Before & Make-Believe After: Virtual Staging

When sales are soft, realtors and sellers try all sorts of things to entice buyers and "staging" homes by filling them with furniture that may appeal to prospective homeowners is now a standard process. But, as sales slow and wallets tighten, some sellers are settling for "virtual staging" instead of the traditional dressing-up ...

... of the interiors. According to an article in Sunday's Chronicle, this process of adding furniture and decor to photographs of empty rooms a growing business. Charges are, naturally, far less than a traditional staging project. One example: A 2400 sq ft home in Brentwood was "virtually staged" for $300 - actual staging in that area is estimated to cost $3-4000 for three months.

Check out the full article (and more photo examples) right here and let us know what you think of this concept in the comments below. If you were intent on working with a stager to sell a home, would you go with a "virtual staging" or the real thing?

Images: by Virtually Staging Properties via SFGate

Comments (19)

We just bought a house and I've been doing this to help my husband understand my ideas a little better. My photoshop skills are sub-par, but it really helps those who are less visually inclined!

I think it would be nice for photos so long as it gives a sense of scale, but if the scale is wrong, it could really screw up your sense of a room.

I must be the exception to the rule, as I (nearly always) HATE to see a staged house - I really want it empty so i can see all the area in a room. Also, many times it looks too cutesy and really unappealing. I know there are those who want to walk right in to a home all done, but I say don't paint and don't redo anything - not everyone has the same taste. If a seller wants to fix plumbing, roof, etc. that's great, but just clean the inside and leave it alone!

mmepatty, you are not alone. i hate the staging too. we're just going under contract with a home, but we saw some "artfully" aka barf-tastically staged homes. i told our agent i had to "emotionally recover" from the staging to try to imagine our family there. she was totally shocked that we were offended and put-off by the staging, though. with so many houses we saw, i wish they had left the remodeling to the buyers!

It looks too fake. I would rather have nothing in the rooms than some photoshopped furniture!

I agree, I'd rather not have anything than a photoshoped or badly staged home.
That being said, when looking for apartments, The Hubbo and I saw many with a similar footprint but thought they were too small to accommodate our needs (a home office). It was only when we saw one of the units staged that we realized the living room was actually large enough for a living room area and dining room, allowing us to turn to dining room into an office. I think staging done properly shows off the space better- not the furnishings.

@mmepatty--

I'm afraid that you're in the minority - Most people have zero imagination and can't seem to imagine what purpose rooms have unless there are labels on floorplans and furniture in rooms...
...much less get past certain paint colors, worn carpets and dated fixtures.

And while I would certainly be turned off by seeing a photoshopped/faux-staged room, I have the feeling that 80% of the people in Middle America would never know the difference.

Staging is good if it is done well since it's about trying to help the person get the feel of how much space. With apartments, almost everywhere seems to have a model set up for you to see when you ask about renting. The best ones are the ones they didn't completely decorate - I just like seeing a couch in a living room to see how I'd fit mine, the size bed they managed to get in the bedroom vs mine, etc.

With that in mind, the first room virtually staged above looked okay - the second looked horrible and fake. I think I would rather see the real thing than something someone did on a computer in more than likely 10 mins.

Well, I'm guessing most people on AT wouldn't think they needed a stager in the first place, being interested in design and all...

I'd go with the virtual--especially in the case of a home that is (in real life) dominated by someone's strong aesthetic. My friend just had a human stager decorate her Lustron (40s metal) home and it looked really stupid. The stager took out everything that gave the house its funky character and made it really blah. I think my friend should have stopped at the POD, in which she stored tons of her kids' stuff, random furniture, and what not--it's getting rid of the accumulated clutter that makes a difference in a lot of cases.

I prefer real staging because then you can physically see how big of furniture you can really fit in the room.

I take offense at the Middle America comment. Just because someone chooses not to live on a coast doesn't make us less interested in design or unimaginative. Horrible design is certainly not limited to one portion of the country. I would agree that most staging is pretty horrible and the examples shown are no exception. When done well, it can be very effective, however, most of the time it isn't...

aleirey,

No need to be defensive. Some of the best, most honest and unpretentious design has come from the Midwest. Think Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe...

Anyway, "Middle America" is really just a mindset. It does bring up a heartland connotation, but I think that's outdated. It's more an urban/rural or urbane/suburban dichotomy than anything else, in my opinion...

Thanks for the explanation. I may have overreacted a tad! :)

I hate staging, mostly because I hate the furniture and styles that most staging people use. It's all so generic and blah and 'neutral' that it's completely and utterly irritating. In that sense, virtual or real doesn't matter. I don't like either. I'd much rather see how a real family lives in a space. And so what if they have chintz patterns and love pink (both things I dislike)? I don't dislike that any more than I dislike the staged stuff. In fact, if it looks like real people live there, I'd rather have the overstuffed chintz

I once saw a Victorian house that was falling apart and next to a railroad track, but it had been staged to look like like an English castle interior, sort of like the common rooms of Hogwarts. The staging was so stunning and over-the-top, I'm sure someone fell for the house, even though it was a total disaster waiting to happen.

I don't mind the PS staging as far as staging goes. It's much cheaper than actually staging, there's no 'wasted' furniture purchases, and any hated details, objects, colours can be changed with a few clicks.

Sell This House is very much about staging on the cheap. They don't have the budget to buy generic, catalog interiours so they're often forced to work with ugly but real pieces. Most of the reason the staging works on that show has to do with simple decluttering and improved layouts.

I think staging's risky but worthwhile.

Witness that green sofa in the first shot... I'd be put off and would have to work to get over that. But I would! And wouldn't most househunters make the attempt to "see past" any styles that just don't appeal to them personally? Many of us are scale-challenged... it's hard to see how things will work en masse unless generic placeholders are used.

So, I'm FOR virtual staging, as an extra. Not the whole show.

An interesting blog and appreciate all the comments and feedback. Virtual Staging of homes is a great marketing tool and I offer this new patent pending service to real estate agents nationwide to help sell vacant homes in this quirky economy. We appreciate the support and please check us out at www.virtuallystagingproperties.com and see for yourself what the buzz is all about! :)