Imagine you’re planning to cook a lamb on the spit. A Greek delicacy. You visit your local butcher and ask him for a lamb and he replies: “Sorry, I’m all out of lambs but give me $500 and I’ll go to the market tomorrow and get you one”.
You hand over $500 and you revisit the butcher a day later to pick up your lamb.
The butcher says:
“Bad news about the lamb, they didn’t have any. So I spent your $500 on advertising for one and that didn’t work either. I guess you’re out of luck”.
No doubt you wouldn’t accept this and you’d ask for your $500 back. The thought of paying money for no result is nothing short of madness. Yet having to pay a real estate agent thousands of dollars upfront to advertise your home (without the guarantee of a result) seems to be standard practice in the real estate industry.
Why do agents ask sellers to pay thousands of $$$ upfront for advertising?
Is it to promote the house or themselves? I wonder.
If an agent recommends an advertising campaign for your home (and most homes do require a professional marketing campaign) the agent should pay for this campaign.
Professional marketing should be complimentary for the seller. Isn’t this the agents job anyway?
The message is simple:
Only pay when you get the result that you want. Why should you pay for no result?
No lamb = No money. End of Story.