The short answer: NO. The long answer: Definitely not.
But to hear the new wave of video technologists talk, you’d think that all other media are officially dead. They’re telling us to throw away our digital cameras or be declared obsolete, even though these videos are just another form of virtual tour. These new videovangelists are even defying people to argue otherwise.
I hate when people defy me to do things. Especially people who don’t know what they’re talking about and prove it every time they open their mouths. Bill Leider is not too fond of this kind of empty rhetoric either. Bill's introduction to this topic is: The Whole World Is Going To Video - Or Not. So over the coming weeks we’re going to explore the depths of Internet marketing, analyze its various elements, define what makes for great and not so great presentations, connect all of it to what it needs to be in order to make you more successful and, most importantly, invite your input.
First, here’s a preview, expressed as three reasons why Video will not kill, or even hurt, good virtual tours:
1. Quality – communicating emotion vs. information.
I've written before about the importance of emotion in your Internet presentations. And Video has so much inherent potential to effectively communicate emotion. Done properly it is, experientially, the next best thing to being there. But good video production is complex. So its potential can only be achieved when all the elements of a good production are present. It’s a lot of work and it has to be done by people who really know what they’re doing.
You must have a good videographer or everything turns to garbage.
Whoever is doing the narrative must have a pleasing voice, a warm presence and a well-written script. The script content must communicate feeling - the joy of living in the space - not just a description of the rooms and the building materials and the prestigious brand names of the kitchen appliances. The narrator must communicate love, not the fact that he/she took voice lessons.
Lighting; appropriate background music; the timing and connection between the narrative, the music and what is being seen; the visual flow of all that is being shown; overall show length – all these must be flawlessly executed or the great potential is not only not achieved – but the viewers’ experience turns ugly and negative.
So far, great videos, much like truly great movies, rarely happen. Which brings us to…
2. Cost. It costs money to do video right. And cost has three components:
First, there is the cost of a video in absolute dollars. Even though we don't do video, I was one of three panelists on Video And Your Business at the Inman Real Estate Connect Conference in San Francisco. Both of the other panelists, when asked what a typical video presentation cost, replied that it depends on the cost of the videographer, and that cost ranges between $125 and $1,500 or more – per video.
Second, there is the relative cost of the video as a component or percentage of your overall marketing budget for a particular house. This, of course, must be reasonable as a percentage of the price of the house and should take into account the other kinds of advertising you must do to address the traditional audience of potential buyers who don’t rely heavily on the Internet.
And third, there is the cost of your time. If you believe that you can abdicate your responsibilities, hand them off to a Video production team/person and just ignore the process you are seriously mistaken. You’re the real estate professional. You are in charge of and responsible for marketing the home. You answer directly to the seller. You need to take an active role in achieving the desired result of the marketing campaign. And Video, well done, requires more time than all other forms of media presentation.
That's why video is the right solution in a relatively small number of situations. The right situation is where the price of the property allows for the highest quality video production or in situations where the video can have a relatively long shelf life without the potential need for post production modification. Ease of creation and the flexibility to change or modify post production is important - especially in today's market where property stays on the market longer.
If you think that you can save time and money by doing it yourself, and still create a good Video, go back and re-read Items 1 and 2 above. And finally…
3. Ease and Flexibility.
I hope I’ve given you a sense of the complexity and relative difficulty of doing a video well. And I hope you understand the importance of doing it well and the consequences of doing it badly.
Doing a video just to say you’ve done a video makes no sense. The result is the goal, not the medium. Well-done virtual tours can communicate far more positive emotion, positive energy and effective results than mediocre or bad videos. And they can be created with far greater ease because you can work on the components separately. You can focus on photography without simultaneously bringing in the narrative. Making text changes to the narrative does not require any re-shooting. The entire process is far easier.
Even more important is the flexibility. There is a flexibility you get with a well-architected virtual tour that will never exist with a video presentation.
In today’s buyers’ market, homes stay on the market far longer. That often triggers the need to periodically change, modify or update your Internet presentation. With video, you must re-shoot parts of, or even the entire Video. Cost. Time. Yuk.
Today’s virtual tours are not the difficult to produce 360 degree tours of yesterday. They are dynamically created from still images, and allow you to simply change out the photos you don’t want and insert new ones. Or change the narrative. Or add additional photos. Making a change takes a few minutes and zero dollars extra. Nice.
Lessons From Real Estate Connect.
At the recent Inman Real Estate Connect Conference, Christian Sterner, CEO of Wellcomemat, showed a video that is the perfect example of what I described above, although that was not his intent. Admittedly, the example he used was a sped up version of the actual video. However, his argument both at the conference and on their blog, is that this is far superior to any virtual tour. See for yourself.
Information with insufficient emotion.
Bad lighting.
Plain vanilla words with no real story.
All the cost with none of the benefits.
Now, if you’re going to respond by telling me: “Who cares, the client wants video,” then my answer is, I completely understand, and I intend to address that topic in a future post.
For all other issues, just look at the video and let me know what you see and what you don’t see.
Personally, I strongly believe that well-done video has an important role to play in Internet marketing. But it’s far narrower than the videovangelists would have you believe. Your job, as a professional, is to know which approach to use in which situation to give your clients and you the best results and the best return on investment.
Bill Leider's response to this post is here: http://activerain.com/blogsview/197334/To-V-Or-Not
Jeff Turner aka respres
Jeff - when I get over the headache of having to watch all the jerky motions of the video I'll have an opinion!
It's so true that you would have to have a great (not good) videographer, which these were not. I think I'll stick with your RealEstateShows.com that have me totally hooked!
Jeff - My issue with the video is the same as with the 360 degree tours, you have to show everything, even the unflattering angles and bad views. The junk in the hallway, whited out windows, pills in the cupboard etc. There is also the camera movement / shake factor.
I don't know, I think that when listing a home agents would want to show it in the best light to attract the maximum number of buyers. I think using video is a great way for buyers to narrow down their search and cross homes off the list. I don't think this is what listing agents are trying to accomplish. I think once people get to a home they may fall in love with it, but only if they decide to call their agent for a showing.
Jeff, you bring up some really good points here. I think the video conveys emotion like no other medium can. I also think it's super expensive and very time consuming to do correctly. I wonder if our expectations of what "good video" is will lessen as video in on-line marketing becomes more mainstream.
I find myself watching YouTube videos that are poor quality but engaging. I wonder what advertisers will do (not just in real estate) to produce basically TV commercials for on-line viewing. We all know what bad and cheesy TV commercials look like but people still pay to produce this sort of advertising. I wonder how effective it is? Remember Crazy Eddie and his commercials? He made a fortune, but those commercials were horrible.
It takes real talent, planning and money to do video right for TV or on-line. I do think it's the wave of the future, I just don't know what the expectations will be. I think it's a really an interesting and exploding technology.
you say:
With video, you must re-shoot parts of, or even the entire Video. Cost. Time. Yuk.
genrally we end up with too much excellent video, so we have lots of spares.
also Flash allows for dynamic delivery of content.
please understand most video delivery is in Flash, thus fully dynamic.
Microsoft has Silverlight on the way...
i wonder why Microsoft jumped in?
i forgot myself why Microsoft jumped in... so this is from their website
Jeff,
Realtors don't / won't take the time now to take good still photos. WHY would something that costs more and takes more time be more successful?
If you ask me they have a long way to go.
Me
Linda... thanks.
Maureen... there needs to be more flirting. That's for sure.
Tracey... well done video conveys emotion like nothing else can. That's a fact. I'm not denying that. I'm actually supporting that notion. The issue is what it takes to get to good video and the cost involved. It's a mistake to tell people they can do this themselves. Most can't. Most won't.
Jeff, I don't think video will replace virtual tours but I do think that video tours, video web introductions, video blogs for Realtors will definitely be more important. I have purchased thousands of dollars of professional video and editing equipment and hired professional videographers, but it's still difficult to produce great videos.
I've followed Inman's videos and their TurnHere video since their inception. They charge upwards of $3,000 for a video home tour. I don't think most Realtors will pay for this. Even in the upper end of real estate Realtors aren't going to plunk down this type of money. It's very difficult to be on camera when you're not trained. A good script does help, but it's still difficult.
I still think many people will do video, but I think the expectations will be lowered. I don't think we'll see Inman quality videos as the standard. Take a good look at the pictures on MLS, most of them are pretty bad. I wonder if this will be the standard for videos.
I think you raise great questions here, I just don't know the answers.
Jeff, I read a post today that took me to the welcomematt and then to another one. I was reading the video-evangelists. Who knows ? I don't have time right now to learn it, if I could find a videographer and it was affordable I might be.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.............the top listing agent in Ann Arbor doesn't even do VT on her million plus properties. Go figure.
It will be interesting to see where technology takes us. This reminds me of the Beta / VHS debate years ago...one had superior quality and technical elements, but the other won the marketplace.
Regardless of which medium you choose, I think you are going to be money ahead if you HIRE A PROFESSIONAL. (Isn't this the same thing we as REALTORS are trying to teach the sellers out there). It is faster, easier, and ultimatly more cost effective to hire a professional photographer/videographer. I am now working with Crystal Freeman of Oregon Home 360 in our area. She is extremely professional and a really nice person.
Virtual tours (of some flavor) are becoming a "market qualifier" today. If you aren't doing something along this line, you are costing yourself exposure.
I guess the bottom line is...Do SOMETHING! But if you are going to do it...do it right.
(Crystal will be on Real Estate Talk this Saturday 8/25 talking about home photography and virtual tours...you can get the mp3 file on line later Saturday evening if you want more info). I'd be happy to share the link to it if any one is interested.)
>But if you're going to do it... do it right.
Dave, i couldn't agree more.
I sell real estate. I am not a videographer. I do not write scripts. It is not the best use of my skills nor my time. This means that I would need to hire someone to do that for me.
