Home Staging

Is Home Staging “Misleading” To Buyers?

Opinion

7 minute read

August 14, 2019

Forgive me if this sounds too “salesey,” but I recently met with a prospective home seller who wasn’t convinced that his house needed staging, and I looked out the window and pointed to his car.

“Is that your car,” I asked?

He said that it was.

“If you were going to sell that car on Auto-Trader,” would you remove the peeling bumper stickers, clean off the mud, take it for a proper wash, and then photograph it in the best light possible?”

Cheezy, perhaps, I know.  But the point is very simple.

If you’re looking to sell any product or service, you need to showcase it in the best possible light.

The idea that, in the 2019 real estate market, with prices where they are, that a seller should not get his or her house looking its best, is just ludicrous to me.

And thus, the business of “staging” has never been hotter.

Stagers are like real estate agents, or mortgage brokers, or home inspectors – there are lots of them, and many of them are God-awful.

But the best stagers out there can truly transform a property, and help increase not just the marketability of the property, but the eventual sale price as well.

I stage every single property that I list for sale, no matter what.

As I tell my sellers, “In a perfect world, your property would be completely vacant, and I would let my team, who are the best at what they do, have carte blanche.  So let’s start there, and work our way toward reality.”

From there, it’s a question of how much time we have, what we can pack, remove, and store, and whether or not they clients are going to live in the property during the listing.

I’m currently working on seven listings for the week after Labour Day, all of which will be staged.

Five of seven are being painted.

Four of seven are having significant repairs done.

Four are currently lived in, and three are vacant.

But only two of the seven will be occupied during the listings.

This all sounds reasonable, and rational to you folks, right?  You’re long-time readers of the blog, and from what I read in the comments section every day, you’re all very intelligent, and informed.

But a recent survey in a Toronto Star article about staging has completely blown my mind.  I’m going to try not to go off on a rant about society, people, expectations, entitlement, et al, but don’t blame me if I do.

Here’s the survey:

As is often the case, there’s a “yes,” a “no,” and then some stupid cop-out answer that I find always skews the data.

I mean, as an aside, how does the third option create any benefit to this survey?  And further aside, isn’t allowing for “I don’t care” simply placating the mindlessly-lazy?

So I clicked “Yes, realtors are just doing their job,” as I figured most would.

Knowing that this was a Toronto Star feature, and, call me incorrect if you want, but the readership of this particular newspaper is a little more left-leaning than the others, I figured that maybe as many as 20% of respondents would say “No, I think it’s misleading for buyers.”

That’s me suggesting that 20% of readers are so upset about their current housing predicaments that they would allow common sense, logic, and empirical evidence to take a back seat to their feelings.

It turns out, I underestimated people.

Significantly…

 

In what world does this make sense?

Staging is “misleading” for buyers?

Wow, there are a lot more misleading things in advertising than staging.

And let’s just consider that since the dawn of time, how products have been advertised with either things that don’t come with the actual product or service, or even people.

Seriously, it wasn’t long ago that this was a dominant theme in advertising:

Um, what’s for sale here?

Tires?

What am I looking at?

And if I buy those tires for my car, will beautiful women like me?

I mean, I don’t really want to go down this road, and many of you will suggest, “That was then, this is now,” but how come cars were always advertised with women?

That RV is actually in the background of this ad!

Why the need for the ladies, if the product sells itself?

Why the need to shine a pretty light on the car?

This has always been a part of advertising, and always will be.

And as for those who do believe, “That was then, this is now,” I give you this:

I know for a fact that Gigi Hadid doesn’t come with that car.

So why is she pictured with the car in this ad?

Maybe 43.5% of the general population feel that this is misleading as well?

I wonder how many people who felt that staging was misleading have an online dating profile photo that isn’t doctored in any way.  How many of them didn’t use an app to make themselves look a little different, in one way or another?

Is it possible that a good amount of the general public hate real estate, and all its associated participants, so much, that they’ve lost all objectivity?

I recently had an issue right before closing for a west-end home that plays into this idea.

We staged this house from top to bottom, and it wasn’t a new house, mind you.  This was of the 1920’s vintage, but updated throughout.  It was in great shape; not a new renovation, but nice enough that I believe very few would feel the need to change much before they moved in.

Completely unbeknownst to both myself and the sellers, there was a large scratch on the hardwood flooring under the couch in the living room.

I think if most of you went and looked under your couches right now, you’d likely find marks from the four legs of your couch, whether you affixed felt pads or not.  Under your kitchen table, dining room table, et al, there are going to be marks from wear and tear.

