Yesterday, a client sent me an online article from the Boston Globe (Open houses waste of time?) and asked what I thought about it. After reading the piece, I did have some thoughts—not only about this article, but about some of the irresponsible journalism on the internet. In my mind, this article is an example of a freelance writer trying to capitalize on the fact that real estate is a hot topic. I’ve seen more and more of this type of article as our housing market improves. The author (a freelance writer named Scott Van Voorhis) states: “If your agent wants to do multiple open houses, then it’s worth asking some tough questions.” It occurred to me that it’s time to ask this writer a few questions:
1. Why are outdated sources sited as current in this article? The only source cited by the writer is on MSN real estate. The MSN article does not have a publish date. Most reputable publications cite the original date of their stories at the top of the article. Look at any article from The Wall Street Journal or NY Times, for example. The data in the article he cites is old and was originally published in 2009 (see the first reader comment at the bottom of the MSN article). The writer at the Boston Globe cites the MSN article as if it were current. It seems to me that this is incredibly poor and lazy journalism. It’s been my observation that freelance journalists are writing increasingly sensationalistic or provocative pieces in the hopes of getting picked up (and possibly paid) at the expense of many others (including, but not exclusive to, those in real estate).
2. Why does the writer position the topic as applicable for national real estate marketing? The reality is that nobody can accurately write about real estate marketing trends and practices on a national level, and it is irresponsible to try to do so. All markets are local and trends, practices, and laws are different from city-to-city and state-to-state. All of which are critical factors for what is appropriate to market a property. The writer should clarify which market(s) he thinks this topic applies to—it certainly doesn’t apply here.
3. How does the writer justify the inaccurate goals and objectives he cites in his article? The author states that the goal of an open house is to hit the “jackpot” which he defines as someone “falling in love” at the open house and writing an offer immediately. This is not the main objective of an open house—at least not in our local market.
The goal of an open house here on the mid-peninsula is to make the property easily accessible to “real buyers” who are actively looking for homes. The majority of buyers in our area don’t want to be accompanied by an agent to view multiple properties over the entire course of their search. Once they’ve narrowed their search to one or a few desired properties they look to their realtor to review these finalists with them for their professional opinion regarding location, price, disclosures, etc.
The bottom line is that open houses do work for our market. Marketing practices which do not work and waste people’s time are not used for long. I can relate stories every week when having an open house is a critical part of a home being sold in our area.
Most writers are fair and thorough in their writing and research, but the few who aren’t don’t help anyone but themselves with their practices. I hope when reading articles and blogs online everyone remembers to verify where the information came from and think about how applicable the it is to their situation and location.