Unless I had a very unique and very expensive listing, I would not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a video. I can take plenty of photos and put them in a tour that will draw potential buyers to call me or their agent to set up an appointment to see the home.
My ultimate goal is to expose my listings to as many "eyeballs" as possible and bring the buyers in so that they can experience the home in person. Videos to me would eliminate more showings than not.
Time is also of the essence. It takes me about week to get all of my marketing materials set up and ready to showcase a listing prior to going "live". I just can't see myself setting aside time to make a good quality video. I really don't think that it would be a good use of my time nor would it bring a high ROI on most listings.
Jeff, even with the equipment and script, it's still very difficult to do a good video as a trained Realtor, but an un-trained on camera personality. I've been taping for two years and finally I feel like I can be on camera without freaking out. It's been a long hard upward battle and I'm still mediocre at best.
But I will tell you that I have made back the money that I've spent on cameras and equipment many times directly from my videos so it's been beyond worth it for me. I also sell real estate in a $1,000,000 + neighborhood and I think that helps. (a lot!)
I continue to do video because my results have been excellent and people call me from all over the country because of my videos. I don't think it will become mainstream because it's not for everyone, just like blogging, so I agree with you. I just wonder if the expected quality will be lowered, not just in real estate video, all online video?
I'd love to hear other comments about this subject. I gave this post a 5 and feature flagged. I'm getting on a plane now, so I'll have to wait to read the rest of this thread until tomorrow.
Heather... I think the coming wave wants some form of interactive multimedia experience. Video is one kind. But it's not always the best kind for every home.
Irina... my point exactly.
I'm an oddball. Or, make that a dinosaur. If I am the consumer, looking for, say an appliance or an automobile, I would much, MUCH, rather look at static photos and read information-rich text, than watch a video. Video can never deliver the same quality or quantity of information as simple text. (Compare reading a book to watching a movie of the book.)
Just my 2 cents, which is probably worth zero in today's economy.
Jeff - personally I really prefer to see few, if any, herky-jerky movements, none of the fishbowl effect pictures, etc. I actually really like a product call Real Estate Shows. Have you ever heard of them?
For the REALTORS who do take good pictures of their listings, and there really are some of us out there contrary to what some seem to believe, this is a great product. We can add text, music, loads of additional pictures, floorplans, panoramic pictures, etc. And it just can't be beat for the money! Oh and dynamic? You bet it is, instantaneous.
You really should check out their website....... www.realestateshows.com
Ann ;-)
I'm a video tour provider.
There are many excellent lessons here if the real estate video folks pay attention to what's being said. We are fortunate to have people saying the things in these comments that they are likely thinking as they tell you "no" on the phone or in person. We don't often get the opportunity to see the reasons why customers say, "no", and then have the opportunity to go off and correct as many of the points as possible.
As we pointed out in a previous post ( http://activerain.com/blogsview/175544/Why-The-Video-Tour ), sometimes "us video folks" just don't get it. We must make a clear value proposition with video that outweighs the fully burdened cost of video. For instance, one such value proposition would be consistently putting qualified buyers in front of the seller more often in a measurable way. What would a seller or REALTOR pay for that in today's market? Likely a lot. Is this happening today? no.
VT does have its weaknesses just like any other approach. However, their industry has had years to fine tune and iron out processes that now make the virtual tour easy, effective, and low cost. Jeff's company has been a big part of that process. Be assured that virtual tours were not always so attractive or easy. We have the same opportunities to "fix" many of the objections listed above with more runway on the upside.
I'm actually in support of many of the points written here and look forward to seeing the rest of the series before formally responding. We think that we have an idea where the value proposition is. Until then, I believe that this post is perhaps the wakeup call that our industry needs.
View this post as an opportunity...
Tony
Great post!
I don't think video will EVER kill the virtual tour. I also think that a simple slideshow or even photographs is an absolute necessity on any listing (I actually do both for most of my clients). A video tour takes it a step further for those who are seriously interested in the property and want to see more, but I think it first starts with good photos. (of course, that's an entirely different story....)
Expensive? Yes. Difficult to do? Yes. Time consuming? Hello???? All of the above, not to mention some heavy duty computing power, expensive equipment and lots of storage (I'm on my 4th terabyte drive!).
It's definitely NOT for everybody, nor is it for every listing. But I think it's definitely an alternative presentation of a property, one that is far more captivating then photos can ever be. But, just as there are a lot of bad photos out there, there is a lot of bad real estate video out there - and I'm sure more is coming!
One aspect of video that many people overlook is the benefit to the agent. These days, every realtor looks the same, has the same sales spiel, the same website (sometimes exactly the same website!), the same marketing plan, the same business cards, etc. etc. A video tour is one of the few ways of differentiating yourself from 99% of the competition in the eyes of your customer. Flip up your iPhone or laptop and play a video tour on your listing appointment, and the deal is as good as done. Consumers respond to video in a big way - more than Realtors do! And at least right now, it's almost guaranteed that nobody came to the listing presentation with a video tour!
Personally I try and play it safe with my tours.... and don't encourage agents to be on camera. it's definitely a skill, and I don't think most Realtors on camera add much to the presentation. In fact, I see many of these stilted Realtors in their video and just groan - probably not the intended reaction! I've narrated most of my tours myself (and was a theatre major in college, so probably better at it than most), and I just gave it up and hired professionals to do the voice-overs. I think you have to know your limits, and most realtors belong selling houses, not in front of the camera!
I also know, after working with Realtors for many years, that most don't like to spend much money in marketing. So in that regard, I don't think a good video tour will ever be 'cheap', and probably will always remain more of a niche marketing tool.
Jeff,
Replace no, used by some obviously. It's just one more of many tools in the took-kit as far as I'm concerned.
Personally I've used them in the past, but not the most recent 3/4 years. I just didn't like the way they were turning out for some reason. I felt the homes were not being showcased in the best possible light, which was my whole purpose in the beginning. At this point I'd rather use a visual/photo tour.
Interesting - I sent an article today to our team web guru, mainly about e book publishing but the last paragraph talked about videos and how one home sold from its You Tube posting. Amy e-mailed me back making almost the same points you did - cost, expertise, etc.
A supplement for well chosen homes? Yes. A replacement for visual tours and/or photographs? Not likely. I don't even like the 360s - nor do most of my clients.
I use photo's and add music to create a virtual tour video. Very cost effective (If you use a mac) and the nice Ken Burns effect makes it visually interesting. Realtor.com now has "video" beta and I have been posting them there as well as my site (but I hate youtube's quality)
www.CarlGuild.com
Realtor.com Example (Click Video)
Marchel... the goal is to get the phone to ring. Period.
Cheryl... I think there are many who would agree with your perspective on this. Many.
Tony... in the post you linked, you said...
"For instance, I've read a number of blog posts with interest recently around the differences of video vs. virtual tours. In most cases, the video tour providers argue points such as the following: (these are each actual examples)
- you can't see the dog's tail wagging or tree leaves blowing in the wind.
- You can't see the shooter and camera moving... and then turning back towards the entrance
I've never seen a virtual tour respond to *any* of these blog posts or even really to any of the arguments made; one or two probably have somewhere but more likely they simply don't need to respond. "
I read the same posts you did, and at least one of them was directed specifically at me. That's the only reason we felt we needed to respond. But, that said, it was enlightening for me, as it was for you. Your post is excellent, by the way. You know I am a big fan of good video. Too often, as you say, there is not a clear value proposition laid out and that's one of the things we're going to try to accomplish.
Of course VT has it's weaknesses. I can point out my own flaws as well as the next. There is a place for both.
Thank you for taking the time to comment at such length.
David and Carol... there is room for and a need for each of the media types available for your marketing. I agree.
Fred... you're also one of the guys I'd point to as "getting it." I've visited your site many times and the people in your area are lucky to have you there to service their needs.
I think all of your points are valid. The points you make about agent differentiation play a role in establishing the criteria for a measurable value proposition. And, like you, I believe Realtors should be spending their time in front of clients, not in front of the camera.
We had a guy come to our sales meeting to talk about video tours. The one he showed us was so cut up and the cost to do these was outrageous. Same goes for that one up there....saw nothing really good...same cut up chopped up stuff...guy at least could have taken some acting lessons...and maybe one day it'll be a hit when the kinks are worked out....like those camera guys for movies with the rolly things so it's smooth looking video...what do you think?
I think I'll stick to RES ...that was it's still moving and it has the best shots that I took and hey...lookie all the stuff you're coming out with....
I wonder if it's like buying pc stuff. It's expensive when they first come out...later on price comes down. (When the LCD screen first came out my 15" Sony was almost 800 dollars! Now I have a 19" and it was about third the cost)
Lynda... like 360 tours, a video not shot well can actually steer otherwise interested parties away from a house they might love.
Sharon... very interesting timing. The planets must be aligned just right. :)
Carl... if only everyone used a MAC. The world would be a better place. :)
Diane... it all boils down to ROI. We're going to be talking about that a lot more.
Dave... bingo is right.
Celeste... there is always going to be a human element to video production that will keep the costs relatively high. I think Fred Light pointed that out above. But you're lucky... you've got amazing scenery to work with. :)
Jeff,
You have to do a cost benefit analysis for any marketing used to sell something. Poor quality anything whether it be photos, virtual tours, or video, will probably hurt more than help.
For a few hundred dollars to buy a good digital camera and time spent practicing the average person can take good quality photos.
If you search REALLY HARD you can find a good virtual tour product for about a hundred bucks a year for an unlimited number of tours.
Good quality videos are going to cost quite a bit for each video.
For most properties the cost benefit analysis does not justify the cost at this point in time. That could change in the future but for right now it will be the exceptional property that justifies the expense of a well produced video.
Until then, I will take a ton of photos and use the best one to post to the MLS and make a good quality virtual tour for every listing since the cost investment is very low and the return is almost as high as with the video.
Rita... you make excellent points!