This wasn’t a “mark” per se, but rather a really large scratch.  What I’d call a “gouge” to be fair.

There were two months in between when the buyers purchased, and when the deal closed, and we had the staging furniture moved out a few days after the deal was written, and the sellers moved out about three weeks before closing.  It wasn’t until one week before closing that the buyers used one of their “visitations” and reported back to their agent.

The agent called me and said, “David, we have a problem.  There’s a huge gouge in the floor, and my clients are upset.”

I knew where this was heading – first to confrontation, then to a complete waste of everybody’s time, and eventually to a successful closing with zero financial remuneration for the buyer, but I played the game anyways.

“What is it that you would like from me?” I simply asked the agent.

He said that since these floors were original, and thus irreplaceable, the clients wanted $10,000.

As absurd as this was, I don’t make a habit of flying off the handle.  I told him that I didn’t think the damage warranted that kind of compensation, but that I would advise my clients to speak to their lawyers.

I also don’t make a habit of “passing the buck” but I find in these situations, where one side makes a ridiculous request, buying time until closing (when the buyer has to close, or be in breach) is the necessary first step.

What happened next was amazing, and was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the survey results from the Toronto Star article above.

The buyers’ lawyer submitted their request/demand for $10,000, but cited “misrepresentation” because there was a staging couch on top of the gouge in the floor.

Yup.  That’s a new one!

The lawyer surmised that to bring in a piece of furniture that wasn’t previously in place (even though there was a different couch in the exact same spot) was evidence that the sellers were attempting to mislead the buyers.  As a result, the buyers didn’t see the gouge in the floor, and thus the sellers were liable.

Alright, be honest – at least one or two of you are buying this argument.

But once you strip away the creativity, you realize it’s just an argument against common sense.

People do have furniture in their homes!

We can’t all be expected to sell our houses completely vacant, so we’re only advertising the asset for sale.

Do you remember cereal ads from the 1980’s?

They always ended with the voiceover “….part of this complete breakfast,” and then featured an image like this:

Or this:

But General Mills or Kellogg’s were only selling us the cereal, right?

I mean, putting aside the question of “What is a ‘complete breakfast?'” for a moment, can we agree that weren’t under the impression that toast with butter, milk, orange juice, honey, pancakes and God knows whatever else was pictured along with cereal during this bizarre marketing phase, were included with the cereal?

Those cereals were complemented in the ads with other items that one might consume along with breakfast, like juice.

Houses are sold with furniture inside of them, as a rational person might assume one would possess during the course of their day-to-day lives, unless we all live in a world with no possessions, like John Lennon imagined.

So while I find the argument about staging couches “misleading” buyers who didn’t notice a scratch on the floor (and as you assumed, this deal closed without issue), I also find the idea that 43.5% of people believe staging in general is “misleading to buyers” simply demonstrates the lack of self-accountability that exists in today’s society.

Yes, I do believe that the Toronto Star readers who answered accordingly among the 43.5% are more than likely frustrated by the real estate market, if not completely perplexed and priced right out, but I also believe that the suggestion that to “spruce up” your home when selling, is misleading, to be asinine.

Do you really think the guy pictured in the “before and after” photos at your gym isn’t sucking in his gut in the second photo, and pushing it out in the first one?

Where’s the world police on that one?

Would you be surprised to know that Spence, Birks, and People’s will (gasp!) shine their diamonds before they put them in a showcase with nice lighting?

Somebody call 911, that is, if you’re not already on the phone with them, complaining about the Amber Alert on your phone.

Imagine the audacity of a home-owner painting the walls before going to market, and swapping out the ratty couch with a pretty new one, not to mention cleaning the kitchen counters off and replacing the greasy George Foreman grill with three random bottles of Perrier.

Have we lost all common sense?

Or are we simply running out of things to complain about?

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

43 Comments

  1. Pingback: Is Staging “Misleading” To Buyers? | Real Estate News Group
  2. Pingback: Is Staging “Misleading” To Buyers? – Real Estate Video Marketing
  3. Sirgruper

    at 8:25 am

    Staging is not misrepresentation but seeing a material defect and then covering it so it can’t be seen or discovered is actionable. Rug over water stains to hide a leak? Picture over a hole in the wall? Also, the fact that their asked quantum was unreasonable doesn’t make the fact that the gouge was covered and not disclosed wrong.

