So when I have properties that would benefit from staging, I bring in a stager, who gives the seller a price, and the seller pays for it. It typically helps the market time, and the selling price.
Do I see a difference compared to my other listings? That's really difficult to say, since the other listings are nicely furnished and typically show well (if my clients have listened to my advice).. so, "no"... I don't see a difference... but I think I would see a major difference if I'd allowed the property to be listed, and shown empty.
Obviously the larger houses can cost more. And I do not pay for the staging. That's a seller's expense.
Doc: That's great that you have been not only staging your listings but using a professional photographer. You're right, the internet 'presence' has the greatest importance these days!
Kathy: You offer some great advice... a little de-cluttering sure can go a long way!
Alan: That does make sense, if the home doesn't need staging, it probably won't be much different from your 'staged' listings as far as results go. :)
We stage EVERY listing at our own expense. I have a fiduciary duty to my client to present their home at its best to a highly demanding market. I justify the cost by shortening the time on market and getting a higher percentage of original list price.
We also have each listing professionally photographed. I am not a bad photographer myself, but it is a more efficient use of my time to let a pro shoot the home, and the results are always better.
The first showing is always on the internet. Those homes which have enough pictures (minimum of 25), a virtual tour and a video usually make the front page of search results. Studies show that only 2.7%of searchers ever even go to page 2. If the pictures don't capture the Buyers attention and make them want to see the house, it can languish on the market. If no one sees it, no one buys it.
Doc Stephens, REALTOR