It seems to me as if you would like to claim interpretive authority for yourself and have difficulties accepting other opinions and experiences.
But before this completely drifts off, I would like to ask you to read carefully and not unconsciously distort the meaning of quotes by shortening them.
I don't feel like playing the convert here with people who apparently piece together the job profile out of envy and resentment.
And you nonchalantly accuse all those who disagree with you of this? As you could read in some of your latest posts, you also like to dish it out or use very direct wording. That doesn't really match being sensitive now and wildly slinging baseless accusations like "envy and resentment." What does it change in my personal situation if a broker earns more or less commission? Exactly, absolutely nothing. So please enlighten me on what basis envy is supposed to thrive there?
Yes, I also say: there are these blowhards and more than one would like
Just as, at least I say, there are definitely good, super prepared and informed brokers who can well be worth their money. Nevertheless, one shouldn't close their eyes to the fact that there are—just as you yourself say—a lot of blockheads who sustainably damage the reputation of the few good brokers. So we are approaching the same fact, just from different sides...
You men always have a problem when a man comes along with an even better car or more self-confident than you see yourselves. I still remember this thread about size comparison here...
No, I’m not going to jump on that bait! But what’s wrong with you that in a discussion about brokers and commissions you come to such a topic and such a statement? I assume we don’t know each other, so I’d be interested to know what your assumptions are based on? From the description of a personal experience I had with a well-groomed dude driving a Panamera? (The dude couldn’t tell anything about the living space or additional costs...)
These following quotes
...which unfortunately are completely taken out of context.
My first quote addressed your statement that when choosing between two brokers, one would go to the more well-groomed one. I fully agree with that. But I don’t think you have to invest a huge amount of money to appear well-groomed. That would mean conversely that you appear unkempt if you don’t show up in expensive attire. Do we really have a disagreement there?
My second and third quotes related a personal experience... but you kindly did not quote that part. Why actually? And for the record: I don’t care at all who drives which car. For my car, what matters to me is that I can fit my racing bike and TT bike in it – so Panamera and Q5 are already out – the latter because I would need a ladder to even get on the roof.
The importance of a good photo in the exposé has probably already been mentioned here.
I did not question that either. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate a good picture; however, I believe that the photographer has the greatest influence on such a picture and not the latest technology—i.e. the argument for a (high) commission cannot lie in the immensely high costs for expensive equipment.
I remember how dismissively a cheap snapshot or something similar was spoken of here. Maybe you have different standards
I don’t get it. My position: a good photographer can get far more expressive images with a mid-range body and a decent lens than a high-tech junkie who thinks they take better pictures with automatic mode and just owning an e.g. L-lens. I don’t understand where we disagree here?
Now you shouldn’t compare apples with oranges, because you actually expect a real estate broker to be an all-rounder as well as have photographer qualities? He doesn’t have to.
No, I don’t expect that, but it sounded from your list like he would need this equipment. Hence my remark that he doesn’t need that to make decent pictures himself, if he did take the pictures himself. Therefore, I don’t see any justification for a high commission — and that’s where we came from. You had calculated the equipment costs to legitimize the commissions. Or did we talk past each other there?
And honestly, a word of personal experience from 4 years of intensive property search / old building search on the relevant portals: none of the listings seen there looked like they were shot with high-end equipment, lighting technology, or the like. So if the claim about “advertising” is so high, why don’t you see it? And we’re in the web area, aren’t we? So in the area where strongly compressed or resolution-reduced images are used. Why then a 26MP full-frame (RAW 66MB/image!), €2500 lens and lighting technology?
Or did you mean print media, e.g. Engel & Völkers? In that case, I can understand your equipment, since for significantly higher resolution, crop enlargements, and print, obviously different equipment is needed.
By the way, I’m also used to having my trained profession disparaged here. Doesn’t bother me – those who do it simply don’t want to know... think they can do everything themselves because digital and iPhone 8... or something..
Which I absolutely have not done, quite the opposite. Provided your trained profession is photographer, which I don’t know but assume, I have just emphasized the importance of the person behind the camera. It takes a lot of image understanding, composition, the effect of light and framing—something I assume much more pronounced in a trained photographer than a hobby photographer or broker with an iPhone. So I don’t understand where we disagree here. And yes, good photos cost—as everything needed in reasonable quality—but again, in my opinion, the human factor has the greatest influence.
By the way, two years ago I had to upgrade technology in the four-figure range, and that was no 1, 2, or 3 in front. (Without lights and frills) If my equipment falls into the water, a new purchase would cost me about 5000... if I want to pimp professionally again to compete on the market, I’d probably have to lay out 10,000 and spend 20 hours weekly on marketing and internal workflows.
What are we talking about? Professional photographer? Advertising photographer? All okay, then I understand the investment. But we were just talking about brokers who primarily distribute their listings via the web. And there I raise the critical question whether this equipment is ABSOLUTELY necessary (which was presented as legitimization for high commissions), because hardly anyone can see the difference at least regarding resolution, as images are heavily compressed.
By the way, wear and tear is just like with almost any new technical device. Bought and only worth half because a new one comes on the market.
But strictly speaking that’s not wear and tear, because the stuff still works and how many of the technical “features” are relevant for real estate photography? Because you yourself write...
I photograph with a good old lens
... and why not?
the one who feels hurt over a commission is no longer objective.
I wouldn’t want to exclude that, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say only one “side” is biased. Just as those who regularly have to pay commissions, so too are those who take and defend the commissions biased. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
I’ll leave the closing “men thing” uncommented, since after this longer response I get the impression that in part we talked past each other and in part misunderstood each other.