cases like that, you're paying for the benefit of working with an agent who's cultivated relationships in the real estate industry through his or her experience and expertise.

I know photographers who get five figures for shooting a wedding. They're extraordinarily good. But is the product they produce worth five figures, or is it a scam?


----------



## Kolia (Dec 5, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price.  I think it's a scam.
> ...



Maybe photographers should charge a % of the total wedding cost ?

Or maybe a % of my annual gross income ?

Off topic but With all the available listing website now available, a realtor's job isn't so much about finding the house. It's more to easy the buyer and seller thru the paperwork of the transaction.

Honestly, if I was selling my house and needed a photograph, I would hire the one with a clear price schedule. Not necessarily the cheapest one.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 6, 2013)

That didn't answer my question, but thanks...


----------



## tirediron (Dec 6, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price. I think it's a scam.


Actually, it's called 'incentive'.  The higher the agent's commission, the more money in the seller's pocket.  There are lots of 'flat rate' agents and agencies out there, but I think you'll find that it's the commissioned ones who generally turn in the best results.  The reason this doesn't work for a photographer is that our work should be of a fixed quality, that is, the images from the house with the lowest selling price should be the same quality as those from the one with the highest selling price, so the customer isn't getting anything more for an increase in price.


----------



## skieur (Dec 6, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even like the idea of paying agents by % of sale price. I think it's a scam.
> ...



The work may be of fixed quality for the photographer BUT the house is NOT of fixed quality, so panoramas from the balcony or virtual tours which require more work from the photographer are more appropriate to some houses in a more expensive bracket.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 6, 2013)

skieur said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



True, but those would be an added product for which a fixed additional charge should be levied.  What if you have a small, run-down house on a huge lot in a very expensive neighbourhood?  The house might sell for a million plus, but at the end of the day, it's just bulldozer bait...


----------



## skieur (Dec 6, 2013)

tirediron said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



But on a percent basis, that is exactly what you have ...an additional charge.  With a run-down house in a very expensive neighbourhood, it is more of a challenge for the photographer to shoot the house and the property but emphasize the neighbourhood in the background.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 6, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



This is argumentative and glosses over a key fact. The industry in question works on a percentage commission of sale. 

It is therefore logical to at least consider the possibility that related services would also work this way. 

The fact that it may not had more to do with the protective nature of defending ones take and the level of competition willing to work on a flat fee basis than anything else.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> This is argumentative and glosses over a key fact. The industry in question works on a percentage commission of sale.



It is therefore logical to at least consider the possibility that related services would also work this way. [/quote]

Sure, and the OP did that.

Sure, but Braineack suggested that the manner in which business is conducted in that industry is a scam. I simply raised the question that, if that's a scam, what about other industries? Say an industry like, oh, I dunno'... photography? Personally, I would like to read Braineack's position on that...


----------



## Kolia (Dec 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> This is argumentative and glosses over a key fact. The industry in question works on a percentage commission of sale.
> 
> It is therefore logical to at least consider the possibility that related services would also work this way.



I'd have to review my paper work but when I bought my house, only the realtor got a percentage. Every other services had a fixed fee. 

Anyway, good luck to the OP !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TehYoyo (Dec 11, 2013)

Things are happening for the first time all the time.  I guess that's my philosophy.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 12, 2013)

TehYoyo said:


> Things are happening for the first time all the time.  I guess that's my philosophy.



Well, then give it a shot and let us know how it works out for you...


----------



## manaheim (Dec 12, 2013)

Yeah. If it works, let us know. I'd love to see this happen for all of the services, then maybe people would revolt.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Sure, but Braineack suggested that the manner in which business is conducted in that industry is a scam. I simply raised the question that, if that's a scam, what about other industries? Say an industry like, oh, I dunno'... photography? Personally, I would like to read Braineack's position on that...



A realtor getting paid a fee based on the percentage of the sale price of your home _is_ a scam.

Let's say I sell my house today for 350,000 and I have 50,000 of equity in it.

Realtors in this area often charge 6%, the going rate.

That's $21,000 in commision. That's quite a bit of money to provide the same service for my house as any other they'd sell at an equal, greater, or lesser value.  And then alas I come to find out my neighbor sold his house for $300K, used the same realtor at the same 6% fee and the realtor got paid $18,000.

What did I receive for the extra $3,000?  Nothing.

