Would you rent property A or property B?

An interesting experiment by letting agency Upad. On the basis that portraying the features and appeal of a property is an important marketing tool for landlords wanting to attract tenants, Upad wanted to test how vital the picture of the property is to a prospective tenant who is searching for a new home.

So they advertised the same property under separate adverts and compared them. One had the original photos taken by the landlord, the other had professional photos taken by one of the company’s professional photographers. Advert A, pictured above, was live for 58 days and had 10 tenant enquiries.

Advert B (pictured below) was live for 18 days and had a total of 27 tenant enquiries.

“I would hope that from looking at the photos, it’s pretty obvious which ones were professionally taken,” said James Davis, CEO of Upad. “Our experiment proves that professional photographs instantly improve response rates. For instance, if a property’s target rent is £1,000 PCM and it goes vacant for 15 days, the lost income equates to around £500 for the landlord. The landlord in our case study had a 58 day vacancy, which meant a loss of nearly £2,000 in rental income.

“The most important part of the advertising process is the first 48 hours so having your property looking its best is vital if you want to ensure maximum interest and fast turnaround.”

Useful web sites for more information
Property Search Engine
Independent property news

Recent Posts on Property

• Your chance to live in Winnie the Pooh's home
• How can the mortgage market recovery be helped?
• Where do most millionaires live in the UK?
• Wandsworth tops aspiring young professionals hotspot list
• Record home price rises (and not just in London)

• arw

  just goes to show that technology in the correct hands can be more valuable than in the wrong ones…

• hectorsmum

  Having tried to sell my house a few years ago with simply dreadful pictures I chose an Estate Agent who did a better presentation this time. This brought in more potential buyers so pictures can sell.

• http://profile.yahoo.com/C5S2EP6CR4MIFFPIVNQRU5N2JM Celarian

  It improves response rate. Does not necessarily mean that it improves rate of sale or rental. Sure – it seems logical that it might – more people seeing it in a shorter time, but this doesn’t prove that it is ultimately useful to have professional photos.

• http://wwwcreatingmylife.blogspot.com/ creatingmylife

  seems to me that the pictures just need to be very brightly lit so it gives a picture with lots of light and not look dingy and dark. and as someone said, it might lead to more enquiries but not necessarily lead to quicker rental. that would depand on the price and location.

• rongraves

  Illustrates perfectly that if you have no clue what you’re doing, leave photography alone. But, dear god, even the most useless mobile phone snapper could see that the first set are complete garbage.

  Of course, the pro’s wide-angle lens made a vast – and possibly misleading – difference.

• geofff_s

  Using a fish-eye lens and adding artificial light computer program to deceive tenants in your adverts might get you more enquirers but would it get you a happy signed-up tenant?

  I’d rather have the 10 enquirers the bad photos got who’d be pleasantly surprised, than to waste time with 25 appointments of tenants who’d all say, but this is not what the photos lead me to believe.

  Lets hope Upad admits on its site which photos come from their parallel reality & which are normal reliable photos.

• Rick B

  Neither…I’d rather live in a cave…then I could build a fire and not be burdened by British Gas.

• http://twitter.com/RTaylor_MEP Rebecca Taylor

  While professionally taken photos can give a better impression, they can also deceive, in particular by making a place seem more spacious than it is. With properties for sale, you can ask for a floor plan to check the real size, but not with rental properties.

  Some years ago when I was looking for a flat to rent, many estate agents wasted my time by showing me properties that looked decently sized on photos, but were in fact far too small for me (I had sold a flat elsewhere so had furniture etc). This was despite me having explained I needed min 65m2/700ft2 (they know perfectly well how big this is).

  One visit, I walked in to a flat and walked out 30 seconds later. The estate agent was surprised and said “what is the problem?” I answered that the flat was so poky that I could only live there if I sold all of my belongings!