Real Estate Photography - Charge by percent of sale

[TehYoyo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[tirediron]

Hourly rate or per square foot.

 

[Steve5D]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steve5D]

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]

for them, yeah.

 

[lambertpix]

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...

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

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.