Vicky... shooting good video is hard, bottom line. That's why good videographers deserve every penny they make. It is an art.
Jeff,
The power of video (if done properly) could be a very powerful tool and we are just in the beginning stages of things to come. As far as expense, I think one only has to spend a little time on YouTube to see some great work being done with only a simple camera with video cabability. Like websites, it's a work in progress and something not to be ignored.
I think of one particular importance that could be showcased with video is the ability to show the personality of the actual real estate agent -- done properly this could be very beneficial (or detrimental). A big benefit of blogging over a plain website is the ability to show off some personality instead of a dry website.... blogs today are far superior then when they first started up... due to experience and progress.
I don't know about other people who might actually take the time to read this, but we know real estate agents with fantastic personalities that sell a lot of real estate simply because people like them....
Video is not going to be for everybody... but for some, it's going to be a very, very powerful tool.
Paul and Michelle... for showing off people's personalities, nothing beats video. NOTHING. I said that several times during the video panel at Inman. If the goal is to show your personality, then you better do a video. And I know some Realtors with amazing, engaging personalities, that would be scared stiff in front of a camera. It's not for everyone. But you're 100% right, for some it's going to be a very, very powerful tool.
You can't say the same thing about a house. You can definitely capture the personality of a house without video.
Jeff - since you brought it up - I'll put examples of a Real Estate Show (I agree with Ann btw....you should check them out!) and a video tour.
The whole purpose of this is definitely experimental - as Realtors it is our responsibility to think outside the box and to find different ways to market our listings and getting them sold. Every property needs to be displayed differently....what's the right answer?
http://www.realestateshows.com/189909
http://www.vidlisting.com/player/videopage.asp?vid=sdhkfsd&t=v
***things to point out - the video tour was provided in 3 different languages and populated Internationally (that was a big plus in my book).
***as for appearing in my own video as the host and walking you through the property.....I think I may have to try that one, it's a fun idea.
Just as the battle goes for the levels of service provide by real estate companies... Discount Brokers to Exquisite Luxury homes Brokers. There is a place for everyone. Every customer has a choice and every Realtor has the tool available. I can't see the expense of a full blown video production on an average home.
Applaud you on a nice thread topic...I don't think I have ever seen such full comments on a blog before.
And you should really check into www.RealEstateShows.com I heard the MFIC is pretty cool.
Jeff - but going beyond the languages, I think there is an important point that needs to be discussed. There are people that will be bothered by the length of the video, by the voice and by other details (like the toilet paper exposed in the master bathroom........go ahead....go look at the video again).
My intent is to expose the listing not only to International buyers, but to different types of buyers as well, some are visual, som auditory......some will hate both. Is there a right way and wrong way and how can we as professionals determine what will work for a certain listing.
Ah, the power of text. I can sense Jeff's passion for the points he has typed into this post. There's no mistaking his thorough understanding of his product. I think the power of text, simple emotional text, coupled with fantastic listing photographs, creates an impression on viewers. Video adds a person's voice, and that voice can distract, annoy and complicate the process for viewers.
Well put Jeff...I compare this same idea that video will take over virtual tours to those that create a new real estate marketing site that is going to dominate the way real estate is sold. I can't tell you how much was written about Sellsious when it came on the scene. I was not a proponent of Sellsious and I have spoken to 3 Realtors that posted their listings on Sellsious several months after all the hype on Active Rain and not one of them had received not even one lead. The propoents of Sellsious talked like it was the next best thing to the creation of the world wide web! Same thing with Zillow. I listed a home on Zillow and 6 months later I had one hit from Zillow to my website...MY OWN! Proponets of video can say all they want. You made some strong and valid points.
Ines... there are some sound behavior reasons why going past 60 seconds, without a compelling story, is a bad idea. We're going to talk about that as well. More is seldom better, unless the more can captivate you. We have short attention spans.
Sue... voice over is tricky as well. That's an entire subject in and of itself. So true.
George... thanks. You make some interesting points that lead this in an entirely new direction. How about a post from you on that?
That's the number I was looking for Jeff - you are THE master of detail! 60 seconds! Dig you guys here that!!!!?????
So I guess the whole ordeal of camera man....editting....voice overs....for 60 seconds. HMMMMM (I think I ran out of dot dot dots)
That's the number I was looking for Jeff - you are THE master of detail! 60 seconds! Dig you guys hear that!!!!?????
So I guess the whole ordeal of camera man....editting....voice overs....for 60 seconds. HMMMMM (I think I ran out of dot dot dots)
Now now guys...the video being used to make Jeff's arguments valid is a perfect meatball, pop-fly, toss up, lob pitch. Phil and I shot this video in literally five minutes, with a cab waiting in the driveway to take us to the Inman event (where we were to present this very same video). Should you hire a videographer? Absolutely. Jeff took his WellcomeMat video from this blog post (maybe context helps?), and decided not to include the clickable chapters:
http://realestatevideo.wellcomemat.com/2007/08/17/just-how-hard-is-it-to-shoot-your-own-video-tour/
Hey Jeff...well done. We owe you one you xsfdfiwnclanmd! Love you man! Let the debate rage on and the numbers speak for themselves. You can count on WellcomeMat bringing it. Yes, photos are easier/less expensive, but I wonder why someone decided to string (or interlace) images to make motion pictures? I wonder why QVC & HSN lean so heavily on video salemanship? I wonder why TV overtook all other mediums and left radio/print in the dust? What of infomercials? We don't make the choice of what medium wins...the viewers/web users do.
Thank you for this great post! I've noticed a lot of people experimenting with video not just real estate agents, but also bloggers! Video will not "take over the world" in any profession though people that would make money from it might want us all to believe that. :).
Thanks for the information and insight.
Christian... I know you'll bring it. :) I'm hoping so.
I can find a hundred videos to use as an example for this post's purpose, so I don't think most of the comments here are responding to your video, but the majority of videos they've seen in general. As for it being a lob, well that's the lob you tossed out when you said... "I defy anyone to show me how a few photos or VT could provide this type of A, interactivity and B, storyline. People buy stories NOT photos." What's missing is the story. What I would love to see, Christian, is the non sped up version of your do-it-yourself sample in this video. I think everyone would benefit by seeing the story that is so compelling.
The numbers will speak for everyone. You're right about that. The viewers and web users will decide, but the Realtor plays a role as well. There must be a value proposition that is based on more than arguments like "I wonder why QVC & HSN lean so heavily on infomercials?" I consider myself a bright guy and I don't get the connection to ROI for a Realtor when the numbers clearly show that VT's still work very, very well.
Wow, Jeff. You're busy with this one. Great topic. Especially refreshing is to see a lot of even keeled comments despite the different strokes I can see in some of the posts.
I personally prefer video for the flexibility I think it gives me to control pace and range of emotion. But, do I choose not to use VTs? Absolutely not. I use them. I also use stills.
Will video kill the virtual tour? Definitely not. And, flipping the question around doesn’t change the answer, either. Nor do I think it changes by extending and mixing up the question to include Stills.
I think videos, virtual tours, and still photos are all different tools in my listing toolbox. Like real estate, each has value when used for a particular purpose. I guess put another way, the highest and best use for each media is its most profitable (ROI), physically possible (skill; equipment; ability), and legally permissible use. Using each tool with these principles in mind can make a pretty compelling value proposition to a client.
Looking forward to "part 2." ;-)
Jeff, I was waiting for you to write this. =) Great post and discussion. I believe video tours have their place in our market. I think they're prohibitive as far as the average listing goes. Too much expense as well as time. And you make such great points. Emotion on video is hard to come by without all the different components being in place...such as Jupiter being aligned with Mars. It is so much easier to achieve with good still photos and caption on a picture tour.
Even on Ines' video tour, the first 3 or 4 scenes had me wondering whether they were video or panoramic stills. Only when I saw the ceiling fan, was I able to confirm it was a video. And I didn't find the video any more engaging than the picture tour. As a matter of fact, I closed it before it finished...you have always been right on the money about grabbing those first 30-60 seconds of attention span and doing the most with it.
Will I add video tours to my arsenal of marketing tools? Yes, but only for a high-end property and even then, I'll have to do a lot of work to find someone who can convey the feel I'm after.
Real Estate Shows, with it's ease of use, versatility and unbeatable price will always have a place with my listings.
Jeff, You always have such terrific posts - this one is a blast.
MTV may have changed the music scene but I truly doubt that Video will change the Real Estate market. It is another tool that if used correctly can assist in marketing.
Video is too hard for a novice pc user to work with. And if not difficult, them cumbersome.
I see video as a feature, an optional feature, of web marketing.
Maggie... I've seen a few amazing listing videos that go past that attention span threshold, but they are few and far between. In the absence of a truly compelling story and amazing videography, you'd better at least pay attention to attention span.
Phillip... I think video has a very important role to play, especially in helping a brokerage sell their services, highlight it's people, promote a neighborhood by including testimonials from people who already live in the neighborhood. When people are what are being featured, video simply can't be beat.
"We have short attention spans."
My response? Completely agreed if the objective is to simply be entertained. We believe that serious prospective buyers do not necessarily have such short attention spans. We'll explain why briefly here and in more detail later.
But first, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Like Jeff, we are a multimedia vendor trying to provide the best results and service for our clients. We collect and crunch a lot of data on our site based on actual user behavior. We also talk a great deal offsite with sellers, REALTORS, and buyers. In the interest of transparency, our data is only 9 months old. We have by any measure a relatively small dataset numbering only in the high hundreds of thousands of data ponts and dozens of thousands of discrete visitors that are useful for analysis.
