Why Did A Broker Say "No Pictures"?

I would guess that it's because a lot of brokers especially from smaller, less known and less reputable firms list properties that aren't there own in an effort to drum up business in an (illegal) way. Why would you post someone else's property even though it's your picture with your comments and the price? This IS advertising it in an unlawful way as you do not have permission from the owner to display images of that apartment. I'm assuming that you are from a small agency and they didn't put you through any training before sending you out but you should check with your manager before doing these things. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean it's legal and REBNY and the Attorney General can not only come down on you but on your firm for doing it so you should watch your step unless you want to lose that new license.

I agree that ITK's take is probably the main reason, but as a secondary, violation of sellers'/tenants' privacy maybe? There's a difference between photos seller authorizes his/her agent to take and photos that just anyone walking through the apartment would take.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

why would a seller not want more exposure? what is the downside? as long as the info is correct, what is the downside?

Have we clarified if this is a sale or rental.

Columbia Country: As far as exposure, the big firms have their PR in place and don't need the little and less reputable firms using their listings to troll for clients as they usually use them for bait and switch anyway. It's not exposure, it's false advertising. A broker who otherwise has few to no listings and little to no experience takes a listing and by putting it on their website a buyer/renter thinks that it's that broker's listing when it is not. Sometimes these firms are so blatant as to just steal the pictures and descriptions right off another website so at least this broker was trying to be somewhat honest about it but she is new so probably doesn't know better yet. Downside is also taking away a potential direct deal or a customer that the broker could turn into a customer if they don't like that particular apt at the end of the day. The long and short of it is that it's stealing.

you're making the assumption that the potential buyer would have seen the initial listing on the first broker's website but not have bothered to call until they saw the listing on someone else's site. makes no sense. i can see why the broker might not like this but why is this bad for the seller?

if its that brokers exclusive, then only he has the exclusive rights to advertise it. If he is letting you take pictures, its because he wants you to show your client the pictures you took, so it makes sense he doesnt want you to advertise his unit. I have had brokers say NO to pictures, even though i made it clear it was just to send to my client. Some only want us to use their own pics, wether they are good or not. Now for brokers stealing pictures and advertising with them, that is just plain unethical, and illegal since photos are intellectual property.

columbiacounty, most brokers are horrible photographers, so if I hired a professional to shoot my apt for sale, the last thing i want is some pencil head broker to come along with his iphone and shaky hands and mess up my apt by making it look dark and tiny. As far as exposure on multiple website, there is a VOW in NYC that allows you to view every exclusive listing through any other agencies site. Most brokers have this feature, so if you list with me, my listing will automatically show up on every brokers website through the VOW.

i understand why this is good for brokers. i still don't understand how it helps the seller. if a unit is on two different web sites and an individual sees it on the "good" site, the fact that the "bad" site exists doesn't matter. if the unit is seen on the "bad" site the worst case is someone skipping it; still more exposure.

Who are you now columbiacounty, David Ogilvy?

>if the unit is seen on the "bad" site the worst case is someone skipping it; still more exposure.

Didn't you answer your own idiotic question right there?

If I were trying to sell an apartment, and made sure to use an agent who would present the best view of my apartment -- including hiring a professional photographer who uses the right lenses and (if necessary) lighting, I sure as shit wouldn't want a bottom-feeder taking snapshots with a Brownie and posting them online.

A potential buyer who saw those photos on the secondary site would rule out 123 Main Street [that's HB's home address, not mine, but for argument's sake we'll go with that] because he already saw how dim and blah it looks on another listing, thus not even bothering to click through to the photos on the "real" listing.

Use the official photos.

uh oh, alanhart makes sense but disagrees with columbiacounty's point of view. What happens next?

That was just the argument's sake talking. Brewed rice beverages will do that. columbiacounty is probably right.

Recent FSBO here. Received countless offers to get my apt more exposure through open listings esp. from brokers from smaller sites. A few even asked for my own (professionally done) jpegs. I said "Sure! The cost is $100". The expressions were PRICELESS. Guess no one wants to pay for bait.

"Guess no one wants to pay for bait."

lol Bernie - Gotta pay for bait if you want to fish!

If the seller has valuable art and/or antiques, he or she or they may not want that seen by the unwashed masses, hence the no photos demand. In the case of valuable art, the owner may be trying to control image rights.

I would be unhappy with my broker if s/he allowed people to take photos inside my house. I would like to control which photos of my property are seen by the public and where. Once the photo is taken, there is no control over where it ends up or for what reason. And I wouldn't want to do business with anyone whose broker started snapping photos of the interiors of my house.

threads like this make me remember why i hate brokers. thanks for that.