The realtor didn't work harder, didn't spend more money to sell it, didn't do a damn thing extra.  A realtor can't magically make your house sell above market price because they put in extra effort, it's going to sell at what someone's willing to pay for it.

And in this case that $21K is *42%* of my equity in the home.

Now I'm not completely discounting realtors as a profession, they have their moments, and I do understand why there are circumstances where a percent fee makes sense (eg. multi-million dollar listings), but it's all mostly on their part.

But, IMHO, there's no relationship between the price my house sells for and the amount of work that a realtor has to perform to sell it.

Do you perform wedding photography services as a percentage fee of the total cost of the wedding? the cost of the venue? Because that's the same relationship here. Same thing for taking pictures of the house itself, the final price of the house has nothing to do with the amount of service you are providing as a photographer. The sq. ft. of the house does.  If the house is larger, then it's assumed you'll take more pictures of extra rooms and you'll get charged accordingly.  But doing this service based on the sales price of the house is only a way to line your own pockets without doing any extra work.  But since photographers in general don't charge for services like this, I'm not quite sure how I can give you my position on it.  If they did, I would tell you it was a scam.


----------



## Kolia (Dec 12, 2013)

Of course, nobody is obligated to hire a realtor to sell or buy a house...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kolia (Dec 12, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but Braineack suggested that the manner in which business is conducted in that industry is a scam. I simply raised the question that, if that's a scam, what about other industries? Say an industry like, oh, I dunno'... photography? Personally, I would like to read Braineack's position on that...
> ...



What did you get for that 3,000$ ?  You got 50,000$ higher sell price...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 12, 2013)

IMHO, after working in the real estate market years & years ago, I've found that realtors will tell you to update areas of your house so that it would sell for more.  But in reality you put $xx into it, and the house sells for $yy more which is usually less than $xx.  But with a higher selling price the realtor gets more $$ out of it,  And since it's been updated and is nicer, they have less work to do to sell it.  Of course I think that is only a few particular experiences I've had and have seen and various demographic areas are different.

But real estate is the same as other professions.  They have their expenses and to list the house in the real estate marketing system,  Check for various sold houses in the areas, hopefully do some marketing to sell the house, open houses, etc and hold to sell (3%) for the seller and the buyer (3%).  The 3 or 6% is fixed no matter how little or how much effort they put into selling the property.  

I recall working with a commercial builder where they gave the real estate person 3 months to sell the house.  If they didn't he moved on to the next real estate person.  And he had a minimum selling price, which was a bit above market.  So after 3 months of effort the RE person could come out with nothing.  And one property I recall, he went through at least 4 RealEstate people.

You can sell it by yourself but a real estate lawyer is highly recommended.

I'm curious why it's 3% . can't they be competitive and say only charge 2.5% ??  Which nowadays you can ask that as sometimes they compete with discount brokers.

of course, we're at our own on how much equity we have in our house

and it's up to the market on the selling price of the house.  recently the houses in my area in 2009 went for cheap .. $60-90k or so for foreclousures which drove the market prices down.  Then the inventory of those houses emptied and the prices skyrocketed to 2007 market values (up to $130 for that same $90k), and then people were bidding MORE for the house, houses going for up to $142k when the seller was asking $130k.  Then the interest rate fluxed up and bogged the market down.

It's basically your house is worth the value of the similar houses in your area.  So you don't really get much from the real estate person.  They will try to push the selling price up, but usually it's market that drives it, unless there is something specific about your house which differentiates it from the others in your area.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2013)

Kolia said:


> What did you get for that 3,000$ ?  You got 50,000$ higher sell price...



No it didn't. There are many things that contribute to the price of a house--the realtor's fee not being one.

Even if your relator was able to bring in some client that was willing to pay more for your house, once the underwriter comes in and appraises the house for less, and then they refuse to give the buyer the loan because it's above market price, then what?

Plus IIRC, the buyer's agent tends to get a cut of the fee.  So it's actually in their interest to get the buyer to pay as much as possible for the property and not fight/negotiate the price down.



> IMHO, after working in the real estate market years & years ago, I've found that realtors will tell you to update areas of your house so that it would sell for more. But in reality you put $xx into it, and the house sells for $yy more which is usually less than $xx. But with a higher selling price the realtor gets more $$ out of it, And since it's been updated and is nicer, they have less work to do to sell it. Of course I think that is only a few particular experiences I've had and have seen and various demographic areas are different.



so let's see, you put all the money to improve the house which makes it to for the agent to "sell" at a higher price and they get a bigger cut as a result.  I don't see the problem...