    1. Ed

      at 8:39 am

      Agreed. Does this mean that a buyer needs to lift up every area rug and look behind every picture on the wall.

      1. Andrew

        at 9:31 am

        Sorry but this is incorrect.

        A buyer must prove fraudulent misrepresentation to have any claim.

        A scratch under a couch doesn’t warrant “disclosure.”

        It looks like you’re falling into the trap David describes where your emotions and personal preferences are trumping common sense, not to mention law.

        1. Sirgruper

          at 10:04 am

          David said gouge not scratch. Is you scratch your face oh well. If you gouge your face, medic!

          1. Marjorie

            at 5:35 pm

            I agree with most of what you said. Staging is not misrepresentation. It’s a way of showing the best features of a product. However, when staging, it is not appropriate to hide defects; necessary repairs should be done before the house is staged. The homeownet should have proceeded with the repair, not hide the defect.

    2. Andrew

      at 9:50 am

      You all continue to ignore the law. This is beyond frustrating. You’re playing into the willful ignorance that David was talking about.

      There is no onus on the seller to repair a gouge.

      The courts have always held Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware. It’s up to the buyers to satisfy themselves, not the other way around. No matter if that gouge is under the couch or not.

  4. Ed

    at 8:32 am

    Re the ad with the Chevy Camper on the beach.
    It looks like the truck is ogling the girls.

    1. JL

      at 11:14 am

      LOL – yes, something about those headlights…!

  5. JL

    at 10:33 am

    I don’t think it’s “misleading”, but I do think it comes down to the public’s increasing discomfort with marketing in general. People don’t want to feel like they’re getting guided/tricked/pushed in their decisions, so when asked will naturally not be supportive of the concept of staging, even if it is a reality they are aware they have to deal with. There are probably also different degrees to this: cleaning a house and removing junk to make it look its best is certainly harmless. Loading it up with items to create an illusion, or using it to deliberately mask deficiencies gets towards the other end of the spectrum.

  6. Joel

    at 1:46 pm

    I think not fixing the gouge is poor form and I understand why they would be upset. If you put a couch over a plank of hardwood that was missing would that be enough to warrant a care? Could the stager/seller not have put in some wood filler before listing to remedy this?

    Overall staging is a part of selling an asset and I think you are a fool if you don’t do it. When we bought our house, the seller had the master set up as a TV room and left it that way. Not utilizing the space you have is foolish by the seller, misrepresenting is foolish by the seller as well.

  7. Mxyzptlk

    at 3:26 pm

    “Common sense is not so common.” (Voltaire)
    Or if you prefer, “Common sense ain’t common.” (Will Rogers)
    Or my favourite, “Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.” (Stuart Chase, economist and social theorist)

  8. Laurie

    at 4:11 pm

    So… what happened with the sale of that property? Did the sellers give that $10K reduction?

    1. Dan H.

      at 10:13 pm

      I imagine that the buyers did get a reduction, as David never addressed the outcome (likely out of pride). The buyers were in the right here. If a defect was concealed, knowingly or otherwise, it’s the sellers and the sellers’ agent who are liable to compensate the buyer for damages.

  9. Charlotte Toth

    at 7:53 pm

    Two points: the ads for breakfast cereal were required by Advertising Standards regulations to be honest and indicate that their sugar coated cereal was NOT nutritious on its own. In fact; in order to get proper nutrition into your family’s first meal of the day you had to also serve milk, toast with butter, fruit and orange juice. It wasn’t about ‘complementing’ the cereal; it was a clever marketing person’s way of Indicating that the advertised product was more like a dessert treat than a meal.
    Staging IS like those ads. It’s about marketing a ‘lifestyle’ that the vendor may not have, but that the buyers would aspire to. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but I know there are Real Estate regulations that require honesty and so I assume that if you were aware of the gouge, you would have suggested to the vendor that they have it repaired, right?
    I’m curious about whether or not staging is actually worth doing. Are there any independant studies (not opinions of reeltors and stagers) that staging a house actually results in a higher sale price? Sell faster maybe, but sell for more? I’m not convinced.

    1. Appraiser

      at 6:57 am

      Selling faster is selling for more. Time is money.

    2. Lisa

      at 5:53 pm

      Yes, there are!!

  10. Heather

    at 10:44 pm

    Although I I agree wholeheartedly that staging is far from misleading, I find it hard to believe that no one noticed the gouge in the floor when either the old sofa was being moved out or the new one was being moved in. In which case I certainly understand where the buyers were coming from in this instance.

