3BR Victorian ISO new owners
You see homes for sale with their own websites all the time. But how about one in which the home speaks directly to potential buyers?
That's what Matt McDermott put together for his property in Baltimore's Lauraville neighborhood, a 1918 house with three bedrooms, tiered decks and a Koi pond that's on the market for $165,000. "I'm just an old Victorian looking for a new family to make me a home," the site declares, with page headers such as "pics of me" and "stuff around me." The house blogs and tweets.
It sets the scene in an autobiographical blog post:
I used to belong to an interior designer who was on HGTV. He put a lot of love into restoring me and making me beautiful. That's why my current family fell in love with me. I was the place where they cut their first lawn, where their boy took his first steps, where they had their first cookout. But it's hard for them to keep up with a big place like me, especially when they have to travel so much for work. They both work in and near DC.
So they're hoping we can find someone who can take care of me. I'd like that very much, too.
McDermott gave more of the backstory in an email. It's a housing-bust tale that anyone who bought toward the end of the boom days will probably sympathize with.
He and his wife bought the home four years and several life changes ago. Now his wife works in Washington, a long commute, and the two are parents. "It's become too much house for us, and that breaks our hearts because we absolutely love it," he said.
Even without the emotions involved, selling is no easy matter.
"Since we bought our house in 2007 (for $270K), the value's dropped $110K. Couple that with the fact that there are more than 150 properties for sale in the 21214 zipcode alone, and our prospects of selling the home look pretty dim."
It's on the market as a short sale. The lender has pre-approved such a move, McDermott said.
He said his real estate agent has worked "extremely hard to make something happen," and he and his wife wanted to help. So McDermott, who works in advertising with an emphasis on social media, launched the website on Sunday.
"I tell stories to win over consumers," he said. "It made sense to put a little of that love into our house."
Thus the website/blog and Twitter account. He also set up "targeted Twitter searches to reach out to people when they mentioned stuff like buying a home in, living in, or moving to Baltimore."
To one Twitterer who declared that she needs to move into a city -- "Baltimore City, DC, NY" -- the "house" responded: "I hear ya. Personally, I recommend Baltimore. Somewhere in the neighborhood of me." (I heard about the campaign through a tweet -- not from McDermott or his house, but rather from another Twitter user who figured I'd be interested.)
McDermott also created a Facebook Marketplace listing and a "tiny paid ad campaign targeted to a specific buyer demo (based on geography, age, marital status)."
"It's still a work in progress, but it's had some modest results since I set it up on Sunday," he said. "A little over 600 visits to the blog and more than two-dozen comments/mentions on Twitter and Facebook. Plus, about 16,000 Facebook ad impressions and 30-some click throughs to the blog." (And most importantly, "a few people who've expressed an interest in checking the place out in person.")
The idea of a short sale wasn't easy to stomach, McDermott said. But "in a way, it's better for the house (yes, we tend to personify the place). If someone can purchase it at a better price than we did, they'll have more resources to maintain it and improve it."
What do you think of this marketing strategy? Does personification help sellers connect with buyers on an emotional level?
Categories: For sale, Housing market experiences
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
It's interesting as a concept, but most buyers might wonder why there are no exterior photos on the website.
I had to look the house up on Redfin to finally see the exterior. It's nice-looking, so they should add that somewhere prominent on their website.
Posted by: Tracy | April 13, 2011 6:39 AM
There's an exterior photo on the main page, where the blog lives -- it's part of the autobiographical post. But I don't see others, so point well taken, Tracy.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | April 13, 2011 9:47 AM
You're absolutely right, Tracy. Putting an exterior shot of me in the gallery totally slipped my attic. I've added one in, and I'll be sure to add more today. Thanks for the comments.
You make this old home's heart swell.
Posted by: 2817 Ailsa Ave | April 13, 2011 9:57 AM
Short sales make me sick to my stomach. Who do you think pays the difference???? That is an easy answer....other bank customers or (more likely) the taxpayers that bailed them out. You should do a story on that.
Posted by: Tax Payer | April 13, 2011 10:06 AM
When lenders (or servicers) approve short sales, they do so because they believe it will save money -- and time -- compared with foreclosure. Even if the foreclosure ultimately sells for as much as the short sale would have, it takes a number of months to get to that point, and meanwhile the lender would have the expense of securing the home, winterizing it if necessary, making it accessible for showings, etc.