----------



## Kolia (Dec 12, 2013)

You know it's more complicated than that. 

How much would you pay for a given house "sold by owner" versus the same house sold thru a realtor ?

As a seller, how much longer are you willing to wait (possibly paying interests on the mortgage while you do) for a buyer and how much of your time can you commit to show the house (instead of working and being paid) to potential sellers ?

As for the banks appeasing, didn't you notice they tend to hit exactly the contract price ?  It's in the banks interest to make an appraisal that moves the transaction forward. 

I'm just showing a different perspective.  Just because we spend money for a service, it doesn't mean we lost money overall. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2013)

I never said there wasn't a need for realtors.

My last house sold after its first showing. It wasn't because of the realtor...in fact, the realtor didn't weed out two initial offers that we all knew would never come to fruition, yet we drove out to his office after work and wasted our time with him presenting them to us.  He knew better, but the offer was higher than expected and he wanted us to jump on it... wanna know why?  he'd make more money for the zero work he did other than putting a sign outside the property and putting it on MLS and letting a few agents inside the house with their potential buyers.

Hell, the offer on my current house was accepted 3 days after they listed. We found it online through MLS on a Friday afternoon, called a random agent, and had her let us see it on Sunday, and we wrote up an offer on Monday that was accepted that night.

She was very useful during the closing process, but the idea that these folks get a cut of the sales price is ridiculous.  We figuratively just threw money at her. It honestly makes me wanna change professions.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 12, 2013)

REs should do alot of extra work too ... such as checking for leins, best mortgage search if you use them to get a mortgage, checking for issues of the house beyond some house inspectors.  many house inspectors want to make sure the house is mortgagable .. and not really looking for problems for the buyer (mold, ant/bee colonies, etc).

FYI, my mortgage company appraised the house I bought for about $15k more than I bought it for.
but I got lucky.
the market value was higher than my purchase price but the market was going up rapidly.  It was all timing.

but when demand is high, usually they get by with minimal work.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 13, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My last house sold after its first showing. It wasn't because of the realtor...in fact, the realtor didn't weed out two initial offers that we all knew would never come to fruition, yet we drove out to his office after work and wasted our time with him presenting them to us.  He knew better, but the offer was higher than expected and he wanted us to jump on it... wanna know why?  he'd make more money for the zero work he did other than putting a sign outside the property and putting it on MLS and letting a few agents inside the house with their potential buyers.



So you're faulting your realtor for trying to get you more money for your house? Oh, what a catastrophe. Yours should serve as a cautionary tale, admonishing sellers to want less. 

Seriously, that doesn't make sense. 

I don't know how it is where you live but, in California, for instance, a realtor is required by law to present all offers to the seller, and I'm not sure that varies by State.

But you bring up interesting points. The realtor has to list the house. In doing so, the realtor must do a write-up which makes the property attractive. Letting other agents into the house? Well, that takes scheduling, and takes time out of the realtor's day. How many times do we read on this forum "I wouldn't even leave the house for "X" amount"? It's fairly common. Why would you expect a realtor to not approach his business in the same manner?

You're not finding the buyer. You're not generating the required mountain of paperwork. The agent does much more than just let agents into a property on a Sunday...



> Hell, the offer on my current house was accepted 3 days after they listed. We found it online through MLS on a Friday afternoon, called a random agent, and had her let us see it on Sunday, and we wrote up an offer on Monday that was accepted that night.



Most people get paid time and a half or double time if they work on Sundays. They don't actually do more work, or better work, they just do work. And they get paid double their regular hourly rate for doing it...



> She was very useful during the closing process, but the idea that these folks get a cut of the sales price is ridiculous.  We figuratively just threw money at her. It honestly makes me wanna change professions.



I know people who've done it, and are now successful. Unlike the impression you're trying to give, they all work very hard for their clients, and their clients are happy to pay them for that hard work...


----------



## Braineack (Dec 13, 2013)

What does that all have to do with getting based a percentage of the final sales price? A percentage of the sales price has nothing to do with their services rendered. I never once said they don't perform a service or have to put in effort to get the job done, but that effort isn't going to change because of the sales price of the house.  So quit trying to argue that because they actually do work, that they deserve money based on something outside their control.

