Still another example of a realty association shooting itself in the foot with a "news" story it had control over:
The above story is based on a news release from the Minnesota Association of Realtors. The story begins with a most positive spin, statistically supporting how home sales were up, as well as home prices, for the month of October 2012. And this report was issued before the end of November, thus making it reasonably "fresh" news.
This should be a positive for current home sellers, as well as those thinking of listing their home. However, instead of continuing the press release with more positives, the next few sentences go on to reveal that almost half of the regions of the state covered did not show these positive results.
If this was an investigative report, or a story not provided by the realty association itself, I could understand these facts being provided.
However, if I was an agent, or a current home seller located within any of the six regions which "were flat or had fallen" in comparison, I'd be very steamed at the Association right now.
This story becomes the equivalent of going on a job interview with a superior portfolio, being asked back for a second interview, and then saying "although I missed 20 days of work due to various illnesses just last year".
In real estate these days, the saying "Any publicity is good publicity" does NOT apply, when millions of dollars and the economy of the nation are at stake.
Then we get news stories such as this one:
This story was done by a local reporter, but it puts realty agents in a bad light in the eyes of some consumers. Sure, one bad agent doesn't make the rest bad. But one more negative story at a time when there should be a lot more positive reporting, is bad.
(Almost) Spring Break
3 days ago