First, I put in as many pics as the home allows. A lot of the cookie cutter homes only have enough features for maybe 6 pics. I do not usually post pics of secondary bedrooms, as everyone knows what a bedroom looks like... walls, floors and windows. Other homes can justify having 16. Most of my listings do get the full 16. Here is a story... I took a listing of a family that were slobs. I went through my 34 page pamphlet on how to stage a house. She needed the training real bad... dirty dishes everywhere, dirty laundry everywhere, kids toys strewn all over the home, just a mess of a place. Otherwise it was a nice home in a desirable area. We agreed that I would give her two weeks to clean, organize and declutter. She called me up a while later and told me to come over for the pics. I let myself in since no one was home. To my dismay, the house had dirty dishes, and the master bed had a pile of dirty clothes piled on it, (yes, underwear and bras too) and the kids toys were still everywhere. I was so pissed, I took the pics the best I could, put them in the MLS, and waited a couple of days for them to be fed onto Realtor.com. When they did, I sent her a link to her listing. She called me the next morning in a panic, saying that she can not have pics like that on the internet! My plan had worked. I went back a week later and the home was presentable. I suppose some people can not see their own mess until they view it from a different perspective. If I still have these pics, I will post them. They were really bad.

"I would love to see a self-serve, fee-for-service industry where I could access online info that would help me analyze comps and come up with a price, photograph and list my property myself in its (non-monopoly) online listing. Any part of the process you could hire out (pro photographer, home stager, graphic designer, chaperone for people wanting to view your house, or whatever) or you could completely DIY. None of the above should cost thousands to do. " Ummm....isn't that what the OP was saying about flat-fee MLS? You can do this. Except: "help me analyze comps and come up with a price" Zillow will do that for free. As an REA, I will admit that it is more accurate than I care for (most of the time). Or: "list my property myself in its (non-monopoly) online listing" There are lots of sites that do this, just do a search for FSBO sites and you'll see lots. But if you want the most popular national site that thousands (? not sure, millions?) of licensed Realtors pay handsomely for (from commissions that they earned selling houses) and is probably the first site that buyers visit, then you'll have to go to MLS/Realtor.com I guess what I'm missing on this thread is where "most successful" = "monopoly" I mean, MLS isn't exactly operating like Microsoft - you do have a choice. (Yes, I know I can convert to Linux, which we've done, but a lot of specialized software only works on Windows, in fact, my local MLS only works on Microsoft Explorer - UGH!) Wish to go back to the days where you have to visit each Real Estate office in town (or each of their websites) to see each of their listings? (This is exactly how rentals work in Alameda right now and thank goodness it's a small town because it's exasperating.) MLS/Realtor.com allows us to cooperate. I know a lot of REAs resent it, but I think it's great that an ordinary person can now use MLS via flat fee. Unfortunately, it's not every ordinary person that can successfully sell their own home. I think most of the folks on this forum are "extraordinary" in their knowledge of buying and selling homes and stand a much better chance of success. If you read some REA forums (i.e. Active Rain) you'd find that there are a lot of ordinary folks who do need an REA. It's actually frightening how ignorant some buyers and sellers are about the process.

SD’s posted article was stating the fact the average commission paid has increased over the years when most expected with the advent of the internet it would decrease. I do find this fact curious, good for the RE industry, bad for consumers. The internet has radically changed RE, but not the RE commission as was expected. The internet has helped me tremendously, I’ve found many houses online, perused the listing, seen aerial views. I can also see the listing history, what the seller paid and view previous listing pictures to see improvements, all done from the comfort of my desk. Right now I’m considering buying in an area that I hadn’t thought of, but searching on redfin showed me additional areas with the house size and lot size I want. I need the agent to get me in the door once, negotiate the offer and bring it to closing. I never tour around in the car with an agent, hate that. I don’t begrudge any agent whatever commission he can earn as it takes a person hiring that agent for him to earn his commission I respect many realtors, I know many are professional, earning their high income. Right now I’m interviewing listing agents, the agents have not agreed to list for less than 5%, even though he will earn about $200,000 in commission. If I find this the going rate I’ll gladly pay it to the right agent as I want a quality agent. I’ve known I’d be listing so I’ve closely watched several of the local agents learning who I want to interview. I’m aware I can use redfin or another discount company, that doesn’t interest me as I want the service of a knowledgeable full service agent. For that matter I can list FSBO, again doing this is not in my best interest. Palimpsest – you appear to be emotionally connected to the profession – commissions can be discussed and defended without making negative comparisons to other professions. Also an experienced agent learns when to cut a client loose. If a buyer is wasting an agent’s time, or a seller has unrealistic expectations it’s time to move on to another client, knowing when to do this is a part of successful agent’s learned skills.

beaglesdoitbetter I didn't say there was anything wrong with wanting a larger piece of the pie. I used a discount broker to sell my own home. Paid a flat $500.00 fee to a broker and I offered the 3% fee to the buyers agent. I knew that buyers agents wouldn't show my home if I offered 2% and my neighbor was offering to pay them 3%. I did not feel bad about taking the 3% (less $500) for doing the same work that I would have done when selling real estate and charging 3%. I knew I was making more money than someone using a listing broker. I also knew I could write a better description, take better pictures and could evaluate the fair market value better than 90% of the realtors in my area. When I worked in a real estate office I charged the other agents to do their pricing research, to re-write their descriptions and get good pictures of their listings. My argument is that no one (you, me or any other seller) is going to say "Fair market value of my home was $500,000.00 when we were paying a listing agent 6% commission, so now I should be selling my home for $470,000.00." This law suit will not have the impact that people are talking about. It will not reduce housing prices, but it will hurt the first time home buyers and will benefit the current class of home owners.