That said, some of the things into which our analysis gives us a growing level of insight include:
- Distance Factors In The Online Buying Process: we are fairly sure that there is a measurable difference in "local" vs distant multimedia viewer habits (this is the basis in our philosophy around distribution of videos...jeff knows where I'll end up taking this part of te discussion in the future)
- "Prospective Buyer" Behavior Vs Everyone Else: how prospective buyers respond to long vs short videos is often different from other site visitors particularly when distance is brought into the equation. I think that you'll be quite surprised at the conclusion that prospective buyers do not have the short attention spans attributed to them anecdotally nor does providing less information necessarily result in more enquiries. We have hard data that supports this point. (before people send me email in droves saying that I cant know who the prospective buyers are on our site, it won't steal any thunder to explain that we generally identify prospective buyers by matching inquiries about specific properties with identifable user behavior on the site before and after the inquiry)
- Engagement Levels: engagement levels of an audience are important and we see a relationship between levels of engagement and language. For an example, see http://activerain.com/blogsview/163603/Measuring-Online-Engagement-With
- Desirability of the Property: the idea that there is a fuzzy measurement known as "desirability" around which one can build a conceptual model for usage of appropriate tools and approaches. This plays into the amount of context that needs to be presentated in order to meet the minimum bar of information to a prospective buyer. We lay the foundation of this thinking at http://activerain.com/blogsview/170970/Defining-The-Minimum-Presentation
Would you be surprised to know that despite the above, if you ask me in a vacuum if I think that short videos are better, I'll agree. The point here is that we need to separate our own personal preferences from what is effective for the buyer. As Ines so aptly pointed out, each buyer is different. Unfortunately, our data only looks at aggregate behavior rather than individuals and only includes data from our site and sites that use our infrastructure. What works for the set of buyers that can just drive over and see a property may not work for the set of buyers that are planning valuable vacation time around a home purchase.
For a number of reasons, our results may be extremely atypical. But, we do have results within the first months of startup that are being replicated over time with respect to the behavior of a growing group of prospective buyers. That is the first link in building a real value proposition chain, isn't it?
Again, we love the discussion here and look forward to responding to Jeff's points in greater detail once Jeff has finished his series and/or making any needed changes in our processes or approaches to address issues that have been identified.
Tony
Yvette... thanks.
Tom... I've been a MAC user for 20 years. I've been a Final Cut Pro user since it's release. I think iMovie is the simplest video editing tool on earth, and I still cringe whenever I have to edit video. Is it easier to do today than it was 5 years ago? Sure, but that it still won't help me shoot better video. Steve Zehngut said yesterday, "owning video equipment doesn't make you a videographer any more than owning desktop publishing software makes you a graphic designer." It's an art.
Teresa... I've seen bad photos too. :) In fact, I've taken a few.
Brian... I think most people would. It's all about the quality of the presentation.
Tony... you make some good points in your Minimum Presentation Bar post, but you make a couple of statements about context that I think are simply false.
You state that textual descriptions, narrated video and narrated virtual tours provide "additional context," but that photos, property video with music and virtual tours with music "do not provide additional context." Your statement is only true if the text and narration does more than simply regurgitate what you can read in the property description. Having the human voice tell me the kitchen has granite counter tops when I can read that in the description is not providing additional context. Again, the quality of those things is ultimately what can or will provide the additional context. Their mere presence will not.
Also, to say that music doesn't provide additional context is simply wrong. Music says things words can't possibly say. The right song as a backdrop to video or photos can add a context that can't be achieved otherwise. Imagine the scene from Rocky when he's running up the stairs without music. I'm sorry, music, done right provides tremendous context.
Video production and editing can be time-consuming, expensive and isn't for amateurs. The end product will never be any better than the best of the raw footage you start with. It's a lot less complicated to edit (or re-shoot) still photographs.
Video buffs who wish to incorporate music should take a moment to look up the ASCAP/BMI rules for using someone's music in your video production. Unless it's "public domain" or royalty-free, you can get yourself into trouble for theft of intellectual property rights if the video is widely-viewed and someone reports you.
My point is that music or photos can't tell me anything much beyond what I see with my eyes. We'll naturally fill in context that isn't provided and build our expectation from there.
Taking your Rocky example and that particular scene in isolation, what do we know about Rocky in the scene other than he is a guy in a gray sweatsuit that is running up some stairs in Philly? not much. The music adds nothing in terms of information. I could guess that he is a boxer by his boxing type actions...but he is just as likely to just be some guy trying to keep warm on a cold morning :) the real linkage to the emotion around that scene is arguably the result of the tie to the storyline. But I digress..
I'll agree with you about the granite countertops...but that can be applied to any factual data. Text's ability to paint a mental picture is limited by the skill of the writer. The value in seeing and hearing is in the retention, isn't it?
Tony
I'm really curious to see Christian's unabridged version of a video tour - I really do think that it's great to see the individual agent in action if that agent happens to be charismatic and ads personality to the shot. I would hate to see the regular joe-blow going room by room saying "this is the kitchen, this is the bathroom". Even an "interview type video" during an open house showing people actually seeing the home....not bad ideas if done well.
Jeff: A professionally-produced video might be demanded for a very high end listing--as might aerial views. But as I think about it, a series of Real Estate Shows for different areas of an estate might also work:
1. Pool and exterior grounds.
2. Kitchen, dining and entertaining.
3. Retreat and relaxation (bedrooms and baths)
4. Guest quarters and amenities.
...and so on.
I've readed all this post and I founded very helpful from the agents perspective. But as a property owner, and as a real estate marketer of course, I'd need to know what works better from a financial perspective. Any of you guys have already tracked what is the sales ratio for a property to be sold using virtual video? I mean how many views vs purchasing time.
{Hubba SWV}...
I think there's room in the market for both.
There are those who want the reader's digest version and then there are those who would like the whole book :)
TLW...ROAR!
We were debating this in the office the other day. I can not wait to see the video that makes it on realtor.com now that they allow user load of video. This should be a very entertaining time in real estate. All one has to do is look at the average quality of photos taken by agents. Now....give em a video camera?America's Funniest Real Estate Videos! I think it is great idea that will create a whole new income source for virtual tour companies......Realtors are not ready to be handed such a powerful tool!
Great post Jeff....Where is my MONEY?!
Wow, quite the debate here, but I think the majority of everyone is missing the point of Video.
Video is not some super power that sells homes quicker then any other Internet means. It is not meant to replace virtual tours, MOST LIKELY , YES! The simple fact about video is that it is tapping into our "lazy American society" way of life. American's spend more time watching TV then they do any other recreational activity(according to government survey figures, 240+ minutes a day on average per household). All real estate video is doing is tapping into that niche. People don't want to read, or flip through web pages.THAT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH EFFORT. They want to press play and have all the information told to them, just like their TV does! Motion pictures also capture an emotion, and a level of interest that cannot be duplicated by even the finest quality virtual tour(which i do agree, visually, is much higher image quality then even the finest video tour). Isn't that what buying a home is all about ? EMOTION? Lets face the facts though, We don't turn on our TV's, or go to the movie theater to watch a slide show with music on it now do we?
This brings me to my next point. Should agents be trying to do their own video? PLEASE, NO...at some point , mr "Amateur video maker Real Estate Agent" has to realize that his shaky, overexposed, long, boring movies are actually hindering his sales efforts rather then helping them. If you can't make a video that will captivate people , why is a potential buyer going to waste his time going to even look at the property? If you present yourself to a potential listing client as a "do it all yourself" kinda person, skimping corners on proper marketing efforts, poorly showcasing their largest , most dear possession, THEY ARE GOING TO PASS ON YOU, AND SIGN UP WITH THE GUY THAT HAS THE PROFESSIONALS DO IT RIGHT FOR HIM!.
TO ALL THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS OUT THERE, If you do decide that video is the way to go, find a professional Videographer in your area that can do it right. Just like with virtual tours, there are good, and bad ones. Trust me when i say that you will get more business by doing things right, and not cutting corners. If you want to be a successful agent in today's world, you have to stand out from the crowd! Your clients expect that.
Let me get this, That video was a promotion for the video company? the hosting company? the technology? or for Stills based virtual tours?
I run camera for sporting and speaking events in my part time alter ego as a IATSE stagehand and camera-man. Video is tough, and unforgiving at best. Choopy, Shaky, hard to light well, and tough to edit. Let alone star in. (if you think you are good at video framing, try shooting hockey)
While I can see video mixing in with VT's For me not selling $2m+ homes, for now I will mostly stick to stills based VT's.
This post, like so many of Jeff's stretches the mind, I do have acess to good equipment, maybe sometime I will make the commitment to do some video. Probably start with a few clips to introduce myself and Mainstreet brokers, maybe some of the area, then sprinkle those clips into my VT's.
And Jeff, the reason that Microsoft does things is obvious, trying to keep up with Mac!
Hi Jeff, I watched this a few times and did learn something. Doing Video is not for me,lol. What a piece of crap, pardon my brashness.
Your argument holds so much water, it will drown his video. If the property is representative of his " New Age clients, maybe the video is exactly what they need to attract other -----, excuse me other Buyers that want to live the same way, lol Welcome Your Tube.
In all fairness, if we did do RealEstateShows.com, the property would still need to be staged, lighted and made desirable. Pictures can only do so much. Making a Silk Purse form a Cows Ear is very time consuming.
I suspect that this gentelman's work likely reflects exactly how he does the business. I think the expression is "Down and Dirty". LMAO
Zig Ziglar says "find out where everyone is going and get there as fast as you can."
If one is not using the latest in Technology: video streaming, than they will be left behind.
Expensive? Non-sense. I have video applications for $10 dollars a month.
See for yourself at www.helloworld.com/kennybaxter or www.vmdirect.com/kennybaxter
This companies Founder, started Home Shopping Network and QVC.
It's awesome!!!
I see two smart people on this blog that have found the most inexpensive and cost effective use of video applications through a company called helloworld.
Catch the wave........at www.helloworld.com/kennybaxter
Eric... good reminder on music licensing.
