Inman News published an article today
talking about a specific home staging business model- the staging company offers to find a tenant who will rent the home seller's property while it's on the market.Â The tenant will provide furniture (supposedly suitable to the style of home) and pays utilities and reduced rent.Â The rent goes to the staging organization.
We've found this business model to be unsuccessful and quite troublesome for many of our clients: the home seller is often stuck with an uncooperative tenant, who may go so far as to decline showings, and in one case, caused significant damage to the home.Â Among other issues, we've had tenants smoke and have pets in listed properties, against their tenant agreements.
It's been our experience that homes staged without tenants, or even completely vacant, will sell significantly faster than homes with an occupant.
Obviously, we want our clients' properties to sell successfully and for as much as is possible, so we give the client specific guidance so they can stage the home themselves
.Â If they feel they need additional help, hiring a professional stager who will work with the client's existing furniture or who will allow the client to rent pieces is a possibility.Â But, never, NEVER do we suggest they use a tenant-based staging technique.
I'm curious what you've found to be most effective for your clientele.Â Have you had a different experience than we have?Â Do you recommend that your client's properties be staged, even recommending using a tenant?Â