    1. Ed

      at 9:16 am

      If the seller is going to have the house painted and go through the trouble of having significant repairs done, wouldn’t and shouldn’t they also have the floor ‘repaired’? Certainly this must have been missed, otherwise it appears they were trying to get away with something.
      Would you sell your car on Autotrader with a gouge in the quarter panel?

      1. Dan H.

        at 10:14 pm

        Sounds like the sellers (and their agent) *were* trying to get away with it.

  11. Stacy

    at 8:58 am

    I totally agree in staging. It not only shows up the best aspects of the house but also makes for a quicker sale. I would not cover up faults but rather repair. Bottom line stage .its worth it…i am in the process of be coming a stager and very much looking forward to doing a great job .

  12. Peter Sinclair

    at 9:22 am

    I’m curious what David’s reaction would be if the roles had been reversed and HIS clients were the buyers discovering a huge gouge in the original hardwood. Would you be so nonchalant? Not having a dig, just genuinely curious.

    And for what it’s worth, I don’t think staging is misrepresentation, but I still hate it. I want to see a completely empty space, not some designers idea of what I should do with that space.

    1. Dan H.

      at 10:15 pm

      Great point. David? Would you or would you not fight for your clients in this case?

  13. Joannie

    at 9:51 am

    I recently bought a 1970’s condo that was in good shape but needed many updates. In calculating how much it would cost to renovate, I was thrilled that the 3 bathrooms all had white tile in them so I would not have to replace them. Wrong! After moving in I realized the old tile was painted white…PAINTED! They have all started pealing so not I have 3 floors to completely replace. I felt that this was false advertising.

  14. David Fleming

    at 10:08 am

    Hi All,

    I feel the need to chime in here and provide some clarification.

    Many of the comments on here are from regular readers, so I apologize in advance if I seem confrontational or argumentative.

    But I feel as though many of the comments are from people that either don’t understand law, or choose to ignore it. Again, please don’t shoot the messenger here. Remember that my goal on TRB is always to provide honest insights, and tell the inconvenient truths that perhaps others aren’t telling, maybe for fear of being that messenger that gets shot, or maybe just to avoid any and all confrontation.

    There is absolutely, positively no onus, responsibility, or need for a seller to repair anything in any home. What constitutes a “repair” is so vague and different to every person out there. A seller cannot, however, fraudulently mislead or conceal. A seller can “disclose” material defects, but what constitutes “material” is, again, a matter of opinion. A scratch or gouge in century-old flooring? Not material. A condo that has Kitec pluming, in 2019? Material.

    Andrew says “the courts have always held Caveat Emptor.” This is true. A buyer most not prove misrepresentation, not negligent misrepresentation, but FRAUDULENT misrepresentation, in order to succeed with a claim.

    Marjorie says, “Necessary repairs should have been done before the house is staged. The homeowner should have proceeded with the repair, not hide the defect.” This is wishful thinking, with all due respect. What is “necessary?” I mean, that 1970’s kitchen doesn’t look great, is that necessary to repair? What about a small chip in the baseboard? How does that differ from a gouge in the hardwood? I caution Marjorie against the word “should.” It always leads to trouble.

    Joel says “I think not fixing the gouge is poor form,” and I agree. But did the seller know it was there? What if it had been there through the two previous sales of the home? This is century-old hardwood. “Poor form” usually leads to lower prices, so again, the decision is left to the seller to repair A, B, or C, and the buyer to inspect the house.

    Laurie asked, “So… what happened with the sale of that property? Did the sellers give that $10K reduction?” No, they did not. They never would. The idea was insane. This was also detailed in the post.

    Charlotte Toth says, “…I know there are Real Estate regulations that require honesty and so I assume that if you were aware of the gouge, you would have suggested to the vendor that they have it repaired, right?” This is very vauge, and again, wishful. Regulations that “require honesty” do not require somebody to do something that they aren’t obligated to do.

    Charlotte Toth says, “I’m curious about whether or not staging is actually worth doing. Are there any independant studies (not opinions of reeltors and stagers) that staging a house actually results in a higher sale price? Sell faster maybe, but sell for more? I’m not convinced.” Charlotte, you can choose not to trust a Realtor or a stager if you want, even though we have the best insight. But do you really think a condo that’s tenanted, with clothes everywhere, dirty, dark, and stinky, sells for the same price as that condo that is cleaned, painted, bright, staged, and well-photographed? Empirical data, plus my opinion, tells me I can get 10% more for that condo. On my daughter’s life, I swear.