Tony... thanks for running with the Rocky example! I agree, but to say it provides no context devalues the music. The real point here is your focus on retention. You're right. Certainly seeing AND hearing will creating much better retention, than just seeing or just hearing. My point about information relates to the question, What do you want to be retained? Do you want the viewer to retain "Center Island with Granite Countertop" or "Perfect For Entertaining Freinds And Family." One just communicates information, the other communicates lifestyle. There's an entire debate I'm sure we could have around that alone.
Ines... we have an example we're going to show in a later post that illustrates EXACTLY what you are talking about... in a good way.
Roberta... true, but sometimes that can feel a bit disconnected.
Mauricio... we agree. That's one of the topics we'll be exploring in much more depth.
Jeff... time will tell if you're right. For me, you comment points to the need for multiple methods for communicating.
TLW[SVW]... amen, sister.
Christopher... check's in the mail. :)
Troy... i think they are.
Eric... I noticed you've been watching vid mybloglog. :) Thanks for joining the discussion. I think your voice is needed in this discussion.
I think you present an interesting point about people wanting to have all of the information pushed at them, to not read, even titles in a video. And that is certainly true for a segment of the Internet population. It may become an even larger segment, but that speaks more to voiceover than to video. In my opinion. Correct?
Michael... :)
William... ok, now, calm down, take a deep breath and tell us how you really feel. In all fairness, you are correct. Garbage in, garbage out applies across the board. The media is not the problem. What I'm trying to address here is relative difficulty for do it yourself video. I hope that my recommendation that you hire a pro is not getting lost in this.
Ruth... i'm going to go check out your site.
Kenny and Dorisa... thank you for the Helloworld commercials.
John... I never would have thought of that. And, Bill Leider coined that word, not me. :)
Jeff, it's funny you say that because my least favorite part of the videos is when the narrator says "kitchen with refrigerator, stove, dishwasher and microwave oven" - in my opinion.....those things don't have to be said....it's pretty obvious and it doesn't add anything to the video - I would mention the make of the appliances if they are high end, like Subzero or Miele....but that's me.
Another short circuit for me is to talk about a laundry room while you are seeing a bathroom - or the exteriors while looking at an interior shot. It's not easy to creat good, engaging narrations well coordinated with the video.
why do these informative blog's always turn into a senseless act of self promotion?
Mr Baxter, of helloworld, ARE YOU NOT READING WHAT THE BLOG IS ABOUT? the majority of the content is talking about how realtor's SHOULD NOT be doing their own video's, and how expensive the cost is for a professionally produced piece. Then you come on here and say you have video applications for $10 a month? HELLO? why would someone pay for your hosting services when there are countless websites on internet that allow you to host for FREE?
Jeff Turner and Joe Fenton , come on guys GIVE ME A BREAK!!! 1st you talk about how the Quality is not there for video, and how much it costs to do video the right way, then you talk about your own website that allows REALTOR GENERATED PHOTO'S to be put into a slideshow, add music, and pass it off as video? HERE'S SOME NEWS FOR YOU REALTOR'S OUT THERE: YOU CAN DO THIS FOR FREE ON YOUR HOME COMPUTER USING WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER(you already own it if you have windows on your computer), HOST IT ON YOUTUBE, USE THE EMBEDDED CODE TO PLACE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT, AND SAVE YOURSELVES $125 A YEAR THAT YOU ARE WASTING WITH REAL ESTATE HOME SHOWS.
I love coming to this website and reading the blogs. It just goes to show how classless and clueless REALTOR'S really are!
Today's breed of realtor's really make used car sales people look like true professionals!
Jeff,
Yes, you are correct. I think if agents tried hiring a professional company to handle the video advertising of their properties, they would then know the importance of having it done correctly.
Charles,
Yes, I've read the other blogs. Even though you can get video for free you can also get paid for telling others about it and that has what has happened to me and the other RE's and MB's who use Helloworld.
It's more than paying $10 dollars for just video. You get 55 other application. One, being web casting to host your own show that is archived and plays 24/7. With this application you never have to repeat your marketing, just simply direct your future customer and/or buyers to a link that does all the selling, etc for you.
You should, also, investigate more what others are speaking about too. See what I am talking about in more depth by going to www.vmdirect.com/kennybaxter and hit the American Flag Icon and watch the videos for yourself.
But I appreciate the challenge with your feedback.
Kenny,
Truly an MLM product if I've ever seen one. Just like QVC, and home shopping network, it seems to be geared tword's the lesser IQ American. The big advantage you have is that an estimated 60% of american's have an IQ of less then 60, so odds are , you'll do pretty well.
You sure have that infomercial, cheesy presentation thing down to a science though!! WELL DONE!
Charles... we're arguing the relative cost of bad quality. Absolutely, a realtor can upload a bad photo and make a bad VT. But they can also correct it simply and with no additional cost. And I've never said what we do is video. In fact, I go out of my way to say the opposite.
Yes, they can make something similar on their own in MovieMaker or on a Mac in iMovie or other apps, but you cant' do it faster or take advantage of the other things necessary to make it useable on Realtor.com, or dynamic in the truest sense of the word, etc. Time is money. Since you've never used our product, it's not possible for you to judge the relative ease. But I appreciate your comment. There is much more to this than meets the eye. That's why this debate is valuable. Regardless of your opinion of Realtors.
Charles,
Wow. attacks, attacks......this product is more than MLM. Besides, Keller Williams and other Agencies follow the same pattern and earn their money off leveraging from all their RE Agents.
Meanwhile, I guess those RE's and MB's who use this product to grow their business fall under the category of "an IQ of less than 60" must be fools. www.helloworld.com/charmaine has earned around $300k a year off this product, while becoming one of the top producers in Vegas. She must be dumb. www.buyvegashomes.com is another than has earned an additional 6 figures from this product. More, importantly, their customers (I guess more of those 60 IQer's) have benefitted as well. They, along with others, are not waiting on the market to pick back up, they are looking at other alternatives while continuing gaining an advantage over other RE's using video streaming.
It's a pubicly traded company - otc DFXN, not that you care, and recently was offered $360 million dollars to be bought by Sony. The whole world is an MLM.....the guy at the top always gets paid. By the way, Richard Kall earns about $30 million a year in RE and that is why he bought this company....he must be a 60 IQer.
I'm not sure I understand this debate.
Video killing the virtual tour? God, I hope so! Those things should be killed one way or another! It's old technology and does NOT properly represent a listing. They're distorted and weird and make me sick to watch - I usually click right off. Somebody PLEASE kill them! It was better than nothing 5 years ago, but long in the tooth today.
Slideshows set to music? It's nice I guess. But taking the exact same photos that are already in the MLS, zooming a bit in and out, fading from one to another, putting some (oftentimes cheesy) music in the background - what's any more different than just looking at the same pictures that are already there? I don't understand this argument. It's nice I guess, but is it really any better than just looking at the pictures? Seems like a step sideways, not necessarily forward.
Plus, I have seen some of these visual tours that are just plain nasty. If agents take bad - crooked - blurry - slanted - pictures of the corners of a bedroom, there is nothing you can do to make it any better. It's just a slideshow with crappy photos!
Video? I like it. I don't think it's for every listing, but it's definitely a better representation of the home and it's different than photos. Not better necessarily, just different.
I think there's room for everyone. The bigger argument is why most listings have nothing but a few lousy photos!
Just somebody PLEASE kill 360 degree virtual tours and make the world a better place!!!!
Erick.... I couldn't agree with you more about the need to use different photos on your MLS listings, your ads and your tours. I actually wrote about that specifically a while back: http://activerain.com/blogsview/23440/Give-The-Consumer-More Also, tours are often disconnected from the pages they are originally placed, via forwarding, social bookmarking, etc.
As for a step sideways, obviously I don't agree, especially when done right. Feedback from consumers speaks against it as well. And, yes, there is room for everyone!
Mel,
I "was" enjoying the day until I was "attacked". Ha. But, hey, it's all in fun. It's a good debate.
From my perspective, I have to look at the fact that video streaming will be used by over 100 million people within the next 12-14 months, according to Forrester Research Company (San Diego). Just like cell phones and Beta's, now we do text emails with laptops and now here comes the Iphone....it, too, will have video applications.
Get on board, or get left behind. Video Tours, Virtual tours, "real time" communication is here to stay.
www.vmdirect.com/kennybaxter
Great post, Jeff.
I'm not a fan of unprovoked attacks as well. IQ of 60? Wow, Charles can definitely hide behind a computer. I hope you are not one that steers clients in certain neighborhoods because of how YOU feel about a stereotype. This is why you need video to really see how a person can have a meaningful and intelligent conversation.
And regarding commercials, aren't we posting about Wellcomematt and also Real Estate Shows here? You think this isn't advertisement in the form of a blog post? By the way, I just renewed my Real Estate Shows account as it was nearing the annual subscription. Great product; easy to use. :) Ooppss...didn't mean to mention that. Folks, this is called Viral Marketing. Unfortunately, there are people (who have IQ's OVER 60) would rather get paid from viral marketing via ActiveRain Points and not with $$. And this is certainly okay. How many of us here have actually invited other real estate professionals to join ActiveRain? I have because I believe ActiveRain is a great site for real estate professionals. How many put ActiveRain logos on their personal websites or blogs? Still not getting the point?
Anyway, back to the topic in hand. Video and Virtual Tours have their places in real estate. We all need to find out what the purpose or the intent. In most cases, Virtual Tours focus on the property and not on the Realtor. Video focuses on multi-sensory which can help greatly to convey the right message. If you want to know more about video marketing tools, join our group and would love to hear your ideas.
http://activerain.com/groups/videonetwork
For what it's worth, I think video is a tool appropriate for a particular niche and one that is somewhat narrow. I think virtual tours lend themselves as a tool with a broader market. Not to mention cost effectiveness!
Great post!
