« Co-op of the Day: Crack is Whack (Even in Slope) Monday On The Record »

June 26, 2006

House of the Day: A Lesson in Poor Marketing

houseCardinal rule of real estate marketing: Don't use a photo that implies that a property has been sitting around on the market for six months. People are going to get very suspicious. Is the price too high? Is the interior a disaster? Is the seller a crook? These suspicions are only compounded when there is a coincident lack of interior photos. Which brings us to today's house of the day at 230 Greene. The 3 1/2 story (we're only giving that mansard-roofed top floor half credit) house at Grand Avenue in Clinton Hill looks nice enough from the outside. But that's all we've got to go on--except for our festering suspicions. We're guessing that this is about $100,000 overpriced, though it could be more if it needs more than a tune-up.
230 Greene Avenue [Craigslist] GMAP P*Shark
Also listed here:
230 Greene Avenue [Aguayo & Huebener]




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:40 AM | Comments (23)
Categories: Properties

Comments

I wonder, with posts such as this one, if your casual speculations about pricing for one property or another do end up affecting the ultimate sales price. It's like a RE version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - are you affecting the outcome of this market experiment by publicly commenting on it? Anyone interested in this house who has done a bit of research can now declare, "brownstoner says it's $100K overpriced at least," and maybe your mere saying makes it so.

Not that I'm trying to overstate the possible reach of your influence or to overinflate your ego - but I do wonder about the impacts. Sometimes it feels a little arbitrary, unfair, maybe not totally ethical. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it bothers me. I think because it's not just an academic exercise, analyzing or deconstructing a text - people's lives and incomes and investments are at stake.


Posted by: anon2 at June 26, 2006 12:28 PM


Anon2:

You clearly know nothing about real estate or the economy. You should go back to school.

Brownstoner is just one of many resources folks can use when looking to purchase a Brooklyn townhouse.

It sounds to me like you just miss the old days when less information was available to buyers in many parts of Brooklyn and brokers/sellers could more easily rip-off buyers.

The more information the better, unless of course you're the one running the scam.

Posted by: The Carrot at June 26, 2006 12:38 PM

Anon, it can work the other way as well - is it ethical to overprice and sell a house to someone? People's lives and incomes and investments are at stake there as well. From that angle, you'd rather have neighbors around who are happy and comfortable with their purchase, not neighbors who feel uninformed and taken when they pay 100K more than the place is worth.

Besides, Brownstoner's comments are just that - his comments. Anyone reading here understands that. And since other people are free to comment as well, you generally get several opinions to form your own from.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 12:39 PM

A&H have had this listing for a little while too I think. Check their site.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 12:45 PM

Not familiar with this block -but from propshark list of what else is on this block (many 6+ apt bldgs, vacant lots, and stores, my suspicion is that its not the greatest.
And would also guess that house would need some work (also shows violation on propshark that could indicate not best maintained either).
So at about 2800sq ft. needing work,
on block that is probably lacking (lets hear from people around there)...
MY guess would need a bigger price reduction to find a buyer.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 12:46 PM

I think brownstoner's criticism of the out-of-date marketing photo and lack of interior photos is appropriate. The realtor should provide a more recent photo and interior shots.

But brownstoner's "festering suspicions" and "guess" that the property's $100K overpriced (why $100K? Why not $50K? or $125K?) are baseless and stated in very negative terms. Brownstoner has not seen the property, researched it. Yet his comments might have a powerful impact. Brownstoner - and everyone else - is free to comment away. But I do believe there is potentially an ethical dimension - some comments are more responsible than others.

What say you, Randy Cohen?

Posted by: anon2 at June 26, 2006 12:50 PM

Ultimately, the person who wants to buy the house will offer what they want to offer, and the person selling it will accept or decline. I doubt that all those inclined to buy the house take brownstoner's word as gospel. And I don't see anything unethical about speculating on the price of a house. If the price is right, the property will sell accordingly. Incidentally, this block is not so great as you move toward Classon, but the corner is not bad and the surrounding streets are nice.

Posted by: Drew at June 26, 2006 1:09 PM


Who's Randy Cohen?

Brownstoner should be able to say whatever he wants. It's his blog.

It's unethical to intentionally rip somebody off.

It's highly ethical of Brownstoner to share his opinions with the ordinary shmoe on his blog.

Anon 2 has a very warped sense of ethics.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 1:36 PM

Anyone that reads Brownstoner's comments on price realize they are most often off-the-cuff comments based on little intimate knowledge of the particular property and he does not pretend to be an appraiser. If read enough you realize his comments on pricing are often way-off and he changes when people give more info.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 1:50 PM

I don't see an ethics issue here. It would be unethical were Brownstoner to pump up prices for comparables on his block. Here he is just giving his opinion. The question that gets raised in my mind, both here and in other blogs, is that blogs do not ascribe to any journalistic standard. I find that to be a problem and one that is not unique for the Brownstoner. In fact, I find it more inocuous on this site than I do on many others.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 2:14 PM

I think in the last two weeks I've heard Brownstoner accused of both trying to inflate prices in downtown Brooklyn, and by some of the comments here, trying to deflate them.

I personally would reduce my offer for this place (if I were offering to buy it) by 100k just because the lazy ass broker hasn't taken any new photos. While I'm at it, I might even reduce my offer 50k further because the owner has hired a half-assed superintendant that only shovels snow from the center of the steps and doesn't clean the entire staircase.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at June 26, 2006 2:53 PM

How do you find listings that no longer appear on Craigslist?

Posted by: kz at June 26, 2006 3:39 PM

i live right across the street from this place, and know the tenants. it's pretty nice inside, but that's my standards which may fall short of some of the purists. some original details, but some 'creative' division of the ground floor apartment.

i would like to point out that the house next to it was on the market a couple of time in the past few years. the first time i noticed it was for sale i believe the asking price was $600K. and now the house next door is asking twice that. okay, they're not the same building, but they're close. wow.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at June 26, 2006 3:43 PM

The house at 230 Greene Ave. is listed with A&H. There are multiple pictures of the interior on their website. The property is priced at $1.1m

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 5:42 PM

It seems to me that any comments made by brownstoner regarding price are in the context of a Question. And its doubtful that a statement made by brownstoner would influence a serious buyer of this property.

Opinions are like A$$holes... Everyone's got one!

Caveat Emptor!

Posted by: NewStoner at June 26, 2006 7:17 PM

reminder: it is aguayo & huebner marketing the place. they aren't very good at what they do, but for the cheapskates out there who only want to pay 3%, you get what you pay for! if instead you went with a company that co-brokes, does floorplans and has a plethora of agents then you would have updated photos, hell you'd have sold the place by now, but....

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 8:00 PM

Anon2, I hazard you are out on a limb here.

The premise of the House of the Day is this: is the offering price of aa property above or below the market price?

That is an intersting question -- interesting at least to those who follow these sorts of matters, such as the readers of this board.

Let us remember that the offering price is not a secret. In fact, it is normally used as part of the marketing campaign by a realtor to communicate to prospective buyers information about the property.

In the future however you may want to put your finger on something that bothers you before you publicly question someone's ethics.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 26, 2006 8:01 PM

I'm not out on a limb. I stand by my comments. And I tip my hat to Shahn Anderson who was at least able to come up with reasons to justify a price reduction.

Oh, and in terms of journalistic standards, it seems that b'er didn't even have the current "411" on the listing.

Posted by: anon2 at June 26, 2006 8:42 PM

A&H pics do make the place look more appealing.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 9:24 AM

If you want to talk ethics, how about the A&H verbiage that claims the location in "Clinton Hill which assures an increase in future value." Now that is unethical. In the securities business, it is also illegal.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 11:12 AM

It's not illegal in the securities business because (a) there could be an increase in future value and (b) only a moron would rely on that quote in buying the property and courts don't protect morons (they protect reasonable investors).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 12:06 PM

I do think that while B'stoner provides a valuable forum to share thoughts, his "opinions" can potentially be harmful when incorrect as they were in the case of the sale of my former house and unfortunately there is no accountability for that.

In my case Brownstoner commented that the original details of my former house must have been salvaged, which was WRONG, they were the originals and there were other inaccuracies. He also suggested that my former house could be had for less than the asking price. Although I don't give him enough credit to say that he's influencing the market, it's possible/likely that he could be influencing a few potential buyers that take his opinions as gospel. I'm sure that everyone would agree that they wouldn't appreciate someone else's baseless speculation on their property because of the potential for harm.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2006 2:14 PM

A year or two ago, the photo wouldn't have mattered.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2006 4:14 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions