Are bad photos of a property better than no photos?

If you’re looking at buying or selling a property, it’s difficult to over-estimate the importance of presentation. I’ve blogged about this subject before, and most property tips you’ll find around the traps include the mandatory spiel on how to present your home for sale. I’ve also mentioned before the importance of an online presence when it comes to real estate, and the importance of property photos. You may be wondering where all this is going, and I promise I am getting there – the three concepts all tie together. Namely, to form the question – how important are photos when you’re trying to sell or buy a property and are using the online space to do so?


It may seem like a simple question, and the simple answer would surely be ‘very’. But it’s not actually that easy. I have friends who refuse to view properties that do not have photos posted online. Their line of reasoning is that if the property isn’t represented visually it has to be pretty bad. So then, would it be better to have bad photos than no photos at all? If my opening paragraph is anything to go by, and presentation is king, then the answer would be no. But if my friends are on the money, the answer is yes.


Some agents believe that if a home shows poorly, then no photos are the best option and you can get people there through your descriptions. Others disagree. I tend to think that even if the photo of the living room shows a dirty wall, a floor strewn with clothes, toys and general clutter, it would at least give an impression of size, natural light and room for improvement.



Also, and importantly, the condition of a property is not a priority for every single buyer. For this reason, it can be argued that bad photos are actually better than no photos. If you were considering advertising a property with no photos at all, you could lose these potential buyers who can look beyond the condition of a place. I recently read about an agent who has incredibly high standards when it comes to the photos of properties she has listed, and if they don’t meet her standard, they don’t go online. However, she recently found herself with a property on her hands where every photo she had wasn’t up to scratch, and she posted them anyway. What do you know, she’s had multiple property views, multiple showings and has two buyer prospects on the cards. Maybe that’s a sign that ugly photos are better than no photos after all.                                                                                      

Posted by Charles Tarbey on 06/07/2009 at 9:13 AM | Categories:


san diego realestate

san diego realestate wrote on 01/09/2009 6:35 PM

Excellent blog.I found it very interesting and at the same time very informative.Thanks!!!

Annuities wrote on 28/09/2009 9:13 PM

I agree bad photo is better than no photo. I look for photo first.
prashantsnv@Barcelona rentals

prashantsnv@Barcelona rentals wrote on 13/07/2010 8:56 PM

Interesting article with useful information. I am agree with you too that bad photos are better than no photo. At least buyer could see your properties which is far better than orally describing them about it.


Write your comment

Leave this field empty: