Real Estate Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Do ‘good-looking’ agents sell homes for more?

Notify me of new replies via email
Real Estate Professional | 21 Aug 2015, 08:15 AM Agree 0
A new report may confirm what seasoned brokers already know – good looks in an agent often lead to more money in the seller’s pocket
  • | 21 Aug 2015, 10:53 PM Agree 0
    Well, then, that should equate to buyers paying 2.3 percent less for a property, when working with unattractive buyer agents.
  • Keepin in real | 22 Aug 2015, 05:10 AM Agree 0
    I think you've miss understood the article ^
    More attractive means a 2.3% gain for their clients! By working with an unattractive buyers agent would mean the opposit of what you commented 😆
  • | 22 Aug 2015, 08:43 AM Agree 0
    Well then after 45 years of selling Real Estate associate with the Toronto and York Boards are you suggesting I get a face lift and tummy tuck. If a salesperson is approachable, knowledgeable, honest, trustworthy, dressed for success and respected by their peers it doesn't matter if they are attractive or not. Your article is a lot of cow manure.
  • | 22 Aug 2015, 06:14 PM Agree 0
    I agree, knowing what you are doing and how you conduct your business is far superior than having a pretty face.
    I know a lot of very nice looking agents, but do they really know what they are doing, in some of the things I have seen done, i would say not.
    As mentioned knowledge, and most certainly being honest and trustworthy is the key to dealing with any clients, whether it be real estate or any other business.
    Yes I agree there is a lot of manure being slung around here.
  • | 23 Aug 2015, 12:31 PM Agree 0
    The article is about the "Halo Effect" not about competence vs incompetence. A little reading comprehension would go a long way in our industry!
  • DJ | 24 Aug 2015, 08:40 AM Agree 0
    This sort of thing always gets the "unattractive" up in arms. I guess the realtor at the other end of the negotiation table must be intimidated by the other realtors good looks. I'd be interested to know if there is a difference between male vs female attractive realtors ability to fetch a higher price.
  • | 24 Aug 2015, 10:15 AM Agree 0
    "Halo Effect" the majority of people use layman terms you must have written this article and you are one of the pretty faces.
    (In response to the Comment made Aug.23rd)
  • | 24 Aug 2015, 04:58 PM Agree 0
    Hahaha you found the secret in yhe caramilk
  • Alice Thompson, www.DawsonCityRealty.com | 26 Aug 2015, 02:17 PM Agree 0
    Statistical averages mean nothing in practical applications. The statistics may simply mean that there are a small subset of realtors who are particularly bad at getting good prices for their Sellers and also less attractive on average, and that is skewing the statistics.

    Individual situations also vary considerably. For example, I am less attractive than the average Realtor (don't let the photo on my webpage fool you.. I am a whiz at PhotoShop), don't dress well at all, have the personality of a slug, and have raised prices for my Sellers considerably through good marketing and patience working with finicky buyers. In the underrepresented remote market I started in as a new Realtor (Tahsis Vancouver Island), I raised prices for the homes in a remote community by 300% to 400% over 3 years, and in the remote community I work in now which started with better representation from other agents, I estimate I have raised prices by about 6% to 12% for my Sellers over the past 2 years.

    It is more about the gumption, intelligence and experinece by the individual agent, attractive or not.

    In fact, now that I think about it, that study was flawed from day one. When you read the study, they were comparing attractive pictures of Realtors with amounts realized by their Sellers. The found a 2.3% increase in selling prices.

    1) How were they determining that they got 2.3% more? Each property is a unique set of features and location, how could they factor all that in to determine that one property got 2.3% more than another? I think researcher bias could have played a part, in that they may have already been expecting that result and were unconsciously interpreting the data to fit... it happens.

    2) Why were they not also measuring other factors to do with the Realtors such as length of time in the business, amount of extra training courses they took, whether they were working in teams or as individuals, were they working for small or larger Realtor firms?

    3) To continue the thoughts in 1) and 2), if they were looking for factors in why some Sellers got more for their houses, they would have been looking at a broad range of factors and tracking the types of variables I listed in 2). Instead, they were testing only for if more attractive reatlors got better prices.

    Holy Cow! Talk about setting themselves up for testing to find exactly what they expected... that whole study was set up with a bias to to begin with.

    I betcha if they did a new study looking at DOM for Selling a house and how close the sale was to the original asking price, and factored in years of experience by the Realtor and the number of extra courses and education they took (as an example) they would have found statistics that led to far more than 2.3% increases. And we would have gotten a lot of more useful inspiring information out of that study than the conclusion us less attractive Realtors needed to get face lifts and tummy tucks.



  • Erik | 26 Aug 2015, 02:42 PM Agree 0
    The really funny thing is how many of these Twinkie realtors
    Use old outdated photos! Many times I haven't recognized
    Them in person. They've gained weight more wrinkles etc.
    Therefore study is flawed as it's not reality based.
  • | 26 Aug 2015, 03:28 PM Agree 0
    Now I know why my wife insists on going everywhere with me. I'm too ugly to kiss "goodbye".
Post a reply