Sweet--2860 Jackson Street, Alameda, CA
I'm not sure why, but there appears to be something about bungalows that make agents use the word "sweet" a lot. Today's new listing is a "sweet" East End bungalow (MLS #40364577; no link to MLS site until EBRD decides to get back to me about their DMCA complaint). The publicly available data about this property includes:
That's $557 per sweet square foot. It seems a little high in this market where houses in the $400-$450 / sqft range have a hard time selling. But then, maybe the sellers don't really have a choice:
If you Google the address, you're likely to find a link to its open home announcement in August, 2006, when it was listed for $638,000. This incidentally means it was last sold for at least $23,000 under asking after a good long time on the market (the last transaction date is 12/22/2006), and that was well before the credit crunch really started:
Update 11/10/08: Sold for $648,000. What is wrong with people?
Announcement: read about EBRD, Inc.'s DMCA content removal complaint against this blog
2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1,164 sqft, approx. 3,500 sqft lot, $648,000
[...] bungalow [...] too many upgrades to mention! [...] plus room off master [...] finished garage w/ storage [...] dog run [...]
That's $557 per sweet square foot. It seems a little high in this market where houses in the $400-$450 / sqft range have a hard time selling. But then, maybe the sellers don't really have a choice:
I wonder what's behind the serial sales. Aren't homes supposed be held on to for 7 years on average? Maybe the house is a dog. It does have a dog run. The pictures I'm probably not allowed to show don't reveal anything wrong with it--it looks pretty nice in the Google Street View photos:Sales History
Sale History & Tax Info Sale History 12/22/2006: $610,000 11/30/2005: $615,000 04/18/2002: $412,500 08/16/1996: $190,500
If you Google the address, you're likely to find a link to its open home announcement in August, 2006, when it was listed for $638,000. This incidentally means it was last sold for at least $23,000 under asking after a good long time on the market (the last transaction date is 12/22/2006), and that was well before the credit crunch really started:
open homes this weekendIt'll be interesting to watch and see if it repeats its past performance(s).
Written by Alameda Sun Published: Friday, 11 August 2006
[...]18 Gonsalves Court $1,499,000 Sunday 2-4
2860 Jackson St. $638,000 Sunday 2-4
1 Ferro Court $899,000 Sunday 2-4
[...]
Update 11/10/08: Sold for $648,000. What is wrong with people?
Announcement: read about EBRD, Inc.'s DMCA content removal complaint against this blog
Best. Rendition. Ever.
Especially the copyright notice.
Thank you. :)
From L.Opine's comments on how we realtors write/advertise, I'm trying to curb the sales fluff when writing copy for listing ads. Unfortunately, my marketing/sales background keeps pulling me back to focus on benefits and not just features --- pretty much the same principle as staging a vacant house to elicit the most positive response.
For example, how else can you describe this bungalow? If I were in this realtor's shoes, I may prefer "sweet" rather than "charming". Realtors in general, are not copywriters; so if we bungle this piece of our marketing, please forgive us. I, for one, can't just call a house a house.
House: "a wonderful start for a first time buyer".
Kitchen: "a gourmet chef would appreciate..."
Bath: "abundant natural light" (who wants a dungeon-like bathroom?
As for cliches...."cozy" would still win over "small"
Just like "holding his ground" would win over "stubborn or obstinate"
and "firm" would win over "unforgiving".
Hi Pacita,
I think there's a difference between "focus[ing] on benefits" and spin. "Abundant natural light" is fine--it's plain English and it means what it says. "A gourmet chef would appreciate..." is almost too much, but I'd let it slide (you could say "gourmet kitchen" or "modern kitchen with high-end appliances").
But if a house is very, very small, there's really no benefit to focus on, so just skip the "cozy" altogether. It's completely transparent and just silly.
Since there seems to be a description length limit in the Malevolent Lustful Shellfish (r), skipping the "cozy" part allows you freedom to actually focus on what benefits the property does offer.
(you = the copywriter, not you specifically)
Now, about this particular bungalow, I don't know how I would describe it specifically, since I'm evidently not allowed to use any copy available on the Meretricious Leprechaun Service (r) and I haven't seen it in person. If and when I do see it, I'll answer your question specifically.
Go figure. It sold for it's $648k asking price. And with a conventional loan so that means it was approved for something near that.