If the loan has private mortgage insurance, and many do, it's that mortgage insurer who pays the difference in cases of short sale and foreclosure.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | April 13, 2011 10:11 AM
" it's that mortgage insurer who pays the difference in cases of short sale and foreclosure."
And who funds the mortgage insurer? other policy holders/customers, right?? So you and me?
My point is that one way or another we are all paying for these transactions and I don't think 99% of the people in the country understand that.
I have asked many people this question, "Who covers the loss in a short sale?" The most common answer I get is, "The bank just eats the loss."
That is one of the most pathetic/sad things I have ever heard in my life. The bank doesn’t just “eat” anything…..WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THESE TRANSACTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I just wish more people understood the mechanics behind these transactions, that is all.
Posted by: Tax Payer | April 13, 2011 10:26 AM
Tax Payer, do foreclosures bother you less than short sales? Do you think they're less costly in the end? (These aren't rhetorical questions -- I'm genuinely curious.)
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | April 13, 2011 10:29 AM
Tax Payer, I can understand why it makes you sick. It makes us sick. Especially considering the personal investment we made in the house when we bought it. We brought more than $30K to closing. Within a few months POOF...gone. The bottom dropped out on home values all over the city.
It took us seven years to pull that money together to put into closing. And a less than a year for it to evaporate.
I know the idea of a short sale doesn't site well with folks. But believe me, no one feels worse than we do about it. We're embarrassed and disappointed. And we're doing the best we can to make the most of a difficult situation.
Posted by: Matt McDermott | April 13, 2011 10:38 AM
I understand that foreclosures and short sales are a part of the real estate process (just like the values of homes going up). The part that bothers me is the ignorance of the American people about what is REALLY going on in the real estate market and (more importantly) who is funding all of this. I have waited very patiently (30+ years) to buy my first home (still have not) for a whole host of reasons (finances not being a big one) and I feel like I am paying for other people’s mistakes. It is hard for me to imagine participating in a short sale and talking to someone at the newspaper about it (other than as a cautionary tale to others). Shouldn’t there be a huge stigma associated with short sales/foreclosures? I vividly remember being chastised for not buying a house in the early-mid 2000s by many people who thought they were going to be the next Real Estate mogul. Now those people are underwater/stuck in their home or looking for short sales and I feel like I am paying the bill.
-stepping off soap box now.
Posted by: Tax Payer | April 13, 2011 10:47 AM
Uh, don't tell my house, but I think I have a crush on 2817 Ailsa Avenue. If it's as good as it looks and someone can get through the short sale, I think they'll get a great house and a great price. One thing - show off some pics of the deck and pond!
And as someone who found my house through a Facebook post, I'm all about utilizing all the tools possible to sell a house!
Posted by: Amy | April 13, 2011 10:51 AM
This is a very unique idea...as someone who is very big into social media I might have to try this trick in selling our house once we are at that point. Beautiful home, and I hope it finds new owners soon.
Posted by: Michael | April 13, 2011 11:32 AM
Great to hear, Michael. Let me know if you have any questions. @mmmcdermott
Posted by: Matt McDermott | April 13, 2011 11:41 AM
Matt,
For what it is worth, good for you for doing your best to sell the house. It is lovely, and I wish a quick sale and for things to get better for you and your family. These are tough times for many people. I wish you success.
Posted by: patty | April 13, 2011 11:47 AM
Tax Payer,
If the banks aren't bailed out, the losses stay where they should, with those who took the risk to lend the money. The socialized losses are a product of government policy.
What's your solution? Turn them into indentured servants? Throw them in debtors prison?
These people are being incredibly generous to the bank. If they were truly self interested, they would stay in the house as long as possible payment free, which is averaging almost 2 years these days, and that's without advanced gaming techniques. If they had a vindictive streak, they'd leave it looking like many foreclosed homes do, which is completely trashed and stripped of everything of value. A purely self interested person would take it to the very edge, and then sell all the kitchen appliances, bathroom fixtures, and anything else removable of value. It would appear these people are incredibly selfless.
Anyone remember the story about the man who bulldozed his own house rather than let it go to the bank?
Posted by: Josh Dowlut | April 13, 2011 11:49 AM
Interesting idea. Definitely gets them some more exposure to potential buyers.