Marc... you already know I'm a fan of yours. So thanks! Of course this is advertisement in the form of a post, but I go out of my way not to mention my company in my post and have only responded to others mentioning us. Why do I do this? To try and focus the conversation on the broader concepts... and I used the Wellcomemat video simply because they called VT's to task on their blog... and that is the video they used when they did so. So, it's helpful for everyone to make sure the conversation attempts to stay focused on the broader issues.
Video companies can benefit from this discussion, if they choose to have an open mind. Other VT companies can benefit from this discussion if they hear with the right ears. There is a bigger issue at stake. And it's worth talking about... obviously. :)
Jeff, we already know you have all the "cool technology". A mac user for all these years? I am definitely getting one eventually. If our MLS weren't so anti-safari and mac, I would have done so in a heartbeat. I'm still trying to get them to have our e-key compatible with Crackberries instead of the preferred Palm.
Off topic, David aka "Mortgage Go To Guy" was kind enough to send me a text message last night. He saw me featured on HGTV as a Tampa Bay Real Estate Expert on their show "My House is Worth What?"...okay enough shameless plug.
Marc,
Our company has a patent on a "transcoder" that allows 100% of the end users - including MAC users to receive videos. The next generation of youngsters all seem to be going to Mac's.
Anyhow, if you want more information, you can see it all in virtual demo's at www.vmdirect.com/kennybaxter and hit the American Flag Icon.
Jeff,
I appreciate the blog today.
Kenny: Actually I have had a number of people from VMDirect contact me (you're an aggressive bunch, I'll give you that!) I have gone to their website numerous times and constantly get 'stuck' as I use a Mac and your site is NOT compatible with a Mac, which I have told several people in the past, yet they argue that it is. I find it very frustrating for me, and as someone who works on a computer all day long and can figure out most anything - I can only imagine how difficult "Joe Blow typical customer" would find it.
It's NOT. And as a long time Mac user, I have issues with that!
Whoever is asking... the bigger issue is evaluating technologies and marketing expenditures based on solid business metrics. This is not about chosing Wellcomemat or or a VT company. Video isn't better because you can see leaves moving or ceiling fans moving. VT's aren't worse because you can't. How do you (if the person asking is a Realtor) properly evaluate what technologies and platforms are right for your business?
If you were at the panel, you'll know that I applauded video when used in the right circumstances. If you can get a better return on investment from video, then you should use it. If you can't, then you shouldn't. Because if you can't, that means other methods are effective in accomplishing your goals. I think that's the bigger issue.
Fred,
It is Mac friendly. Send me your email address and I will forward one to you to show you. One just has to take a few different steps and, obviously, someone has told you different. I have two customers who have Mac's and love vmdirect.
I'll send you some examples. Take care.
That was actually funny. :)
I have been reading this blog off and on all day, between edits. As a video dude and WellcomeMat freak, there are a few things I see that are for sure:
-Realtors need to hire professionals to produce a quality video of their listings, just as they need to hire a professional to produce quality photos.
-Realtors should not stop using VT's to promote listings, it is so cost efficient.
-Realtors need to stay on the cutting edge of technology in some fashion to compete.
Which brings us back to video, you do not have to spend a lot of money to hire a pro to produce for you, you just have to find the right one. Many shooters will discount rates dramatically to pick up more listings. I myself will shoot and edit 10 homes at 200 each to make a deal work for clients. Point being, I think most Videographers will negotiate, for now.
Some shooters pride ourselves on the quality of our work and we will continue to demand near top dollar.
The folks at TurnHere set the market, as I recall.
Jeff, you are dead on when it comes to developing an excellent dialogue. It's the most refreshing, interesting and progressive blog on the use of video to sell real estate to date that I have read. But the use of the WellcomeMat video, that was shot and cut in less than a couple of hours, to help make your point was totally taken out of context. It comes across to me as some sort of, 'Here... let me rub an upstarts face in it' approach. Maybe that is your blog/reporting style, don't know (but it gets me going).
Realtors really need to be a part of the production process when they commit to making a professional video, I encourage my clients to work right next to me on the shoot, I would not have it any other way.
We are an aggressive bunch, those who promote video to real estate professionals, we/I realize we have a mountain to climb before some professionals are convinced...but at least we are talkin' about it.
And to that company in St. Pete that seems reluctant to get involved in video, call me and give me an hour face to face, I promise I will either change your mind now or later.
http://wellcomemat.com/florida
The analogy of the Beta/VHS tape wars was simplistic but true. Two technologies facing off, one won out on the home market, but the other won out in the professional market, and now both are gone... but the tube remains in all our lives. The delivery changed but the device did not and that, for what it's worth, that is where this debate may end.
but WTFDIK!
Very wise and transparent of you to post this discussion Jeff. I wish I had time to read all the comments and check to see how redundant mine is but at 134 comments currently I don't have the time.
My one thought on this is as follows: Once upon a time Realtors had 5 means of marketing a home.
1. Add in the paper
2. Flyer
3. Add on the radio
4. Post card
5. MLS book
At the end of the day, the viability of each as a medium was completely dependent on the quality of the final product. Now there are over 50 ways to syndicated and market property. For anyone to say that one is superior to the other is both bold and incorrect. Each home, each client, requires a certain touch point and approach that works for them. At the end of this day, whatever one chooses, albeit video, film, Real Estate Show, etc., what makes it right or the best is still the quality that went into the final production. Frankly, I defy anyone who is a novice with video to build a better presentation than someone who is prolific at a virtual tour using a real estate show.
Everything has its place and the context by which we determine what is best should be the Realtor and their overall knowledge of everything available followed by their professional recommendation for what would work best in any given situation. Fro me personally, I mine was listed, I would love to have a video but it were Youtube quality, poorly lit, bland, dry and blah, I would not be happy.
Dave... thank you for stopping by and adding your voice. It's a good one.
As for my use of their video being "out of context." I used it because they used it to illustrate how easy it was to shoot your own video and to illustrate why video was better than VT's. In my opinion, that made it fair game. It was the "I defy" statement that led us to say, "someone needs to take a closer look at why, what and how.
I think this has been a refreshing conversation as well and I'm looking forward to more of it as we delve deeper into what works best in any given situation, and how and why it works, or doesn't work. The discussion should benefit everyone, video providers and vt providers alike.
> At the end of the day, the viability of each as a medium was completely dependent on the quality of the final product.
Marc, you're 100% correct, as usual. ;)
Jeff,
Thanks for the post. I would agree with you. With all of the demands, especially in this market, I'm looking for ease of operation and cost containment. I find RES easy to use, effective and affordable. I'm reminded of the coffee commercial "when you have something that works, you keep it".
I will go on record that a videography is a far superior product than a virtual tour. Many do not see the difference, but when you can see movement of the ceiling fans, the gentle breeze through the windows, it creates a warm environment and an emotional attachement to the home, which creates a difference from the rest of the competition.
JT
A lesson from my dad.
When television first came out in the 50's many people thought that the movie industry was doomed. Afterall who would want to get in a car and go out to a movie when you can have it all at home. Well here we are 60-70 years later and Hollywood has prevailed with a fantastic movie industry that's pumping more money than the US mint.
My point.. the movie industry survived not becuase Television was competing with the Silver Screen, but because going to the movies was about an a experience.
In your example, we don't need video to show us the whole house. When most people find the house they like they're going to personally walk through it. So lets hold off on showing the whole thing at once. I prefer to stick with a still photo virtual tour that can tease the buyers mind, appeal to emotion and get them excited about the property. Nothing is more powerful than imaganiation. You kill the imagination when you show the whole thing at once.
Lastly.. How long is video 2,3 5 minutes long.. Seriously what shopper is going to spend that much time on a video.
Hmmm 10 houses to view with an average of 5 minutes per video.. Do I really have an hour to spend on this, (while I surf the web at work without being caught)
This is a no brainer....
Good post..
Martin: I don't think most people are advocating video ONLY for a real estate presentation. People preview a home with the MLS PHOTOS, then if they are interested further WILL spend 5-6 minutes watching a video for more information. You don't think that makes more sense than driving all over town, getting lost and spending $3++ a gallon doing it? In most towns, you can't see ten houses in an hour even if you wanted to! People don't want to waste time today. I'm not sure about your community, but there are more homes on the market today than most anyone can remember - it's mind boggling. And the huge turnouts (!) at open houses these days pretty much proves that people aren't willing to drive around aimlessly unless they have a fairly good idea that they are seeing a house that meets their requirements. They're previewing the home online. Then they can justify making the trip to view it in person.
The days of being 'teased' with just a few photos are over - that's what many realtors don't want to understand. Talk to your clients - they use the internet to eliminate potential homes. That's just how it is. When agents 'tease', customers 'click' - NEXT!
To Everyone... this has been a good, spirited debate and I want to thank everyone for participating and for the positive tone. I know that those who have taken the time to read through this entire, lengthy comment string have been given a great deal of information.
I want to make certain I make something as clear as possible, so I'm reiterating my thoughts. My comments here are about poorly done video, about the comparative ease of creation of virtual tours and about the fact that in many cases virtual tours are a better marketing solution.
I believe that video has an important role to play in real estate. When done well and in the right situation, it is the best Internet marketing approach. I've said this many times on many different forums. But I do not believe it's right for the vast majority of properties sold in America. My reasons for believing this are not anecdotal.
I think the timing and nature of this debate will prove to be invaluable for the real estate industry. Up to now, technology enabled transparency and real estate buyers’ appetites to use information provided on the Internet has been the transforming factor in the business. But sellers of homes, for the most part, have not yet embraced the Internet with the same knowledge, enthusiasm and demands as have buyers.
So it's timely and important that we bring to light, for the benefit of everyone, a lively and thorough discussion of the pros and cons of all approaches to Internet marketing presentations. It is vital that Realtors are well prepared for the day that the vast majority of sellers demand strong Internet marketing presentations and can lead those sellers to the most intelligent approaches. I want to see Realtors prepared to intelligently lead that change with solid, situationally sound Internet marketing solutions.
Hello Jeff and fellow Bloggers,
This is a very interesting and provocative topic. I am a web programmer and also involved in Real Estate. I have been thinking for many months in designing a community driven website incorporating videos by Real Estate agents. Perhaps the biggest drawback to this is that poor quality videos will inundate the website. But that is ok; I will accept this fact as the learning curve phase.
Many expert marketers will capitalize on this and will make every effort to improve image quality, cost, audio, and other aspects associated with video productions. Take for example Myspace.com in its infancy most user profiles were simple and boring. Take a look at it now, most background have improved and sites like Pimpmyspace and others are providing creative layouts for users. Keep in mind making modifications to a Myspace profile requires some HTML knowledge. However, now you can use their tool editors to achieve your custom feel. In short, I believe Virtual Tours companies like CirclePix and similar service providers will be proving video services in the near future. This will translate into competition and hence lower prices for the consumers. When this happens I certainly can see sites like Zilllow, Trulia, and Redfin incorporating searchable Real Estate videos and/or virtual tours.
Interesting quotes:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chair of IBM, 1943.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
This is funny!
"Folks, the Mac platform is through-totally." - John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine, 1998
Must there be a death in the family of descriptive tools? Of course not. Depending on what you need to show (and how quickly/affordably) OR what you need to SAY (and how eloquently), one (or more) may serve your needs better than another. Words (copy), pics, vtours, video, podcasts, all have their role to attract a face-to-home visit, which is the ultimate sensual tool to cause a buyer to fall in love with a home and BUY it. We all agree, you just need to pick the right tool(s). We need screws and nails (and glue)(and ducktape). But I do believe video can supplant vtours' first mover advantage in the space if consumers express a clear preference for video--- that video-weened teenager will be buying a home soon and may see vtours as "my father's video" :)
Making the case for video, one must consider that video is being indexed. I dont know if vtours are. Many video sites exist to attract more buyer eyes. I dont know if vtours have sites like YouTube. I feel video is also more versatile than vtours, and allows for more creativity--- aren't we all trying to stand out from the crowd?---in a head-to-head, a great video WILL kill the best virtual tour, IMO. Video may also be more appealing based on ease of use & viewer laziness --- just click play and you're off -- no need to steer the mouse (I keep seeing speeding ceiling and floor views because of vtour spasticity). Videos also have a proven track record in selling product & consumer appeal--- just watch HGTV--- no vtours there. In a plug for WellcomeMat, their indexing feature is very cool (useful). Yes, professional videographers are essential & that is keeping video in the background right now. As more pros become available and costs drop-- watch out for the video bandwagon.
Besides, virtual tours make some people as dizzy as shaky video :)
A great post....as usual.
S. Gonzalez... interesting thoughts.
Joseph... all of our tours are indexed, SEO optimized with both property, location and realtor information. I know most other tours are not. Indexing is not limited to video, that's for sure. As for the buyer setting the preference, I have some other thoughts on that that I will expand on later.
I agree and disagree at the same time, maybe not today but sooner than later it will become more common. I speak a the point of that I started editing video on computers before it even really worked all that well. It is unbelievable how far cameras and software have come. With just a little practice a video tour is not much more work than photos TODAY.( KEYWORD : PRACTICE ) 5 years from now it will be even easier.
Maybe not today but sooner than later....Great Post...
I'm a Realtor and have been doing my own videos for almost three years. I can shoot, edit and produce a 4-8 minuten, narrated video in 3-6 hours. I shoot all the stills when I shoot the video and it usually takes less than 1 hour.
I edit the video and resize, upgrade and upload the stills to my MLS systems (2 of them) and use all of the information gathered when I shot thevideo. I usually use some of the stills in the video as well. I do the narration myself and prefer the "behind the camera" walkthu format.
All you need is a good quality camcorder, a steadicam and a $100 editor. And... in about three to six months a Realtor can be producing good quality videos. It does take a while to learn how to do it right.
The on-line quality is good and getting better. The market is getting tougher and more demanding. The technology is improving expotientially. The consumer will demand it.
Don't think so? Let's have this conversation in one or two years.
Bill Leider's response to this post is here:
To V Or Not To V - Part 1
I think Bill's video example shows us the advantages of video, particularly for marketing a high end property. Thus, your statement : "Do I think they are going to say, 'if you don't shoot video, I'm not going to hire you?' No. "> may not hold true if you market those properties. Those sellers may very well demand it. If you tell them it won't be effective because you don't shoot good video & you'll instead give them a great virtual tour-- you may be outta luck. You better hire a pro and get those listings.
Consider the seller in Bill's video. If you tell him you are marketing his property just like you are for the guy with a $250,000 house, I don't think you will convince him the same marketing methods are equally effective. He may feel you are not giving his home the marketing it deserves (i.e that $2500 video), esp. if you are getting 3% or more. Besides, how's that seller going to explain to his neighbors that he went with a virtual tour while they went with video--- not to mention his wife who will say, if the house doesn't sell, "it's because you let that broker talk you out of video." This is, of course, all speculation on my part and my humble opinion. Perhaps this needs some marketing research = my guess is you will get more listings if you say you are marketing with video.
Only playing Devil's advocate because it's you Jeff--- and more fun :)
Troy... agreed.
Joseph... that's actually my point exactly. This decision, to use it or not, will be situational. Now, as to getting more listings... not if I were the other listing agent. :) And, I think you will only get more listings, overall, if the guy you're listing against doesn't also have information about how much slower homes sell when too much information is presented. Technology focused firms today think the goal of the listing agent is to help buyers NOT come see a house. I think that's a major mistake.
I have a buyer currently looking in one town. In her price range, as of yesterday, there are 540 homes for sale that meet her requirements. (last year it was probably 20% of that)
Buyers ELIMINATE properties based on what they see online. It doesn't seem right, but at $3.00 a gallon for gas, I totally understand that you don't want to drive around unnecessarily to look at properties you don't have any interest in. Nothing is flying off the market, there is plenty of time to make decisions.
I don't think the GOAL is to help buyers NOT come see a house, but you have to look at things realistically and you have to look at if from the buyer's perspective. I would probably do the same thing. She is telling ME what she wants to see. When I suggest a property, if there isn't sufficient photos and tours, she writes it off.
Right or wrong, it's the way IT IS.
In all honesty, for us (as well as our colleagues) 'video' is about the online distribution potential - this is what separates 'video' from a Virtual Tour.
Whether it's a number of listing photos processed into a video or a full-on videographer-shot video tour, getting your listings into a format which can be distributed to all of the web's video and podcasting sites (like YouTube, iTunes, and the zillion others) is the important point for distinguishing the true value here for your marketing dollars.
I've read many times in this thread alone that the real significance / ROI can only be reflected in terms of getting your listings in front of your potential buyers, and having an online video distribution strategy working for you is definitely a bold move in this direction, especially at this point in time. You should hear the rave reviews we get from clients using our inexpensive 'photo based video tours' in terms of dragging eyeballs to their listings and back to their websites. They receive these benefits because we include distribution to over 10 web video sites and a large number of podcasting destinations with every video we produce - whether it's a photo-based video tour costing about $97 or a full video production we shoot with a videographer for $399. The results from either type of production are about the same in the end - higher visibility for your listings online, in all of the relevant places your potential buyers will be searching - as well as immediate SEO results from Google and the search engines that 'spider' your video content in the various locations we've posted it to.
Anyway, just my .02!
Best Regards,
Dan Dashnaw
AgentCasts.com
Dan... I know this is the mantra that almost everyone in video is chanting, but I'm sure the numbers prove the claims. Who searches YouTube for houses? I've tried hard to do that and it's painful. Potential buyers aren't trolling podcasts, youtube or any other video specific site for houses... they go to real estate search engines for that or they attempt natural language searches on the major search engines.
Tony Grey at Vidlisting.com did a good analysis of this a while back in The Data Again Shows That YourTube STILL Isn't The Magic Elixir Even With Videos Shown Inline As Universal Search Results. Tony could speak more to the current state of affairs in terms of hard data, but I just spend 30 minutes searching YouTube for videos and then searching google for the same results. My results are anecdotal and not nearly as persuasive as Tony's results, but the videos on youtube do not even show up on the first 5 pages of search results, and the number of views on each of them was anemic, by my standards.
Hello Jeff!
I was actually talking about the resulting organic search results in Google as a primary point of focus, as searching in YouTube (or any other general web video site, for that matter) is indeed a dark and exhausting way to spend your time! When we distribute a video tour to a good number of at least fundamentally-relevant video destinations, the results from these destinations (such as YouTube) reach the first page of Google's organic search results very often and very quickly.
For example, search Google organic for 'video tour fort lauderdale' and look at the results. We posted one simple demo video of a property in Fort Lauderdale through our distribution network about 2-3 weeks ago, and 'left it alone'. If we perform the search I mentioned at the start of this paragraph today, there are 2 organic results on Google in the #2 and #3 position on the page, both for this demo piece - one is from Metacafe (a web video site) and the other is from Mefeedia.com (a podcast listing site).
So, in truth, I'm not at all impressed by the current options for searching real estate video content that are currently available online, and I'm certainly not a fan of the idea of considering today's destinations as important 'search driven' places to focus on within themselves at all. It's rather the 'Google visibility' I'm impressed with from the postings that the search engine spiders pull from these sites we post to. Hope that makes sense!
Best Regards,
Dan Dashnaw
AgentCasts.com
Dan... I did understand. The assumption you're making, however, is that someone will search "video tour" as the delimiter. I searched "santa clarita real estate" on youtube and found 13 videos. If I do the same search on Google, they are nowhere to be found. If I search "video tour Santa Clarita" one of them shows up on the first page.
I think some hard comparisons need to be done to validate these claims. For the most part, except for Tony's study, all we have to go on is anecdotal information.
I believe that video should be used as a starting point with real estate. In today's fast paced environment, shoppers want to be sure that they are not wasting their time. Watching real estate videos from a computer can save them a wasted trip to a perspective property. The realtor that can show their clients quick videos of a property to get some interest has a better shot of selling the property.
Martin... I believe you get as good, if not better, results from well executed and SEO optimized "virtual" tours.
Dan... Tony also wrote another post that addresses your points: Yes, But Number One In Google For What?
Nobody searches YouTube for real estate... I think most people will agree with that.
However, MOST people begin heir real estate search on search engines - and those video sites DO come up in search engine results... under TOP keywords. In two days.... every time.
For example.... search Google for "Foxboro, Massachusetts apartment rentals", which is the #1 search keyword for apartment rentals in Foxboro, MA.... Several videos show up on PAGE ONE.... this is well over a month since it was uploaded. Two days after they were uploaded, 8 out of 10 on page one were their videos - 5 out of 10 on page two. All provide links back to their website for additional information.
Can't argue with that.
Nashua Video Tours
Jeff:
I was making the assumption that the user(s) would be likely using some discriminating search term, such as 'video tour' or 'real estate video' when querying Google, of course. A search for 'real estate fort lauderdale' is going to be heavily saturated for very obvious reasons. Isn't this the same distinction we must use for searching for anything anywhere though, when addressing the major search engines?
If a searcher wants to specify a way of distinguishing what he or she is trying to find when searching on Google, it would certainly seem likely to use a common baseline term like 'video tour' or 'real estate video' to identify the fact that they're looking for real estate video content specifically - of course. All that we're saying here is that with proper keywords and tags, real estate listing content can be dramatically boosted in terms of visibility by distributing it to the online video destinations along with the proper terms to describe the video. Nothing too shocking here, IMO.
...and Tony's post really just returns the same debate we're having here - I've been there before too. =]
Fred:
Exactly! That's why we post our video content across the web as well. =]
Best Regards,
Dan Dashnaw
AgentCasts.com
Unfortunately, I am in Jeff's corner in this case.
The Success Factors In Online Videos
We've defined the two main success factors for consideration with any property video on a traditional online video site as follows:
- the number of prospective buyers to the site to which it is uploaded (as measured by traffic to actual property videos not conference videos, blog videos, or interviews)
- the traffic from the usual cut and paste distribution of the player or video file
Factor #1: Number of Prospective Buyers At The Video Upload Sites
We pay close attention to a lot of data and just don't see the benefits of uploading to online video sites, SEO or otherwise. Like Fred says, no one goes to video sites but isnt this where the SEO value is? In the few cases where we found consistent video results and people did make first page, the search terms were so narrowly defined that the videos themselves had very few views. I just dont see video results for seaches on major cities. The SEO logic loses strength when property videos on these sites are in highly searched for areas and *still* have a paltry number of views.
To Dan's point, the article isnt the same old argument. My point is that videos aren't getting viewed on video sites even if there were such SEO benefits (which the most basic test reveals that there doesn't seem to be any across-the-board consistent benefit just by A) using video or B) using any of the upload sites)
Factor #2: The Cut and Paste Distribution Model
With any of these video sites that use a cut and paste distribution strategy, the user have 100% of the distribution responsibility (good, bad, or indifferent). No Cut and Paste = No Distribution. Distribution completely differs from one user to another.
This distribution works great for general videos but not so well when you are working to build consistent results around views. Don't know an A-List Real Estate Blogger that can paste your property video into his/her blog? Your traffic will reflect the level of contacts and the traffic that they have for property videos. It's obvious from the average traffic levels that the bulk of video owners on YouTube or other sites dont have the contacts needed with high traffic sites to achieve large numbers of video views. Otherwise, they'd all have thousands of views, right?
The Value To The Customer Is In The Marketing Not The Medium
In short, since the bulk of users are by definition far more likely to congregate around the statistical mean rather than the exceptional few achievers, why dont more video vendors have some sort of value proposition around the marketing and distribution rather than the video itself. But they really can't since the fragmented video distribution model only seems to bring one consistently measurable result, right? Show me some data with more than dozens of views in the initial 30 days and I'll see more value in that approach.
Should we as vendors have some skin in the results of business? Not being invested in the results of distribution could be considered "fine" if you are just selling a video but as you say, the value of the videos are as a marketing tool. It seems some are perfectly willing to leave the actual marketing part out of the deal and just say that video is "expensive". I personally don't think that approach is good for the buyer or the overall industry. Any marketing medium that only ends up with dozens of online views is expensive in terms of your time no matter the upfront cost of the medium.
Defining A Value Proposition
Is the value proposition of property videos simply that they can be uploaded to video sites? If so, how do you answer the question of why do so many property videos uploaded on these sites for a week or more have less than 10 video views?
We have taken a different approach to distribution that is documented on our blog and elsewhere that allows us to define a clear value proposition.. In short, our strategy brings results that lowers the cost per view under $0.30 in the first month (thats using our average number of views and from a value perspective is lower than most major market pay-per-click costs on Google) and under $0.10 per view after only about 90 days. Perhaps video isnt so expensive after all with those results.
I'd love to hear more of everyone's thinking. Counter examples using real data around property videos would be great too. Successful business models are best built around aggregate user data that is consistent.
Tony
I love video, but I agree with Jeff. It's the emotion that counts.
Here's one of mine, but it's really just a photo mashup: http://vimeo.com/1440481
Dave Keys - Solutions By Dave
DOES ANYBODY read the PEW INTERNET report or others or do they just stay here on ActiveRain? VIDEO shows up quicker than any other medium on Google or Yahoo because Video is what people are looking for. Buyers when asked state that they prefer professional video over other mediums. Is anyone listening to the customer?
Jeff writes that its easy and conveys positive emotion better than a bad Virtual Tour. So what, the same can be said of good edited Video and a Bad picture Virtual Tour with cheesy cheap royalty free music. This doesn't prove anything but that quality is important. Easy? Is that what your Seller wants is to make it Easy on the REALTOR or do they want the most valued marketing position by way of what could sell their home for potentially higher price (Video has been proven to provide a sense of being more important and more expensive to the viewer)
Easy? Both are equal. They both take a Realtor (who knows how) or a professional 20-40 minutes to do the work. No difference. Editing? Same thing. It may take slightly longer for Video but its worth it. With OBEO you have to wait 3 days for turn around. With a local Videographer he/she can have your video up on the same day. Easy in terms of what? Might be loosing marketing days with Virtuals so there's an arguement there too.
What I heard above was a lot of REALTORS stating THEIR preference, not their clients. "I use your virtual tours Jeff because they are so easy!"
http://NashuaVideoTours.com and http://GlideTours.com charge reasonable rates and do not produce shakey video. What's the issue Realtor?
http://VisitMyLuxuryHome.com seems to have some of the best video around but they do charge $800 a video... but it does look 1000 better than an Virtual Tour.
Virtual is not going away yet. However, like VHS there will be a transition at some point. Who will make that transition? The SELLERS before the Realtors do because they will demand that type of marketability once proven effective.
Tony? Don't understand why you would put down your own business. You're own video shows 528 views, not the 10 you describe??? Problem with your site is that its not developed correctly for the Buyer to find an available video. I looked at it, confusing. Not trying to be mean though. Just straight with you.
So to recap: Still Pictures will never go away and Virtual Tours are not going away anytime soon. However, Video's are going to make a huge impact in the next 2 years over Virtual and the SELLERS will make it happen over their Cheap Realtor! Sorry Guys and Gals but you exposed yourselves again for being what the public says you are. "I want it cheap and easy!"
Michelle
Michelle, do you realize your commenting on a post that is almost three years old? The comments your judging are also almost three years old.
Yes Jeff. I did see the date. It doesn't conflict with my comments about Virtual or Video comments. They are still valid because they have to do with what you said, what the Realtors said, and the comments of other professionals. If you had written it in 2000 I would have said the same thing. Bad quality is bad quality in any product.
As an update to this I went to http://HDHat.com where they allow videos priced at $30.00. However, over 80% of them are very poorly done because again, Realtors insist on trying to save a buck over providing quality Video from a professional. Saving a buck is not a bad thing but when its at the detriment of the Sellers potential home selling value it is. I had to hold a white bag while watching most of the video's.
The 20 somethings of today will know better when they Buy and Sell in the future as opposed to the current Selling generation (which truely baffles me). 35+ y/o agents that still try to "do it themselves" with a $300 camera at the detriment of the Seller is pathetic. Just my honest opinion and I'm sure other Buyers feel the same. At least the sites I mentioned in the prior post are doing a great job of setting the right standard. I think from what I've seen of your site it also sets a standard which is good.
This type of site will make your site a winner for many years to come but I stand by my statement that in the next 2 years there will be a change and I've never been wrong about anything I've ever said.
M
The one thing missing here...
Is a reality check. As the market has changed, so have the needs of the Consumer and their Realtors. We are back into a "multiple offer" market. By the time we arrange for a video to be made, which could take weeks, we're already off the market and closing the transaction. Me thinks you may wrong, this one time :)
TLW...ROAR!
Well, I was wrong just yesterday, according to my wife, so I can't relate. :)
Well, I was wrong just yesterday, according to my wife, so I can't relate. :)
I take it back! It will be 1 year from now. So I was/will be wrong. http://www.videoscape.tv is in your neck of the woods. I'll bet these guys can shoot and edit a video in less than 24 hours. Call and find out although I think they are a little on the high side pricing wise (they need to get volume up and pricing down)!
http://www.itubefloridarealestate.com has got some right ideas but they are still doing picture stills in a video. Check out the second video on the right under features with Kristine Lehman. Smokin' hot property! Every property should get as much attention as it deserves. Yes, I know some properties are crap but those won't be filmed so they eventually die off and new communities are built in their place. :)
Jeff, tell your wife you're right when it really counts. Like when you stepped out and created your VT site. I'll bet you bought her a car with your company. Ha! :) Could I be wrong?
M