The realtor who sold the house I bought, also sold the house across the street from us after we moved in. That house was almost 100K less.  We can assume she ended up with around $3,000 (6K commision split) less on that sale over my sale.  Or in other words, the seller's of my home overpaid her by $3K for the same exact service.

The mere fact they split the fee with the buyer's agent is a red flag in itself.  Why should the buyer's agent get paid more money from the seller if the price of the house is greater? Not only does that the seller's realtor want the house to go for as much as humanly possible for their benefit, not yours, the buyer's agent wants the same for their clients. How is that not a scam?

Their fee is done this way, because that's the way it's always been done and you all buy into it because you think you're getting more for your money, but in Reality®, you're not. I won't change your mind, I know this, and I don't really care--I'm not trying to sway opinion--but you asked so there's mine.





With that all said, it's still not a smart way to charge for real estate photography.  It doesn't benefit the seller/agent in anyway and only the photographer if the price of the house goes for a lot.  Since photographers don't have a national association that monopolizes the way photographers charge for taking pictures of properties, sellers/agents will look elsewhere and find a photographer willing to charge based on a manner that is in a better proportion to the services rendered.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 13, 2013)

True, but it's an interesting, if not mildly related, discussion. 

How much do you charge for a wedding, or for a portrait session, or for whatever type of photography you do, and why do you charge what you do?

I don't think the OP's idea would work, but I can understand where he's coming from...


----------



## Braineack (Dec 13, 2013)

> How much do you charge for a wedding, or for a portrait session, or for whatever type of photography you do, and why do you charge what you do?



I would come up with an hourly/session rate that factors in time/travel/expenses/processing/etc. I wouldn't base my fee on a percentage of the total cost of the wedding dress or the retail price of the product I'm taking a picture of.



Sorry for going on a rant. I do that.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 13, 2013)

In our society, we pay based upon percentage for a variety of things...

- tips at restaurants
- real estate commissions
- sales commissions
- extended warranties
- etc.

All of these are societal norms. Whether we happen to think they are a scam or not may be an interesting discussion, but it seems WAY off the beaten path both in this thread and on this forum.

Can we please get back to where we need to be?


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 13, 2013)

Realtors are like used car sales men. For one thing, their going to settle more times than most on an offer instead of fighting to get you more money, why? Because that extra $5-10k for example would only net a realtor an extra $100-200. It just isn't worth their time. 

We just sold our home after already having moved last year. We wasn't sure if we wanted to commit but the housing market was/is extremely strong in our old area. So we hired a realtor to sell the place, I would have done it my self had we had not already moved out of town. Anyhow, the realtor sat down with us and showed us the Comp sheet explaining what they felt was a good asking price. I told them I felt their suggested asking price was $70k less than what we could get. They blew me off saying it would be over priced and could take longer to sell causing the place to look bad. I told my wife no, we could always come down but couldn't go up. So they listed it for my asking price and the home sold in the next 48hrs. The new owners wrote us a check for the amount minus $3,000 to get something fixed. Not too bad for a high school drop out 

Anyways, I think charging a % on real estate photography a bad concept. Why would a real estate agent spend the cash on something they can do for free? Unless it's a multi-million dollars home, no one needs high quality photos. We have bought several homes in the past and each one was listed with crappy photos. If I was to consider real estate photography, I would probably do it for a set price and that price would be based on the size of the property and rooms etc.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 13, 2013)

I guess  the % concept is a double edged sword

In a raising market, you get paid well
in a decreasing market, or the bottom falls out you get pocket change.

With a fixed rate, you know how much you are going to get paid regardless.  
But in a falling market the realtor may opt for cheaper solutions.
And I"m sure a multitude of other combinations

So is there a best answer ?
charge a fixed rate dependent upon demographic location ?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 13, 2013)

Okay folks, the OP was asking about a pricing structure concept, NOT trying to start a debate o whether real-estate agents are good or evil, etc.  Let's either return to the OP's question (which I think has been answered sufficiently) or, alternativel, go outside and take a photograph.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> or, alternativel, go outside and take a photograph.



It's raining


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 13, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I would come up with an hourly/session rate that factors in time/travel/expenses/processing/etc.



Could you itemize those items and show the amounts associated with each? That would help to progress the discussion...


----------