Tax Payer - I hear where you are coming from, especially being someone who is underwater on their home and seeing people bail left and right only making things worse. However, these folks seem like they really lost a lot and it's a difficult situation. They were not part of the 0% down, buy three houses to get rich and then bail on all of them when things get bad. Those people make me sick. I'm not sure why they have to move and do a short sale though. There are several options from renting out your house to sucking up the commute. I have a wife and kid and am stuck in my house in Baltimore and commute to Virginia every day, which is worse than their commute. I'm sticking it out, but everyone has different circumstances.
Posted by: M | April 13, 2011 12:05 PM
M,
Thanks for the comments. The commute's one of the issues (my wife and I have to commute a combined 6 hours a day). But it's definitely not the only - or even the most pressing - issue. There are a couple of factors; the Sun comment forum probably isn't the best place to talk about them.
We seriously considered renting, but based on comp rental prices in the neighborhood, we'd be losing nearly $500 a month off the top, not counting the regular costs of being a landlord. It'd be financially crippling for us.
Posted by: Matt McDermott | April 13, 2011 12:28 PM
Josh- I am not sure I would classify them as generous. The scenario you describe is actually something I believe our law makers need to address. How did it become acceptable or non-prosecutorial when someone loots the house of its contents effectively destroy the asset that was used as collateral. To answer your initial question - yes, in this scenario, bring back debtors prison.
Posted by: elweedz | April 13, 2011 12:36 PM
Most people would agree that buying a house is an investment. When you short-sell the house, you are acknowledging that you made a bad investment (in that the costs now outweigh the benefits.) That cost is passed on to the banks, which is passed on to to everyone else (or mortgage insurance, which is passed on to the taxpayers.)
Which other investment tool allows someone to pass along the entirety of the risk to someone else? If I invest in stocks, and they lose value, I don't have stock insurance. I suppose it could be written off as a loss on taxes, but still. You win some; you lose some.
Hopefully the house sells quickly to someone who will appreciate the house as well. Best of luck.
Posted by: Bp | April 13, 2011 1:05 PM
Josh- Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution. I wish I did. I will say, though, that I am against any solution that take money out of MY POCKET. I just wish more people took the time to truly understand what is going on and who is paying for all of the real estate related mess.
Posted by: Tax Payer | April 13, 2011 1:10 PM
I understand Matt, I'm in a similar boat with the commute and family. Best of luck to you guys. It's a shame to hear when good people who just wanted to buy a home for their family get caught in this mess. You have to do what is best for you and your family and at least you are trying to work with the bank instead of destroying the house and bailing like some pieces of trash have.
Posted by: M | April 13, 2011 1:16 PM
I believe only current home owners should be part of the on-going bailout process of banks and other homeowners. We all know that it is in EVERYONE's best interest from government, banks, corporations, the Elite that home prices not be allowed to come back to their actual market values. The only people not making out with the bailouts and higher perceived home values are those who do not own a home.
We can put a stop to the charade (we - being first time home buyers) by refusing to buy for a year or two or three. If we do that - prices will come down. But it only takes one non- financial savvy person to severely overpay for a house on a street to keep the false hopes of everyone alive.
Posted by: Peter Elling | April 13, 2011 3:18 PM
I'm a total sucker for personified things like homes a cars. We share so much time with these things that it almost feels like they have personalities, sometimes. My condo is pretty angry and vindictive towards me, so I'm not sure I'd want to use this tactic myself.
Posted by: krismae | April 13, 2011 5:15 PM
Having lived in this neighborhood for nearly 20 years, I'm curious as to who or what entity told the McDermotts this was a good price. $270K is a very high price for this neighborhood, even with the anomaly of the $450K property just up the street. The house had no improvements, and no other amenities that would have made the $270K reasonable. Granted, they paid on the bubble in 2007, but still, a check on other properties would have highlight the property as on the high end position.
It's times like this I wish there was a neighborhood resource to help potential buyers, especially those from DC. The Neighborhoods of Greater Lauraville was supposed to be this resource, I think.
I wish the McDermotts well, and am sorry to see them leave Baltimore under such a cloud.
Posted by: Mercy | April 19, 2011 11:56 AM
Mercy, you mean their purchase price rather than their asking price now, right? (They bought for $270,000 and are asking $165,000.)
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | April 19, 2011 12:03 PM
Jamie,
Yes, my reference was to their purchase price. Ironically, the 165K would have been a perfect price, even in 2007, but who can excuse the heat of decisions made then?
Posted by: Mercy | April 19, 2011 4:17 PM