    Peter Sinclair says, “I’m curious what David’s reaction would be if the roles had been reversed and HIS clients were the buyers discovering a huge gouge in the original hardwood.” I would explain to my clients that this is a century-old house, and there are defects. I’m honest, blunt, and realistic. I don’t baby my clients.

    The regular readers know that I rarely chime in on the comments, partially because I don’t like disrupting the debates and conversations therein. I respect all readers and commenters, and again, I apologize if this reponse seemed argumentative. But perhaps I should have provided more insight into the rule of law regarding misrepresentation and disclosure at the onset of this blog.

    1. Laurie

      at 3:16 pm

      LOL Thanks for that update – I’m actually glad to hear they didn’t cave. When my mom sold her house, she had a wall mounted TV. At the last inspection, the TV was gone and there was a small hole in the drywall where the plugs were fed through. The buyers wanted a $10K reduction to repair the wall. Her realtor said she’d give them $1.50 to buy a wall plate to cover the wall.

      1. Mxyzptlk

        at 3:34 pm

        Geez, with $10K they could have bought a wall-mounted TV for every room in the house, including the bathrooms. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess (although their move was still pretty slimy).

    2. Dan H.

      at 10:18 pm

      So according to you, they didn’t pay the $10K, but then what? Did they settle with the buyers for a lesser amount? Let’s remember that you are not a lawyer nor any type of legal professional. That said, it also seems hard to believe that the sellers would have just ignored the claim.

  15. Gloria Crowley

    at 10:31 am

    There are two different points here. Of course Staging makes sense and is effective. To say that it’s misleading is ridiculous. Do you actually not shower, comb your hair,
    brush your teeth, press your clothes, shine your shoes, vaccuum your rugs, clean your bathroom & kitchen before hosting a dinner party? Surely you do.

    However, the “gauge” on the floor should be repaired by the seller prior to settlement/closing….or have been disclosed. That is a material defect. The seller could have had an estimate from a floor refinishing company and offered that amount as compensation to the buyer.

    Staging – Yes – whenever possible.

    Covering up defects – a bad idea always.

    1. Andrew

      at 2:09 pm

      This is infuriating. David just explained this and nobody is listening.

      He’s right about the word “should.”

      What else should be disclosed?

      -brick that needs tuckpointing
      -rotten floor of an exterior storage shed
      -loose hinge on a kitchen cabinet
      -electric outlet that doesn’t work
      -bathroom vanity where the back was cut out to provide space for existing plumbing
      -chip in the new quartz counters in the kitchen
      -sliding back door that is annoyingly sticky and hard to slide
      -front door lock that requires you to jiggle the key
      -front windows that have been painted shut
      -attic insulation that isn’t to current code, but was when the house was built

      The list goes on and on. But this doesn’t change the fact that none of this has to be disclosed. Caveat Emptor.

      And somebody just posted about tiles being painted? It’s up to the buyer to determine what’s what. I’m with David on this one. I’m looking at the letter of the law and not how things should work in a perfect world that only exists in your dreams.

      1. Mxyzptlk

        at 3:14 pm

        I hate to admit this, but when my wife and I were preparing to sell our previous house about twenty years ago, we spent minimal money and moderate time “sprucing it up” beforehand. On the day before the listing went “live,” we “re-tiled” (with peel-and-stick, totally obvious to anyone with eyes) the master bathroom. However, upon completion late that evening, we realized that we had no caulking to caulk around the toilet.

        Rather than leave it “as is,” my wife (somehow) came up with the idea of “caulking” around the toilet with… wait for it… toothpaste! Of course, even after several days, it hadn’t hardened, but of course no one noticed (or if they did, they said nothing that made it to our agent’s ears).

        I realize this isn’t particularly egregious, insofar as caulking properly would only have cost the eventual buyers a few bucks, but it’s yet another example of the myriad items that could go on Andrew’s list above.

        Caveat emptor indeed.

  16. Jennifer

    at 1:17 pm

    Closing on the property is not the end of the story, the buyers can still start an action, no? If the vendors purposely concealed the obvious gouge by placing the couch there, the buyers may have a claim. If not, and not sure how you prove that, good luck to the buyers.

  17. Fabrice

    at 1:37 pm

    To avoid last minute (legal) problems, I’m pretty sure that it’s always advisable to declare defects such as a hidden gouge in a floor. I’d think it’s even more advisable when the place was staged because the staging allowed the stagers and their boss to see what was behind or under wall decor or furniture.

    If the stagers and their boss see something, they should (at least) say something. Aren’t they all paid thousands of dollars to facilitate the process, not make it more difficult?

  18. Batalha

    at 3:36 pm

    When my wife and I first went house hunting way back in 1990, on the very first day we saw five semis (all in northeastern Scarborough, as it happens) that fell within our $150K budget (three decades ago, remember). Four were two-bedroom, fairly cramped feeling, occupied, full(ish) of stuff and, as a result, generally underwhelming.

    The fifth was unoccupied, filthy (particularly the carpeting), neglected (the gas heating had been cut off, resulting in ice in the toilet bowls) and just generally disgusting (including garlic growing in the kitchen sink and potatoes sprouting on the kitchen floor). However it also had three bedrooms and was more spacious overall than the other four houses, for basically the same price. Needless to say, we bought it (cleaning it up cost hundreds, not thousands, of dollars).

    And equally needless to say, the lack of staging (or anything even remotely approaching it) saved us at least $20-25K, I’d estimate (and that was “real money” in 1990). In other words, these owners (a couple going through a messy divorce, we later discovered) left substantial money on the table.

  19. Yvette Orvis

    at 5:06 pm

    I totally agree with your article though it was excessively long. One thing I didn’t get was you mentioned many stagers are ‘awful’. So how do you find a good one?
    Thats reasonably priced?

    1. David Fleming

      at 10:23 pm

      @ Yvette Orvis

      We use Lucie & Darren Brand from Toronto Condo Staging & Design.

      https://www.torontocondostaging.com/

      The name might say “condo” but that’s merely a holdover from their early years. They stage all of our properties. Every single one of them!

      When I said “Many are awful” I mean that, just as with Realtors and mortgage brokers, everybody wants to get into the business, and the industry has become watered down. You need to see their body of work, just as you would when you hire an agent to sell your home, or test the waters with a mortgage broker, read reviews for a home inspector, etc.

  20. Jimbo

    at 9:03 pm

    O think staging is a smart thing to do, especially if you have kids……

    As for a scratch in the floor, it is not going to cause further damage to the house if undisclosed…. A leak from a tub concealed causing mold in the ceiling of a finished basement okay fine, an inspection probably wouldn’t pick that up without cutting out drywall I think they would have a case.

    As for the amount, $10,000 in a detached house is 1% of $1 million so they are not asking for much…. I would still tell them to pound salt

    1. Marco

      at 10:58 pm

      Hi,

      As a buyer whose been looking quite awhile now for a house, and has viewed many many listing on the web and visited many too, all I can say is that EVERYONE here seems to be missing the point.

      Maybe other buyers are different, but when I look at a picture, or walk into a room, I want to be able to imagine MY furniture there, MY pictures, MY things, etc. All that silly staging is just a big distraction. Am I going to be hanging big metal stars trendy rustic signs all over the place that say “LOVE…” “FAMILY…” “DREAMS…” “LIFE…” No. Will anyone? I doubt it. This room is filled with the perfect fitting furniture for this perfect use. Will I do that? Who knows? I want to imagine how I can set it up, with my furniture/pictures/rugs etc. for what I want to use the room for.

      And what’s with big screen TV’s hanging everywhere? Does everyone want or already have one in their den, TV room, livingroom, kitchen, bedroom? Do they want that?

      It’s all just so tacky! And looking at many pictures, and even viewing just a few dozen properties you start doing double-takes, “Didn’t I just see that chair/picture/knickknack/etc two weeks ago?” I probably did because they are all coming out of the same warehouse! But you know I’m there to see the house, not someone else’s stuff and someone else’s “style”.

      Where I’m shopping, inventory is extremely low, and I imagine it’s the same in other big cities in Canada. So in the end, there is no need at all for staging, because the properties will sell themselves. From what I’ve seen, what really affects the final price, is house condition, cleanliness, updates done well or not done well (ugh), tenented or not, and location.

      And don’t get me started on distorted wide-angle pictures everywhere — I just love looking at square shaped electrical outlet covers and then wondering just how skinny is this room? I can’t tell!

  21. Pingback: "How Not To Sell Real Estate," Part MCXVII - Toronto Realty Blog
  22. Pingback: Toronto Buyers: "Creating Your Own Narrative" - Toronto Realty Blog
  23. Pingback: Agency and Commission: Issues and Questions For 2018

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts